Podcast appearances and mentions of Gerd Gigerenzer

Der Titel der heutigen Episode ist »Zeitlos«. Wie komme ich darauf? Die Motivation für diese kurze Episode der Reflexion ist eine Reihe von Tweets. Der erste war von Axel Bojanowski, dem — wie ich meine — führenden Wissenschaftsjournalisten im deutschsprachigen Raum. Er schreibt: »Der mit Abstand beste deutsche Wissenschaftspodcast ist Zukunft Denken« Natürlich freut mich eine solche Empfehlung aus derartig berufenem Munde ganz besonders. Es spornt auch an, weiter hart an diesem Projekt zu arbeiten. Es gab dann aber noch eine Reaktion eines Hörers, der den Aspekt der Zeitlosigkeit der Episoden betont hat. Das hat mich zum Nachdenken angeregt. Der erste Aspekt von Zeit ist ein eher banaler, aber einer, auf den ich gerne kurz eingehen möchte. Ich bekomme immer wieder Zuschriften, wo sich Hörer öfter neue Folgen wünschen. Warum das schwierig ist, erkläre ich in aller Kürze. Dann aber zu weiteren Aspekten der Zeitlosigkeit, die eher inhaltlicher Natur sind, denn dieser Kommentar hat mich zum Nachdenken gebracht zumal es einige Überschneidungen zu vorigen Episoden gibt. Was hat etwas das Zitat von Gerd Gigerenzer aus Episode 122 »Je größer die Unsicherheit ist, desto mehr Informationen muss man ignorieren.«  mit dem Zitat von Stafford Beer aus Episode 121 gemein? »Information and Action are one and the same thing« Zur Dimension der Informationsdichte kommt noch die Dimension der Zeit auf eine sehr interessante Weise hinzu. Je Größer die Unsicherheit, desto wichtiger ist also nicht nur die Auswahl der Parameter, der Daten, sondern auch die richtige Zeitlichkeit im Umgang mit dem Problem. Was bedeutet dies für News? Für den gesellschaftlichen und politischen Umgang mit komplexen Problemen? »Die relevanten Information entstehen Wochen, Monate, bei aktivistischen Großereignissen wie etwa Covid auch Jahre später. Diese geht dann aber im Lärm des nächsten Events unter.« Fortschritt und Entschleunigung haben aber eine durchaus interessante Gemeinsamkeit, wir Herfried Münkler bemerkt: “...Chance des Reflexionsgewinns durch Entschleunigung: Man kann die Bedeutung beim Treffen von Entscheidungen über größere Zeitspannen zu verfügen kaum überschätzen. und diese Zeitspannengewinn hängt nun einmal am Übergang vom mündlichen zum schriftlichen.” […]  »Man konnte nunmehr sehr viel komplexere Fragen zum Gegenstand von Beratungen machen, als das in den direkten partizipatorischen Formen der Antike möglich war. Und man konnte Herausforderungen und Probleme in längerfristigen Perspektiven ins Auge fassen.« Sind wir immer am Puls der Zeit? Oder sind wir eher am Puls des Rauschens? Warum gibt es keine Wissenschafts-News und warum ist es gerade in komplexen Zeiten wichtig, Abstand von schnellen Medien zu halten? Warum sind Bücher gerade in schnellen Zeiten von besonderer Bedeutung? Wie kann man die Welt in Schichten verschiedener Geschwindigkeiten begreifen? Stewart Brand bezeichnet dies als Pace Layering: »Build a thing too fast, and mistakes cascade. Build a thing at the right pace, and mistakes instruct. Build a thing too slow, and mistakes are forgotten, then endlessly repeated in the endless restarts. For instance, with infrastructure: Building a thing at the right pace steadily all the way to completion probably works best with: Continuity of control Protected and guided by continuity of oversight and Guided by continuously monitored undersight—from workers and early customers. Continuity is the key.« Was aber machen wir mit Systemen — um wieder auf Stafford Beer zurückzukommen — deren tatsächlicher Zweck sich vom deklarierten Zweck entfernt hat? Wir enden nochmals mit einem Zitat von Stewart Brand: »Fast learns, slow remembers.  Fast proposes, slow disposes.  Fast is discontinuous, slow is continuous.  Fast and small instructs slow and big by accrued innovation and by occasional revolution.  Slow and big controls small and fast by constraint and constancy.  Fast gets all our attention, slow has all the power.« Was haben Sie mitgenommen? Schreiben Sie mir! Referenzen Podcast Umfrage — Bitte teilnehmen! Andere Episoden Episode 122: Komplexitätsillusion oder Heuristik, ein Gespräch mit Gerd Gigerenzer Episode 121: Künstliche Unintelligenz Episode 119: Spy vs Spy: Über künstlicher Intelligenz und anderen Agenten Episode 104: Aus Quantität wird Qualität Episode 99: Entkopplung, Kopplung, Rückkopplung Episode 92: Wissen und Expertise Teil 2 Episode 84: (Epistemische) Krisen? Ein Gespräch mit Jan David Zimmermann Episode 80: Wissen, Expertise und Prognose, eine Reflexion Episode 49: Wo denke ich? Reflexionen über den »undichten« Geist Episode 47: Große Worte Episode 32: Überleben in der Datenflut – oder: warum das Buch wichtiger ist als je zuvor Fachliche Referenzen Tweet von Axel Bojanowski (2025) Herfried Münkler, Verkleinern und entschleunigen. Die Zukunft der Demokratie? ARD (2022) Stewart Brand, Pace Layering: How Complex Systems Learn and Keep Learning (2018) Stewart Brand, How Buildings Learn: What Happens After They're Built, Penguin (1995)

Ostern ist vorbei, der Mai steht unmittelbar bevor, höchste Zeit also für unsere April-Folge von ErnährungPlus. Manon und Marc unterhalten sich darüber, was alles so in den Osternestern lag und zwischen Schokolade und bunten Eiern kommt die Frage auf: Wie gesund sind diese Traditionen eigentlich – und könnte sich das in Zukunft ändern? Denn in dieser Folge des Foodcasts geht's um Nudging – ein Begriff, der für viele noch neu ist, aber schon längst unseren Alltag beeinflusst. Was das genau ist und wie kleine, gezielte Anstupser unser Verhalten in eine vermeintlich gesündere oder vernünftigere Richtung lenken können - von Supermarktregalen über Duftmarketing bis zur Organspende: Wo ist Nudging vielleicht sinnvoll und ab wann wird es zur Manipulation? Das klären Manon und Marc mit Prof. Dr. Gerd Gigerenzer, er ist Psychologe und emeritierter Direktor des Max-Planck-Institut für Bildungsforschung in der Abteilung Adaptives Verhalten und Kognition und gilt als großer Kritiker des Nudging-Ansatzes. #ErnährungPlus #Foodcast #Podnews #Ernährungspodcast #nudging

