After watching the video (click here), what are some of the key points raised in it.
How would Dan Ariely's research conflict or compliment Hume's philosophy on human nature?
Respond to these questions (or other ones of your own choosing) in the comments section of this posting. This posting should be at least 2 paragraphs in length.
They key points raised in this video are that what we see everyday, sometimes can deceive us. For example, with the tables and which one is longer, most people think the left one is but our eyes deceives us. It is very difficult to understand these things and become more rational. He also discusses how our actions, sometimes, can be predicted and because of this, humans can be predictable. For example, if a man and women to go a restaurant on a date and they want to be wine, the man will not buy the most expensive, and he will also not but the least expensive. But, he will most likely buy the second cheapest, and the manager knows this and makes this the worst wine on the list. Because of this, humans can be manipulated. Another example is people use our laziness, and know that we are lazy, so they also manipulate us. For example, the organ form. People do not want to check the box, so in that case, they join. Humans can be easily predicted.
ReplyDeleteA question I was thinking about was "Would Hume agree with what Dan is saying?" Well, I believe that Hume would mostly agree with what Dan is saying. For Hume, one of his goals was to bring the scientific method to bear study on human nature. This is close to what Dan is also trying to do. He is using this method and gaining research and stunning observations to understand how and why humans act how we do. Hume would also like that Dan uses observation as a main driving force in his research and studies. Finally, one of Hume's goals for progression was to gain a better grasp of the nature of our ideas and the operations we perform in reasoning about them. Dan touches on this by talking about the defaults and how in the web subscription, the way humans reasoned on their choice was based off of a default, which in this case would be the regular print subscription. Nobody wanted that since there was a print and web subscription for the same price. It looked like it was the better deal, but when taking out the normal print option, most people see how expensive it is and see the cheaper option, and their choice is changed intermediately.
It is very weird how our minds work and why humans make the choices they do. We are always influenced by something else or deceived without even knowing that we truly are.
The key point raised in this video is that what we see everyday, sometimes deceive us. It is very difficult to understand this and become more rational. He also discusses how our actions can be predicted; therefore, humans can be predictable. For example, a business man everyday buys coffee at his favorite shop and because of how often he goes the owner knows his order and always has it ready for him. The business man has been made predictable and if by the wrong people terrible things could happen, like manipulating the business man to do something. Thus showing the laziness of humans and how dangerous this can be.
ReplyDeleteWould Hume agree with what Dan is saying? I believe that Hume would mostly agree with Dam. One of Hume's goal was to bring the scientific method to bear study on human nature. Dan appears to have adopted the same idea in his studies. He is using the method as Hume to gain research on and observe human nature to understand how and why humans act the way they do. Dan uses observation as a main driving force in his research and studies which is exactly what Hume wanted.
In the video, Dan Ariely’s main point that he discusses is that our senses may not always be trustworthy. When Ariely showed the picture of the Rubix Cube with the arrows pointed at two yellow squares, he pointed out that they did not look the same color. However, when he whited out the rest of the cube and only showed the two yellow squares, they appeared to be the same. The illusion of this is to show us that other colors can have an effect on what we see. Our mind is confused and cannot make sense of this and have rational thoughts. He also discusses that our actions can sometimes be predictable. For example, Ariely showed a graph of countries that have the highest amount of organ donors and the lowest amount of organ donors. He explained that the countries with the lowest amount of organ donors have check boxes and the DMV that say “Check the box if you want to be an organ donor”, and the countries with the highest amount of organ donors have check boxes at the DMV that say “Check the box if you do not want to become an organ donor”. He explained that most people just skip over that box and then become organ donors because they did not take the time to read carefully. This kind of predictable behavior is what people can use to take advantage of other people.
ReplyDeleteI think that Ariely’s research would compliment Hume’s philosophy on human nature in the sense that both say that humans can be predictable. Humans repeat a lot of their actions and form habits that are hard to break. This is what makes them predictable. They allow themselves to do things without even thinking regardless if it is a big decision or not because the things that a person repeats are what define them.
After watching the video the key points raised are we cannot trust our senses and that sometimes we really do not make our own decisions. The example from the video with trusting our senses is the Rubix Cube. It showed two sides the top of it was yellow and the side looked brown but once he whited the background the side was yellow. The example in the video that shows our decisions was people in Europe and donating organs. The DMV i some country in a way manipulated them into donating because they noticed people would not check the box when it said Check the box if you do not want to become an organ donor” so what they did was change "Do" to "Don't".
ReplyDeleteAriel's research would compliment Hume's philosophy because they both believe that humans can be predictable. As humans we form habits that make us seem predictable. Also both men try to bring the scientific method to human nature. Both men have a lot in common with their research and philosophy.