Ostern ist vorbei, der Mai steht unmittelbar bevor, höchste Zeit also für unsere April-Folge von ErnährungPlus. Manon und Marc unterhalten sich darüber, was alles so in den Osternestern lag und zwischen Schokolade und bunten Eiern kommt die Frage auf: Wie gesund sind diese Traditionen eigentlich – und könnte sich das in Zukunft ändern? Denn in dieser Folge des Foodcasts geht's um Nudging – ein Begriff, der für viele noch neu ist, aber schon längst unseren Alltag beeinflusst. Was das genau ist und wie kleine, gezielte Anstupser unser Verhalten in eine vermeintlich gesündere oder vernünftigere Richtung lenken können - von Supermarktregalen über Duftmarketing bis zur Organspende: Wo ist Nudging vielleicht sinnvoll und ab wann wird es zur Manipulation? Das klären Manon und Marc mit Prof. Dr. Gerd Gigerenzer, er ist Psychologe und emeritierter Direktor des Max-Planck-Institut für Bildungsforschung in der Abteilung Adaptives Verhalten und Kognition und gilt als großer Kritiker des Nudging-Ansatzes. #ErnährungPlus #Foodcast #Podnews #Ernährungspodcast #nudging

Auch heute freue ich mich wieder darüber, einen äußerst kompetenten und prominenten Gast vorstellen zu dürfen: Prof. Gerd Gigerenzer. Das Thema ist eines, das uns seit einiger Zeit begleitet, und auch noch weiter begleiten wird, denn es gehört zu den wesentlichsten Fragen der heutigen Zeit. Werden wir von der stetig steigenden Komplexität in unserer Gesellschaft, Wirtschaft und Wissenschaft überrollt, oder gelingt es, Mechanismen zu entwickeln, trotzdem kluge und resiliente Entscheidungen zu treffen? Entscheidungen, die uns auch helfen, mit komplexen Risiken umzugehen? Gerd Gigerenzer war unter anderem langjähriger Direktor am Max-Planck-Institut für Bildungsforschung, ist Direktor des Harding Center for Risk Literacy an der Universität Potsdam, Partner von Simply Rational - The Institute for Decisions und Vizepräsident des European Research Council (ERC). Er ist ehemaliger Professor für Psychologie an der Universität von Chicago und John M. Olin Distinguished Visiting Professor, School of Law an der Universität von Virginia. Darüber hinaus ist er Mitglied der Berlin-Brandenburgischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, der Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften und der British Academy sowie Ehrenmitglied der American Academy of Arts and Sciences und der American Philosophical Society. Er hat unzählige Preise gewonnen sowie zahlreiche Bücher geschrieben, die nicht nur inhaltlich höchst relevant sondern zudem auch noch sehr zugänglich für eine breite Leserschicht sind.  Zu seinen Forschungsschwerpunkten zählen: Entscheidungen unter Unsicherheit und Zeitbeschränkung Risikokompetenz und Risikokommunikation Entscheidungsstrategien von Managern, Richtern und Ärzten Und genau über diese Themen werden wir uns in der Episode unterhalten. Wie geht man in Situationen großer Unsicherheit mit Daten und Informationen um? »Je größer die Unsicherheit ist, desto mehr Informationen muss man ignorieren.« Was ist eine Heuristik, und welche Heuristiken wenden wir erfolgreich in welchen Situationen an? »In Situationen von Unsicherheit, verlassen sich Menschen nicht auf die ganze Vergangenheit, sondern auf die jüngste Vergangenheit — das nennt man recency Heuristik.« Warum führen mehr Daten nicht immer zu besseren Entscheidungen? »Ein Datenpunkt, gut gewählt, erlaubt [in vielen Fällen] bessere Vorhersagen als Big Data« Was ist Intuition und unter welchen Umständen ist intuitives sinnvoller als vermeintlich rationales Entscheiden? »Intuition ist keine Willkür. Intuition ist gefühltes Wissen, das auf jahrelanger Erfahrung beruht.« Was ist von den neuen Theorien der Rationalität, z. B. dem System 1 und 2 von Kahnemann zu halten? »The abject failure of models in the global financial crisis has not dented their popularity among regulators.«, Mervyn King Was ist defensives Entscheiden, und warum ist es eines der größten Probleme unserer modernen Welt? »Der Arzt ist nicht in einer Situation, dem Patienten das Beste zu empfehlen. Viele Ärzte fürchten, dass die Patienten klagen, insbesondere, wenn etwas unterlassen wurde. Die Patienten klagen nicht, wenn unnötige Operationen vorgenommen wurden.« Weniger kann oft mehr sein: »Viele Menschen denken — auch in der Wissenschaft — mehr ist immer besser.« Dabei gilt in den meisten Fällen, gerade auch dort, wo wir häufig versuchen, komplexe Modelle anzuwenden: »Je größer die Unsicherheit ist, umso einfacher muss man die Regulierung [oder das Modell] machen.« Eine Erkenntnis, die im Grunde jedem klar ist, der sich mit der Steuerung komplexer Systeme auseinandersetzt. Warum handeln wir stetig dagegen? »Wir brauchen eine Welt, die den Mut hat zur Vereinfachung.« Und dann gibt es noch den Aspekt der Rückkopplung von (schlechten) Modellen auf die Welt, die sie vermeintlich beschreiben oder vorhersagen, und wir kommen leicht in einen Teufelskreis der zirkulären und selbstverstärkenden Fehler. Wie lassen sich diese vermeiden? Was wird die Folge sein, wenn diese Formen der Modellierung und Verhaltenssteuerung auf eine immer totalitärere und total überwachte Gesellschaft trifft? Entwickeln wir uns aber in der Realität mit künstlicher Intelligenz, Large Language Models und IT-getriebener Automatisierung, aber nicht gerade ins Gegenteil? Eine Welt, deren Entscheidungen von immer komplexeren Systemen intransparent getroffen werden, wo niemand mehr nachvollziehen oder bewerten und in Wahrheit verantworten kann, ob diese Entscheidungen sinnvoll sind? Denken wir beispielsweise an Modelle, die Rückfallwahrscheinlichkeiten von Straftätern bewerten. »Viele Menschen lächeln über altmodische Wahrsager. Doch sobald die Hellseher mit Computern arbeiten, nehmen wir ihre Vorhersagen ernst und sind bereit, für sie zu zahlen.« Zu welcher Welt bewegen wir uns hin? Zu einer, in der wir radikale Unsicherheit akzeptieren und entsprechen handeln, oder einer, wo wir uns immer mehr der Illusion von Kontrolle, Vorhersagbarkeit und Steuerbarkeit verlieren? »In einer Welt, in der Technik (vermeintlich) smart wird, brauchen wir vor allem eines, nämlich Menschen, die auch smart werden. Also Menschen, die mitdenken, die sich nicht zurücklehnen und konsumieren; die sich nicht auf das reduzieren lassen, was man ihnen empfiehlt.« Und zum Ende macht Prof. Gigerenzer noch den wichtigsten Aufruf der heutigen Zeit: Mitdenken! Denn es gilt: »The world is inherently uncertain and to pretend otherwise is to create risk, not to minimise it.«, Mervyn King Referenzen Andere Episoden Episode 121: Künstliche Unintelligenz Episode 118: Science and Decision Making under Uncertainty, A Conversation with Prof. John Ioannidis Episode 112: Nullius in Verba — oder: Der Müll der Wissenschaft Episode 109: Was ist Komplexität? Ein Gespräch mit Dr. Marco Wehr Episode 107: How to Organise Complex Societies? A Conversation with Johan Norberg Episode 106: Wissenschaft als Ersatzreligion? Ein Gespräch mit  Manfred Glauninger Episode 99: Entkopplung, Kopplung, Rückkopplung Episode 92: Wissen und Expertise Teil 2 Episode 80: Wissen, Expertise und Prognose, eine Reflexion Episode 79: Escape from Model Land, a Conversation with Dr. Erica Thompson Prof. Gerd Gigerenzer Prof. Gigerenzer amd MPIB-Berlin Fachliche Referenzen Gerd Gigerenzer, Bauchentscheidungen: Die Intelligenz des Unbewussten und die Macht der Intuition, Goldmann (2008) Gerd Gigerenzer, Das Einmaleins der Skepsis: Über den richtigen Umgang mit Zahlen und Risiken, Piper (2015) Gerd Gigerenzer, Risiko: Wie man die richtigen Entscheidungen trifft, Pantheon (2020) Gerd Gigerenzer, Klick: Wie wir in einer digitalen Welt die Kontrolle behalten und die richtigen Entscheidungen treffen, Bertelsmann (2021) Gerd Gigerenzer, Smart Management: Mit einfachen Heuristiken gute Entscheidungen treffen, Campus (2025)  Daniel Kahnemann, Schnelles Denken, langsames Denken, Siedler Verlag (2012) Gerd Gigerenzer, The rationally wars: a personal reflection, BPP (2024) Konstantinos Katsikopoulos, Gerd Gigerenzer et al, Transparent modeling of influenza incidence: Big data or a single data point from psychological theory?, International Journal of Forecasting (2022) Mervyn King, John Kay, Radical Uncertainty, Bridge Street Press (2021) Rory Sutherland, Alchemy, WH Allen (2021) Peter Kruse, next practice. Erfolgreiches Management von Instabilität. Veränderung durch Vernetzung, Gabal (2020) John P. Ioannidis, Forecasting for COVID-19 has failed, International Journal of Forecasting (2022)

Gerd Gigerenzer, einer der bekanntesten Entscheidungsforscher der Welt, erklärt, wie wir Zweifel überwinden, mutig entscheiden und wieso unsere Intuition oft Algorithmen schlägt. Schickt eure Fragen für kommende Folgen und Feedback an: antonia.goetsch@harvardbusinessmanager.de Weiterlesen: Sechs Wege zu einer besseren Entscheidung Warum wir nicht so lange überlegen sollten Entscheiden in unsicheren Zeiten Bücher von Gerd Gigerenzer: Hier ein Überblick beim VerlagBestellt am besten in eurer lokalen Buchhandlung. Wir haben über folgende Bücher gesprochen: "Klick – wie wir in einer digitalen Welt die Kontrolle behalten", "Bauchgefühl", "Risiko". Harvard Business manager im Abo Produziert: Philipp Fackler, Mareike Larissa Heinz, Luca ZiemekMusik: Philipp Fackler Finance Forward Sie wollen noch mehr exklusive Einblicke und spannende Recherchen aus der Welt der Wirtschaft und Finanzen? Dann haben wir genau das Richtige für Sie: Mit unserem FINANCE FWD x manager+ Paket lesen Sie alle Inhalte auf www.manager-magazin.de und in der App jetzt für 12 Monate mit 25% Rabatt. Und das Beste: Sie erhalten zusätzlich 10 % Ticket-Rabatt auf die Konferenz im Mai bei der Sie FFWD live erleben. Sichern Sie sich jetzt das Angebot unter www.manager-magazin.de/forward +++ Alle Infos zu unseren Werbepartnern finden Sie hier. Die manager-Gruppe ist nicht für den Inhalt dieser Seite verantwortlich. +++ Alle Podcasts der manager Gruppe finden Sie hier. Mehr Hintergründe zum Thema erhalten Sie bei manager+. Jetzt drei Monate für nur € 10,- mtl. lesen und 50% sparen manager-magazin.de/abonnieren Informationen zu unserer Datenschutzerklärung.

Ob im Supermarkt, in der Politik oder in der digitalen Welt – wir werden ständig beeinflusst, oft ohne es zu merken. Nudging ist eine Technik, die unser Verhalten sanft in eine bestimmte Richtung lenken soll, ohne Verbote oder Zwang. Doch wie nachhaltig ist Nudging überhaupt? Wo verläuft die Grenze zwischen subtiler Steuerung und Manipulation? Und: welche wirksamen Alternativen gibt es? Das erklärt der Psychologe Prof. Gerd Gigerenzer. Er war langjähriger Direktor am Max-Planck-Institut für Bildungsforschung und leitet heute das Harding-Zentrum für Risikokompetenz an der Universität Potsdam. Außerdem finden wir heraus, was hinter dem Münchhausen-Syndrom steckt. Hier lest Ihr noch mehr von Gerd Gigerenzers Arbeit: Link zu seinem Buch "Klick": https://www.penguin.de/buecher/gerd-gigerenzer-klick/buch/9783570104453 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26213590/ Wer noch mehr über das Münchhausen Syndrom lesen möchte, findet hier weitere Informationen: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340382370_Munchausen_Syndrome Ab sofort gibt es noch mehr "Aha!" bei WELTplus und Apple Podcasts. Hier bei WELT hören: https://www.welt.de/podcasts/aha-zehn-minuten-alltags-wissen/plus246844328/Noch-mehr-Alltagswissen-Aha-Bonus-Folgen-fuer-Abonnenten-Podcast.html. "Aha! Zehn Minuten Alltags-Wissen" ist der Wissenschafts-Podcast von WELT. Wir freuen uns über Feedback an wissen@welt.de. Produktion: Serdar Deniz Redaktion: Christine van den Berg Impressum: https://www.welt.de/services/article7893735/Impressum.html Datenschutz: https://www.welt.de/services/article157550705/Datenschutzerklaerung-WELT-DIGITAL.html

Elon Musk's hiring strategy goes against conventional wisdom—he asks just two questions and relies on gut instinct. But does it actually work? Today, Prof. Gerd Gigerenzer reveals why Musk's method might be smarter than traditional hiring processes and explores the psychology behind better decision-making. You'll learn: Why Musk's hiring heuristic could outperform complex selection methods (feat. insights from Gerd Gigerenzer). How experienced managers naturally use heuristics to make better hiring decisions. The surprising downside of having multiple interviewers (feat. findings from a 2014 hiring study). A smarter way to assess job candidates (that goes beyond endless questions). ---- Download the Reading List: https://nudge.kit.com/readinglist Sign up to my newsletter: https://www.nudgepodcast.com/mailing-list  Connect on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/phill-agnew-22213187/  Watch Nudge on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@nudgepodcast/ Gerd's book Smart Management: https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262548014/smart-management/ ---- Sources:  Reb, J., Luan, S., & Gigerenzer, G. (2024). Smart management: How simple heuristics help leaders make good decisions in an uncertain world. The MIT Press. Luan, S., Reb, J., & Gigerenzer, G. (2019). Ecological rationality: Fast-and-frugal heuristics for managerial decision making under uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 62(6).  Fific, M., & Gigerenzer, G. (2014). Are two interviewers better than one? Journal of Business Research, 67(8), 1771–1779.