There were a few key points raised in the video. First, the idea that we immediately lose what we have u less we have a set example right in front of us. This may be saying that the physical world really doesn't effect how we view the world at all. This may be suggesting that when one person sees a car, maybe in another persons eyes it's different looking in some way but we will never know because we cannot see through another persons eyes.
ReplyDeleteWould Hume agree with what Dan Ariely is saying? I believe that Hume would agree. I say this because Hume seems to believe that the physical world has no real bearing on our minds. Ariely is saying the same by using the example of the tables. We see the lines but when they are taken away they seem like two completely different tables when they are really just the same.
Watching the video the main point/theme of the video was that our thoughts can sometimes decieve us. These thoughts are not always trustworthy. And with this said others come to realize that they can manipulate others. Humans at most have similar patterns in thoughts and with this a sales man or in the video the DMV can trick people in doing exactly what they want. The similar trait is lazyiness in this case. Here in the video a graph was presented. The graph presented the results of the amount of organ donors in different areas. One side was a list of different countries with higher amounts of organ donors and on the left was a list of countries that were a reasonable low. The reason because of this was one tiny word, "not". The countries on the right showed higher amounts of organ donors because the check box in the DMV stated "Check the box if you do not want to be an organ donor", with this, knowing that the indiviual reading this will skip over assuming the question is saying if they do not check the box they will not be not vise versa. This is a common trend in activities that humans do and with this common thought an individual can catch on to that and manipulate us.
ReplyDeleteTo conclude, I would say that the work of Dan Ariely would be appreciated by Humes. I believe his work would be appreciated by Humes because in his work Dan expresses multiple scientific observations to help conclude and or support his theory of mind. For instance the various graphs, experiments and results. Humes would be head for heals for Dans work I would believe because Hume wants main thrives was to shape philosophy away from just an individuals thoughts but actually into obserational results because our thoughts can decieve us but results cannot.
The main point in this video is that the things we see everyday, can deceive us. It is difficult to understand this and become more rational. The speaker talks about how our actions can be predicted. Therefore, humans can be predictable. For example, If i crossover to my right every time, the defender is going to pick up on it. I have made my game more vulnerable and the defense more easier for my opponent. This shows the laziness of humans and how dangerous this can be. This the way society settles for less.
ReplyDeleteWould Hume agree with what Dan is saying? I believe that Hume would mostly agree with Dan. One of Hume's goals is to bring the scientific method to bear study on human nature. Dan appears to have adopted the same idea in his studies. He is using the method as Hume to gain research on and observe human nature to understand how and why humans act the way they do. Dan uses an observation as a main driving force in his research and studies which is exactly what Hume wanted.
From the video what is discussed is how our day to day decision making is flawed even when we think over our problems with rational logic at face value. Dan Ariely has pointed to how our senses trick us into coming up with an solution without a deeper examination. With this information on how our everyday reasoning can us believe we have the logically choice concerning what we may desire on top of how said flaw can be used against us seems to hearken back to Hume's philosophy on human nature.
ReplyDeleteHume views that man must focus on the logical choice to the point of saying that you should try ignoring anything that is based in the realm of metaphysical which Dan Ariely does so. Ariely though finds a problem with some of Hume's ideas on human nature like how Hume's idea that everyone will recognize or be aware when they are feel instead of thinking and vice verse where that's not totally true. In situations as shown in the video its clear to see that people try to think logically but it conflicts with if it feels like the right decision. In many cases one will have their feelings seem to be bolstering their logic to the right choices when in actuality it is PERSUADING them to a state of illogical thinking.
After watching the video some of the major key points involve the fact that we cannot truly trust our minds, even when we are positive we can. As we saw a few examples of our mind not being able to comprehend certain things we slowly realize that our minds are not really reliable after all! Our minds see things that in reality are false, such as the colors of the squares, with the picture there we know that the cubes are obviously different colors. Or are they? once removed we see a whole new color, proving our mind is often inaccurate.
ReplyDeleteThis would relate to Hume's ideas because they both wish the access that part of our mind that we do not ourselves wish to access. They make us think how many things in the world we see everyday that are just images made by are mind and we cannot actually see the reality of these objects. They both offer examples of why the mind can be seen as unreliable and they both wish to make us realize more than we usually do.
After watching the video, a key point was the idea that our decisions are strongly influenced by the complexity of choices. For example, if doing something does not have a meaningful result, then most people will not do it. The same goes with choices which are to complex. Most people will choose to stray away from the complex choices because they require more thought and work. Humans can be easily predictable through their laziness and pride.