Golf players, investors and CEOs perform better if they take their time. Or do they?  Today, Prof. Gerd Gigerenzer reveals why intuition often outperforms complex analysis and how shortcuts can lead to smarter decisions in business, sports, and investing. You'll learn: Why gut instinct can beat data-driven decisions (feat. insights from Gerd Gigerenzer). How firefighters, CEOs, and handball players make better choices under pressure. The dangers of overthinking—why too much time can worsen decisions (feat. 2004 golf study). Why simple rules predict outcomes better than complex models (feat. Wimbledon & NFL studies). ---  Sign up to my newsletter: https://www.nudgepodcast.com/mailing-list  Connect on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/phill-agnew-22213187/  Watch Nudge on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@nudgepodcast/ Gerd's book Smart Management: https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262548014/smart-management/ ---  Sources:  Baum, J. R., & Wally, S. (2003). Strategic decision speed and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 24(11), 1107–1129. Beilock, S. L., Bertenthal, B. I., McCoy, A. M., & Carr, T. H. (2004). Haste does not always make waste: Expertise, direction of attention, and speed versus accuracy in performing sensorimotor skills. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11(2), 373–379. DeMiguel, V., Garlappi, L., & Uppal, R. (2009). Optimal versus naive diversification: How inefficient is the 1/N portfolio strategy? The Review of Financial Studies, 22(5), 1915–1953. Dörfler, V., & Eden, C. (2017). Becoming a Nobel Laureate: Patterns of a journey to the highest level of expertise. AoM 2017: 77th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Atlanta, GA, August 4-8. Easterbrook, G. (2010). TMQ's annual bad predictions review. ESPN. Eslam sdt Henry. (2018). Best football trick world cup 2006 Jens Lehmann [Video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/LRAOEWAbO00 Johnson, J., & Raab, M. (2003). Take the first: Option-generation and resulting choices. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 91(2), 215–229. Klein, G. A. (1999). Sources of power: How people make decisions. MIT Press. Reb, J., Luan, S., & Gigerenzer, G. (2024). Smart management: How simple heuristics help leaders make good decisions in an uncertain world. The MIT Press. Serwe, S., & Frings, C. (2006). Who will win Wimbledon? The recognition heuristic in predicting sports events. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 19(4), 321–332. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.530 West, D. C., Acar, O. A., & Caruana, A. (2020). Choosing among alternative new product development projects: The role of heuristics. Psychology & Marketing, 37(12), 1719–1736. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21397

In this episode, I had the privilege of speaking with John Ioannidis, a renowned scientist and meta-researcher whose groundbreaking work has shaped our understanding of scientific reliability and its societal implications. We dive into his influential 2005 paper, Why Most Published Research Findings Are False, explore the evolution of scientific challenges over the past two decades, and reflect on how science intersects with policy and public trust—especially in times of crisis like COVID-19. We begin with John taking us back to 2005, when he published his paper in PLOS Medicine. He explains how it emerged from decades of empirical evidence on biases and false positives in research, considering factors like study size, statistical power, and competition that can distort findings, and why building on shaky foundations wastes time and resources. “It was one effort to try to put together some possibilities, of calculating what are the chances that once we think we have come up with a scientific discovery with some statistical inference suggesting that we have a statistically significant result, how likely is that not to be so?” I propose a distinction between “honest” and “dishonest” scientific failures, and John refines this. What does failure really mean, and how can they be categorised? The discussion turns to the rise of fraud, with John revealing a startling shift: while fraud once required artistry, today's “paper mills” churn out fake studies at scale. We touch on cases like Jan-Hendrik Schön, who published prolifically in top journals before being exposed, and how modern hyper-productivity, such as a paper every five days, raises red flags yet often goes unchecked. “Perhaps an estimate for what is going on now is that it accounts for about 10%, not just 1%, because we have new ways of massive… outright fraud.” This leads to a broader question about science's efficiency. When we observe scientific output—papers, funding—grows exponentially but does breakthroughs lag? John is cautiously optimistic, acknowledging progress, but agrees efficiency isn't what it could be. We reference Max Perutz's recipe for success: “No politics, no committees, no reports, no referees, no interviews; just gifted, highly motivated people, picked by a few men of good judgement.” Could this be replicated in today's world or are we stuck in red tape? “It is true that the progress is not proportional to the massive increase in some of the other numbers.” We then pivot to nutrition, a field John describes as “messy.” How is it possible that with millions of papers, results are mosty based on shaky correlations rather than solid causal evidence? What are the reasons for this situation and what consequences does it have, e.g. in people trusting scientific results? “Most of these recommendations are built on thin air. They have no solid science behind them.” The pandemic looms large next. In 2020 Nassim Taleb and John Ioannidis had a dispute about the measures to be taken. What happened in March 2020 and onwards? Did we as society show paranoid overreactions, fuelled by clueless editorials and media hype? “I gave interviews where I said, that's fine. We don't know what we're facing with. It is okay to start with some very aggressive measures, but what we need is reliable evidence to be obtained as quickly as possible.” Was the medicine, metaphorically speaking, worse than the disease? How can society balance worst-case scenarios without paralysis. “We managed to kill far more by doing what we did.” Who is framing the public narrative of complex questions like climate change or a pandemic? Is it really science driven, based on the best knowledge we have? In recent years influential scientific magazines publish articles by staff writers that have a high impact on the public perception, but are not necessarily well grounded: “They know everything before we know anything.” The conversation grows personal as John shares the toll of the COVID era—death threats to him and his family—and mourns the loss of civil debate. He'd rather hear from critics than echo chambers, but the partisan “war” mindset drowned out reason. Can science recover its humility and openness? “I think very little of that happened. There was no willingness to see opponents as anything but enemies in a war.” Inspired by Gerd Gigerenzer, who will be a guest in this show very soon, we close on the pitfalls of hyper-complex models in science and policy. How can we handle decision making under radical uncertainty? Which type of models help, which can lead us astray? “I'm worried that complexity sometimes could be an alibi for confusion.” This conversation left me both inspired and unsettled. John's clarity on science's flaws, paired with his hope for reform, offers a roadmap, but the stakes are high. From nutrition to pandemics, shaky science shapes our lives, and rebuilding trust demands we embrace uncertainty, not dogma. His call for dialogue over destruction is a plea we should not ignore. Other Episodes Episode 116: Science and Politics, A Conversation with Prof. Jessica Weinkle Episode 112: Nullius in Verba — oder: Der Müll der Wissenschaft Episode 109: Was ist Komplexität? Ein Gespräch mit Dr. Marco Wehr Episode 107: How to Organise Complex Societies? A Conversation with Johan Norberg Episode 106: Wissenschaft als Ersatzreligion? Ein Gespräch mit  Manfred Glauninger Episode 103: Schwarze Schwäne in Extremistan; die Welt des Nassim Taleb, ein Gespräch mit Ralph Zlabinger Episode 94: Systemisches Denken und gesellschaftliche Verwundbarkeit, ein Gespräch mit Herbert Saurugg Episode 92: Wissen und Expertise Teil 2 Episode 90: Unintended Consequences (Unerwartete Folgen) Episode 86: Climate Uncertainty and Risk, a conversation with Dr. Judith Curry Episode 67: Wissenschaft, Hype und Realität — ein Gespräch mit Stephan Schleim References Prof. John Ioannidis at Stanford University  John P. A. Ioannidis, Why Most Published Research Findings Are False, PLOS Medicine (2005) John Ioannidis, A fiasco in the making? As the coronavirus pandemic takes hold, weare making decisions without reliable data (2020) John Ioannidis, The scientists who publish a paper every five days, Nature Comment (2018) Hanae Armitage, 5 Questions: John Ioannidis calls for more rigorous nutrition research (2018) John Ioannidis, How the Pandemic Is Changing Scientific Norms, Tablet Magazine (2021) John Ioannidis et al, Uncertainty and Inconsistency of COVID-19 Non-Pharmaceutical1Intervention Effects with Multiple Competitive Statistical Models (2025) John Ioannidis et al, Forecasting for COVID-19 has failed (2022) Gerd Gigerenzer, Transparent modeling of influenza incidence: Big data or asingle data point from psychological theory? (2022) Sabine Kleinert, Richard Horton, How should medical science change? Lancet Comment (2014) Max Perutz quotation taken from Geoffrey West, Scale, Weidenfeld & Nicolson (2017) John Ioannidis: Das Gewissen der Wissenschaft, Ö1 Dimensionen (2024)  

Интервью с Вадимом Савицким (автором канала «Когнитивный надзор») о том, как распознавать логические ошибки и манипуляции, а также как анализировать источники информации. Запись от 29.01.2025. Подпишись на мой Телеграм-канал, чтобы не пропустить новые интервью: https://t.me/RationalAnswer Допматериалы к выпуску от Вадима Савицкого: — Серия роликов Вадима про то, как переубедить родных — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77gIHNIq1LE&list=PLlfVHEB1pHYb4cLuJtrMuAdwGRGFr886_ — Книга: Сергей Поварнин, «Искусство спора» — https://www.litres.ru/book/sergey-povarnin/iskusstvo-spora-kak-chitat-knigi-65566776/ — Книга: Владимир Познер, «Прощание с иллюзиями» — https://www.litres.ru/book/vladimir-pozner/proschanie-s-illuziyami-3139475/chitat-onlayn/ — Статья: The Emotional Dog and its Rational Tail — https://www.motherjones.com/wp-content/uploads/emotional_dog_and_rational_tail.pdf — Книга: Gerd Gigerenzer, «Gut Feelings» — https://www.amazon.com/Gut-Feelings-Intelligence-Gerd-Gigerenzer-ebook/dp/B000TO0T8U — Канал Антона Воробьева «Доказательное инвестирование» — https://www.youtube.com/@invest_science — Концепция FIVE (вместо FIRE) — https://rationalanswer.club/post/463/ Ссылки на ресурсы Вадима Савицкого: — YouTube-канал «Когнитивный надзор» — https://www.youtube.com/@cognitivniynadzor — Телеграм-канал — https://t.me/cognitivniynadzor Посмотреть выпуск на YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdXndUJOQbI СОДЕРЖАНИЕ: 00:28 – Базовые правила информационной гигиены 05:08 – За какими экспертами следить 09:17 – Как искать сильные мнения «с другой стороны» 14:29 – Этично ли пытаться понять «неправильные позиции» 17:36 – Как оценивать экспертов в областях, где ты не разбираешься 22:24 – Пропаганда идет со всех сторон? 31:49 – Наиболее и наименее манипулятивный спикер в РФ 37:06 – Самый популярный прием манипуляции 39:06 – Грань между манипуляцией и приемом убеждения 45:23 – Как Вадим менял свои убеждения 53:00 – Как быть с близкими, у кого другие убеждения 56:37 – Как продвигать близкие тебе идеи в обществе 1:00:12 – Культура политического дискурса 1:04:04 – Политик проиграет без манипуляций? 1:09:28 – Концепция FIRE – это кринж или база?

The presentation covers various risk concepts and insights drawn from recent readings and discussions. Key topics include risk frameworks, opportunity, mistakes, uncertainty, tolerance and perception, and aversion vs. savvy. Influential authors include Todd Conklin, Michele Wucker, Nassim Taleb, Adam Grant, Daniel Kahneman, and Gerd Gigerenzer.

In this episode of the Mind Gut Conversation podcast, I talk to Dr. Gerd Gigerenzer, an icon in the field of intuition research and gut-based decision making. Dr. Gigerenzer is the long-time director at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development in Berlin and the director of the Harding Center for Risk Literacy at the University of Potsdam. He is the author of the award-winning popular books Calculated Risks, Gut Feelings, Risk Savvy and How To Stay Smart In A Smart World, which have been translated into more than 20 languages. He has trained U.S. federal judges, physicians and top managers in decision-making. The Swiss Duttweiler Institute has distinguished Gigerenzer as one of the top 100 Global Thought Leaders worldwide. During this episode, we talk about a number of fascinating topics, including: - What are the main differences between a rational and an intuitive decision? - Are females better in making intuitive decisions, or is this idea a prejudice based on our paternalistic bias? - Does the advantage of decisions based on intuition vs rational thinking depend on the context? - Does AI make intuitive decisions? Are you enjoying our podcast? Please leave us a review and any feedback to improve our show!

In this episode of the Mind Gut Conversation podcast, I talk to Dr. Gerd Gigerenzer, an icon in the field of intuition research and gut-based decision making. Dr. Gigerenzer is the long-time director at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development in Berlin and the director of the Harding Center for Risk Literacy at the University of Potsdam. He is the author of the award-winning popular books Calculated Risks, Gut Feelings, Risk Savvy and How To Stay Smart In A Smart World, which have been translated into more than 20 languages. He has trained U.S. federal judges, physicians and top managers in decision-making. The Swiss Duttweiler Institute has distinguished Gigerenzer as one of the top 100 Global Thought Leaders worldwide. During this episode, we talk about a number of fascinating topics, including: - What are the main differences between a rational and an intuitive decision? - Are females better in making intuitive decisions, or is this idea a prejudice based on our paternalistic bias? - Does the advantage of decisions based on intuition vs rational thinking depend on the context? - Does AI make intuitive decisions? Are you enjoying our podcast? Please leave us a review and any feedback to improve our show!