ReplyDeleteHume argues that the meaningfulness of a concept is based of the experience of it. If an idea has no experience then it is irrelevant and unimportant. Hume would agree with Ariely's views because of how he wished to make philosophy more like a science. With these experiments and conclusions, Ariely gives philosophy a scientific spin.
From the video I learned that our eyes may deceive us. It is very hard to understand. He discusses how are predictable, humans can be predictable. For example, a man everyday buys candy at his favorite store and because of how often he goes the owner knows his favorite snack and he may have the price memorized.
ReplyDeleteHume views that we must focus on the logical choice to the point of saying that you should try ignoring anything that is based in the realm of metaphysical. Ariely finds a dilemma with some of Hume's ideas on human nature like how Hume's idea that everyone will or be aware when they are feel instead of thinking and vice verse where that's not as common
The key points raised in this video are that what we see everyday, sometimes can deceive us. For example, with the tables and which one is longer, most people think the left one is but it is an optical illusion. It is very difficult to understand these things and become more rational. He also discusses how our actions, sometimes, can be predicted and because of this, humans are predictable. For example, if a man and women go to a restaurant on a date and they want to buy wine, the man will not buy the most expensive, and he will also not but the least expensive. But, he will most likely buy the second cheapest, and the owner knows this and makes that the worst wine. Things like this is how humans can be easily manipulated. Another example is people manipulating others through our laziness. For example, the organ donor form. People do not feel like checking the box. So if you make it so you elect to be a donor by not checking the boxes, they join. Humans can be easily predicted.
ReplyDeleteA question I was thinking about was "Would Hume agree with what Dan is saying?" Well, I believe that Hume would mostly agree with what Dan is saying. For Hume, one of his goals was to bring the scientific method and apply it to the study on human nature. This is close to what Dan is also trying to do. He is using this method and gaining research and observations to understand how and why humans act how we do. Hume would also like that Dan uses observation as a main component in his research and studies. Finally, one of Hume's goals for progression was to gain a better grasp of the nature of our ideas and the operations we perform in reasoning about them. Dan touches on this by talking about the defaults and how in the web subscription, the way humans reasoned on their choice was based off of a default, which in this case would be the regular print subscription. Nobody wanted that since there was a print and web subscription for the same price. It looked like it was the better deal, but when taking out the normal print option, most people see how expensive it is and see the cheaper option, and their choice is changed immediately.
It is perplexing and astonishing how our minds work and why we make the choices we do. We are always influenced by something else or deceived without even knowing that we truly are. This probably relates back to our senses being untrustworthy.
After watching the video, some major points that were focused on were things like deception, and how predictable things can be. We saw that Ariely showed the table trick (the vertical and horizontal table), and how our eyes saw the one table longer, and even after we were proven wrong, we can not change our view. Another example showed was the one with the faces, and how when there were two faces people chose a certain person as more attractive, but when they added in a less attractive person people chose the other one. This is interesting because it speaks on the nature, and predictability of the mind. In this study we saw that people in nature are wired a certain way, and most of the time can not change our way of nature.
ReplyDeleteI think both of their philosophies would be able to intertwine, because they both deal with the nature of the human being. Both philosophers used science to a degree in their ideas as well. While Ariely used studies, and experiments, Hume focused more on law, and creating such laws that are used as a basis for philosophy.
Some key points named in the video were that if we do not focus on what we have it can leave us at any moment. Another key point is that people have slowly come to see that others have been taking advantage of one another to either make money or get farther ahead in life. The next, point is that one cannot see the same way as one another so therefore no one should be able to see from one’s eyes. The last point that he was trying to get across is how easily we can all be blinded by dumb little flaws.
ReplyDeleteI believe Hume’s philosophy would complement with Dan because they mostly have similar goals in studies. They both also study human action and why people act and do specific actions. Dan used observation to do his studies so that is basically what Hume wanted to see people do. Lastly, it would complement because of the results that have appeared up in Dan’s research.
Some key points in the video were primarily focused in perception. This could be seen in the table experiment as both of the tables were the same size even though they seemed different sizes. The speaker also made the point that although we all see the same things, we cannot perceive the same things. The speaker also made the point about choices and how people make them. He said that if there is no beneficial effect, we would not make the choice.
ReplyDeleteAriely's research would in fact compliment David Hume very well. Both men are focused on the factual and observable world. Ariely focuses on human perception and human nature while Hume also focuses on human nature and the observable reactions we do. Ariely also shares a little with Hume's theory of ideas since he believes that no one truly sees the same thing, so no one could fully understand one antother.