Hemos despreciado una forma de inteligencia poco comprendida… LA INTELIGENCIA INTUITIVA. ¿Cómo un deportista profesional decide cuál es la mejor jugada de manera inmediata? ¿Por qué a Elon Musk no le importan los títulos? ¿Cuál es la mejor forma de decidir ante la incertidumbre? Esto y más aprenderás en este podcast! Si te gusta SUSCRÍBETE y COMPARTE! Más en mi IG @luiscuevas360 https://www.instagram.com/luiscuevas360?igsh=MmlvZnpkajljM2M1 Canal de YouTube https://youtube.com/@luiscuevas3603?si=U54DQzm9DGks_Pz5

The criminal justice system and science are both broadly looking for the same thing - the truth. But in many cases the two don't mix well. Whether it's court cases that attempt to decide the truth of a scientific dispute, or the use of fingerprints, DNA, or statistics by the prosecution in a murder case, a lot can go wrong - and there's a lot at stake.Inspired by the recent discussion, or perhaps lack of discussion, around [a criminal case nobody in the UK can talk about for legal reasons], Tom and Stuart spend this episode looking into what happens when science meets the law.Our favourite online magazine is Works in Progress - so it's particularly pleasing that they're the sponsors of The Studies Show. Works in Progress publish in-depth essays on underrated ideas to improve the world, covering the history and future of science and technology. Go to worksinprogress.co to read their entire archive for free.Show notes* UK man arrested for airport-related joke (2010); UK man arrested and punished (narrowly avoiding prison) for saying “burn auld fella, buuuuurn” upon the death of “Captain Tom” (2022)* Simon Singh successfully sued by chiropractors (but then successfully appeals; 2010)* Paper on the Italian criminal cases that helped fuel the anti-vaccine movement* Jim Carrey campaigns against vaccines* Tom's 2018 New Scientist article on glyphosate and cancer* 1995 article on the “phantom risks” of breast implants* Helen Joyce on the Sally Clark case* Tom's 2024 Unherd article on “the dangers of trial by statistics”* 2022 Royal Statistical Society report on the same topic* How Bayes-savvy statisticians helped overturn Lucia de Berk's conviction* Gerd Gigerenzer on OJ Simpson* 2022 philosophy paper on the issues with forensic science* 2016 White House report on the gaps in forensic science* Dror & Hampikian (2011) study on bias in DNA interpretation* 2009 “Texas sharpshooter” paper on the rarity (or not) of DNA matches* Useful 2023 review of human factors research in forensic science* Interviews with 150 forensic examiners on potential biases in their workCreditsThe Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.thestudiesshowpod.com/subscribe

In dieser Episode ist Prof. Gerd Gigerenzer zu Gast. Er war langjähriger Direktor am Max Planck Institut für Bildungsforschung in Berlin und leitet heute das Harding-Zentrum für Risikoforschung an der Universität Potsdam. Gerd Gigerenzer ist Autor und hat u.a. das Buch “Risiko” geschrieben. Die Frage "Wie trifft man richtige Entscheidungen“ interessiert uns sehr, und genau diese haben Marco und Gerd eingehend diskutiert. Gemeinsam beleuchten sie, wann man besser auf seine eigene Intuition vertrauen sollte und unter welchen Rahmenbedingungen man davon ausgehen kann, dass künstliche Intelligenz und Big Data in der Lage sind gute und vielleicht sogar bessere Entscheidungen zu treffen. Außerdem diskutieren die beiden, wie man sich die Fähigkeit zum kritischen Denken erhalten und vielleicht sogar fördern kann, und warum das in Zukunft wahrscheinlich extrem wichtig sein und bleiben wird. Diese Folge findest du auch als Podcast auf: https://murakamy.com/blog/podcast-80-gigerenzer-entscheidungen-risiko Alle bisherigen Folgen findest Du hier: https://murakamy.com/blog/tag/Podcast Besuche uns auch auf https://murakamy.com Links zu Prof. Gerd Gigerenzer: https://www.hardingcenter.de/de https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3tCOQO80vU “Risiko: Wie man die richtigen Entscheidungen trifft”: https://www.amazon.de/-/en/Gerd-Gigerenzer/dp/3570554422 “Bauchentscheidungen”: https://www.amazon.de/-/en/Gerd-Gigerenzer/dp/3442155037 “The Intelligence of Intuition”: https://www.amazon.de/-/en/Gerd-Gigerenzer/dp/1009304895 “Klick: Wie wir in einer digitalen Welt die Kontrolle behalten und die richtigen Entscheidungen treffen”: https://www.amazon.de/-/en/Gerd-Gigerenzer/dp/3570554767 Links zur Folge: John Kay und Mervyn King “Radical Uncertainty”: https://www.amazon.de/Radical-Uncertainty-Decision-Making-Beyond-Numbers/dp/1324004770 Cixin Liu “The Three-Body Problem”: https://www.amazon.de/Three-Body-Problem-Remembrance-Earths-Past/dp/0765377063 Lorraine Daston “Rules”: https://www.amazon.de/Rules-Short-History-Lawrence-Lectures/dp/0691254087 “Was ist die Aufklärung? Thesen und Definitionen”: https://www.amazon.de/Was-ist-Aufklärung-Thesen-Definitionen/dp/3150097142

As fresh algorithms and new analytical methods emerge, existing datasets can uncover insights beyond their original purpose. Regardless of their intended use, data often possess hidden potentials and always have a “secret life”. “How this data will be used, by other people in other times and places, has profound implications for every aspect of our lives—from our intimate relationships to our professional lives to our political systems”, argue Professor Aram Sinnreich and Jesse Gilbert in their new book “The Secret Life of Data: Navigating Hype and Uncertainty in the Age of Algorithmic Surveillance”. This phenomenon raises various moral, ethical, and legal questions: Should we use datasets for unexpected and unforeseen insights? Should we create new frameworks to control and regulate using datasets for purposes beyond their original intent? Ignoring opportunities to analyse data in new ways might limit their potential, but pursuing them introduces ethical dilemmas. In this episode of Bridging the Gaps, I speak with Professor Aram Sinnreich and Jesse Gilbert. Aram Sinnreich is an author, professor, and musician. He is Chair of Communication Studies at American University. Jesse Gilbert is an interdisciplinary artist exploring the intersection of visual art, sound, and software design at his firm Dark Matter Media. He was the founding Chair of the Media Technology department at Woodbury University. I begin the conversation by setting the stage for our listeners and delving into the idea of the "secret life of data" as discussed in the book. We then delve deeper into the nature and scale of the challenge posed by this phenomenon. One key point highlighted in the book is that the challenge is primarily conceptual—we're uncertain about what exactly we're aiming to control, handle, and regulate. We thoroughly explore this aspect. To address this "conceptual challenge," the book provides a comprehensive overview of various frameworks and approaches that have been developed and are currently utilised to tackle similar challenges. The book then extends these concepts to envision and propose a framework that could aid us in addressing this particular challenge. We discuss in detail a number of existing frameworks outlined in the book, and then explore the possibilities to address these emerging challenges. Overall, this conversation has been immensely interesting and enlightening. Complement this discussion with “Dark Data: Why What You Don't Know Matters” with Professor David Handavailable at: https://www.bridgingthegaps.ie/2020/03/dark-data-why-what-you-dont-know-matters-with-professor-david-hand/ And then listen to Reclaiming Human Intelligence and “How to Stay Smart in a Smart World” with Prof. Gerd Gigerenzer available at: https://www.bridgingthegaps.ie/2023/04/reclaiming-human-intelligence-and-how-to-stay-smart-in-a-smart-world-with-prof-gerd-gigerenzer/

Gerd Gigerenzer ist ein weltweit renommierter Experte für Risikokompetenz. Ein Gespräch über iPads im Unterricht, die Bereitschaft für Facebook zu zahlen und die wirklichen Gefahren durch KI. Der Psychologe Gerd Gigerenzer war langjähriger Direktor am Max-Planck-Institut für Bildungsforschung. Derzeit leitet er das Harding-Zentrum für Risikokompetenz an der Universität Potsdam. Er war Professor an der University of Chicago und ist Mitglied der Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Gigerenzer gilt als Koryphäe im Gebiet der Risikokalkulation. Eine kürzlich veröffentlichte Studie zeigte, das 18- bis 39-Jährige im vergangenen Jahr im Schnitt 93 Stunden pro Woche im Internet waren. Laut Gigerenzer ergeben sich aus diesem Fakt Risiken für den Einzelnen, gerade durch die enorme Zeit, die man in sozialen Medien verbringt: »Das Problem ist nicht Social Media, sondern vielmehr das anzeigengestützte Geschäftsmodell«, sagt Gigerenzer. Wer mit seinen Daten bezahle, sei eben nicht Kunde, sondern Produkt. »Eine von mir für einen Versicherer durchgeführte Studie zeigte allerdings, dass 75 Prozent der Deutschen nicht bereit sind, auch nur einen Cent für die Benutzung sozialer Netzwerke zu zahlen«.+++ Alle Infos zu unseren Werbepartnern finden Sie hier. Die SPIEGEL-Gruppe ist nicht für den Inhalt dieser Seite verantwortlich. +++ Alle SPIEGEL Podcasts finden Sie hier. Mehr Hintergründe zum Thema erhalten Sie bei SPIEGEL+. Jetzt für nur € 1,- für die ersten vier Wochen testen unter spiegel.de/abonnieren Informationen zu unserer Datenschutzerklärung.

In The Intelligence of Intuition, Gerd Gigerenzer challenges a commonly held view of intuition—namely, that it is somehow inferior to logical rationality.Gigerenzer is director of the Harding Center for Risk Literacy at the University of Potsdam, director emeritus of the Center for Adaptive Behavior and Cognition at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development, and an expert on human decision-making. He argues that intuition is a form of unconscious intelligence shaped experience and evolution in dealing with uncertain and dynamic situations—situations for which logic and algorithms are often ill-fitted. As leaders deal with uncertainty and complexity and embrace new AI technologies, they must not forget the power of intuition.Together with Martin Reeves, Chairman of the BCG Henderson Institute, Gigerenzer explores the power of intuition, when to use it in business, and how to cultivate and employ it.Key topics discussed: 01:23 | Difference between intuition and rationality04:49 | Role of heuristics06:29 | Why intuition is often looked down upon08:06 | Power of intuition15:21 | How to use intuition in business18:45 | Distinguishing right intuition from wrong intuition25:12 | Considering how AI use intuitionAdditional inspirations from Gerd Gigerenzer:How to Stay Smart in a Smart World: Why Human Intelligence Still Beats Algorithms (The MIT Press, 2022)Gut Feelings: The Intelligence of the Unconscious (Penguin Books, 2008)Calculated Risks: How to Know When Numbers Deceive You (Simon & Schuster, 2003)This podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis: Chartable - https://chartable.com/privacy

We are honored to be joined today by Gerd Gigerenzer. Dr. Gigerenzer is Director of the Harding Center for Risk Literacy at the University of Potsdam, Faculty of Health Sciences Brandenburg and partner of Simply Rational – The Institute for Decisions. He is former Director of the Center for Adaptive Behavior and Cognition (ABC) at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development and at the Max Planck Institute for Psychological Research in Munich, Professor of Psychology at the University of Chicago and John M. Olin Distinguished Visiting Professor, School of Law at the University of Virginia. In addition, he is Member of the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences, the German Academy of Sciences and Honorary Member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the American Philosophical Society. He was awarded honorary doctorates from the University of Basel and the Open University of the Netherlands, and is Batten Fellow at the Darden Business School, University of Virginia. Awards for his work include the AAAS Prize for the best article in the behavioral sciences, the Association of American Publishers Prize for the best book in the social and behavioral sciences, the German Psychology Award, and the Communicator Award of the German Research Foundation. His award-winning popular books Calculated Risks, Gut Feelings: The Intelligence of the Unconscious, and Risk Savvy: How to Make Good Decisions have been translated into 21 languages. His academic books include Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart, Rationality for Mortals, Simply Rational, and Bounded Rationality (with Reinhard Selten, Nobel Laureate in economics). His most recent book, The Intelligence of Intuition, is set to be published the week we are recording this podcast! Learn more about Gerd: Connect on LinkedIn See more of his work Where to find the hosts: Brian Moon Brian's website Brian's LinkedIn Brian's Twitter Laura Militello Laura's website Laura's LinkedIn Laura's Twitter

Proudly sponsored by PyMC Labs, the Bayesian Consultancy. Book a call, or get in touch!My Intuitive Bayes Online Courses1:1 Mentorship with meI love Bayesian modeling. Not only because it allows me to model interesting phenomena and learn about the world I live in. But because it's part of a broader epistemological framework that confronts me with deep questions — how do you make decisions under uncertainty? How do you communicate risk and uncertainty? What does being rational even mean?Thankfully, Gerd Gigerenzer is there to help us navigate these fascinating topics. Gerd is the Director of the Harding Center for Risk Literacy of the University of Potsdam, Germany.Also Director emeritus at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development, he is a former Professor of Psychology at the University of Chicago and Distinguished Visiting Professor at the School of Law of the University of Virginia. Gerd has written numerous awarded articles and books, including Risk Savvy, Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart, Rationality for Mortals, and How to Stay Smart in a Smart World.As you'll hear, Gerd has trained U.S. federal judges, German physicians, and top managers to make better decisions under uncertainty.But Gerd is also a banjo player, has won a medal in Judo, and loves scuba diving, skiing, and, above all, reading.Our theme music is « Good Bayesian », by Baba Brinkman (feat MC Lars and Mega Ran). Check out his awesome work at https://bababrinkman.com/ !Thank you to my Patrons for making this episode possible!Yusuke Saito, Avi Bryant, Ero Carrera, Giuliano Cruz, Tim Gasser, James Wade, Tradd Salvo, William Benton, James Ahloy, Robin Taylor,, Chad Scherrer, Zwelithini Tunyiswa, Bertrand Wilden, James Thompson, Stephen Oates, Gian Luca Di Tanna, Jack Wells, Matthew Maldonado, Ian Costley, Ally Salim, Larry Gill, Ian Moran, Paul Oreto, Colin Caprani, Colin Carroll, Nathaniel Burbank, Michael Osthege, Rémi Louf, Clive Edelsten, Henri Wallen, Hugo Botha, Vinh Nguyen, Marcin Elantkowski, Adam C. Smith, Will Kurt, Andrew Moskowitz, Hector Munoz, Marco Gorelli, Simon Kessell, Bradley Rode, Patrick Kelley, Rick Anderson, Casper de Bruin, Philippe Labonde, Michael Hankin, Cameron Smith, Tomáš Frýda, Ryan Wesslen, Andreas Netti, Riley King, Yoshiyuki Hamajima, Sven De Maeyer, Michael DeCrescenzo, Fergal M, Mason Yahr, Naoya Kanai, Steven Rowland, Aubrey Clayton, Jeannine Sue, Omri Har Shemesh, Scott Anthony Robson, Robert Yolken, Or Duek, Pavel Dusek, Paul Cox, Andreas Kröpelin, Raphaël R, Nicolas Rode, Gabriel Stechschulte, Arkady, Kurt TeKolste, Gergely Juhasz, Marcus Nölke, Maggi Mackintosh, Grant Pezzolesi, Avram Aelony, Joshua Meehl, Javier Sabio, Kristian Higgins, Alex Jones, Gregorio Aguilar, Matt Rosinski, Bart Trudeau and Luis Fonseca.Visit https://www.patreon.com/learnbayesstats to unlock exclusive Bayesian swag ;)Links from the show:Visit https://www.patreon.com/learnbayesstats to unlock exclusive Bayesian swag...

We live in a society driven by a relentless pursuit of greatness, where we are constantly pushed to attain the highest levels of wealth, power, and fame. This relentless fixation on greatness leads to stress and anxiety, strains our interpersonal connections, fosters extensive political and economic disparities, and contributes to the deterioration of our natural environment. In his book “The Good-Enough Life” author and educator Avram Alpert explores the idea of whether embracing our limitations could pave the way to a more satisfying existence and a more harmonious society. He explains why the relentless pursuit of competition within our social structure ultimately yields no real advantages for anyone and offers a vision of an alternative way of life—an inclusive, good-enough life for all. In this episode of Bridging the Gaps I speak with Dr Avram Alpert Dr Avram Alpert is a writer and teacher. He has worked at Princeton and Rutgers Universities, and is currently a research fellow at the New Institute in Hamburg. His work has appeared in publications such as the New York Times, the Washington Post, and Aeon. We begin our conversation by discussing the concept of 'Good-Enough,' a central theme in the book. Following that, we explore the notion of 'greatness.' In particular, I engage Dr. Avram Alpert in a conversation about his perspective on the achievements of individuals who attain success and fame through their dedication and hard work. We also talk about people who have done great things and made society better. Then our discussion shifts toward the idea of fostering a more equitable and just society, emphasising the potential benefits of reduced competition among individuals. We explore the possibility of a society where each person can rediscover a sense of purpose and meaning, and have their material and emotional needs met. Complement this discussion with “Reclaiming Human Intelligence and “How to Stay Smart in a Smart World” with Prof. Gerd Gigerenzer” available at: https://www.bridgingthegaps.ie/2023/04/reclaiming-human-intelligence-and-how-to-stay-smart-in-a-smart-world-with-prof-gerd-gigerenzer/ And then listen to “Cloud Empires: Governing State-like Digital Platforms and Regaining Control with Professor Vili Lehdonvirta” available at: https://www.bridgingthegaps.ie/2023/01/cloud-empires-governing-state-like-digital-platforms-and-regaining-control-with-professor-vili-lehdonvirta/

Dr. Gigerenzer explains to me how to make better decisions under uncertainty via use of heuristics, intuition, and narratives. Dr. Gerd Gigerenzer, PhD is Director of the Harding Center for Risk Literacy at the University of Potsdam, Faculty of Health Sciences Brandenburg and partner of Simply Rational - The Institute for Decisions. He is former Director of the Center for Adaptive Behavior and Cognition (ABC) at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development and at the Max Planck Institute for Psychological Research in Munich, Professor of Psychology at the University of Chicago and John M. Olin Distinguished Visiting Professor, School of Law at the University of Virginia. Awards for his work include the AAAS Prize for the best article in the behavioral sciences, the Association of American Publishers Prize for the best book in the social and behavioral sciences, the German Psychology Award, and the Communicator Award of the German Research Foundation. His award-winning popular books Calculated Risks, Gut Feelings: The Intelligence of the Unconscious, and Risk Savvy: How to Make Good Decisions have been translated into 21 languages. His academic books include Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart, Rationality for Mortals, Simply Rational, and Bounded Rationality (with Reinhard Selten, a Nobel Laureate in economics). In Better Doctors, Better Patients, Better Decisions (with Sir Muir Gray) he shows how better informed doctors and patients can improve healthcare while reducing costs.

I was confused about "heuristics"! It is always so exciting when I learn something new that makes things clearer to me. According to Dr. Gigerenzer, heuristics are NOT the same as cognitive bias. Cognitive bias describes PAST behavior, often in situations of so-called "risk" (the economic term) (that actually means that all variables are known). Heuristics guide what can be DONE in the FUTURE and are helpful in situations of uncertainty. Dr. Gigerenzer is an international expert on judgments under uncertainty, and this is part 1 of my conversation with him on heuristics. Dr. Gerd Gigerenzer, PhD is Director of the Harding Center for Risk Literacy at the University of Potsdam, Faculty of Health Sciences Brandenburg and partner of Simply Rational - The Institute for Decisions. He is former Director of the Center for Adaptive Behavior and Cognition (ABC) at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development and at the Max Planck Institute for Psychological Research in Munich, Professor of Psychology at the University of Chicago and John M. Olin Distinguished Visiting Professor, School of Law at the University of Virginia. Awards for his work include the AAAS Prize for the best article in the behavioral sciences, the Association of American Publishers Prize for the best book in the social and behavioral sciences, the German Psychology Award, and the Communicator Award of the German Research Foundation. His award-winning popular books Calculated Risks, Gut Feelings: The Intelligence of the Unconscious, and Risk Savvy: How to Make Good Decisions have been translated into 21 languages. His academic books include Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart, Rationality for Mortals, Simply Rational, and Bounded Rationality (with Reinhard Selten, a Nobel Laureate in economics). In Better Doctors, Better Patients, Better Decisions (with Sir Muir Gray) he shows how better informed doctors and patients can improve healthcare while reducing costs. 

Wie gelingt das Leben? Was kann man für die mentale Gesundheit tun? Was passiert in unseren Köpfen? Die Erlebten Geschichten fragen nach - heute bei Gerd Gigerenzer, Intuitionsforscher. Von Andrea Lieblang.

In this episode we answer emails from Alexi (a/k/a/ "the Dude"), Pete and Dean.  We discuss box spreads, trying to market-time t-bills and interest rates, a whole host of logical fallacies and cognitive biases and a variable preferred shares fund (VRP) and what it does and doesn't do.And THEN we our go through our weekly portfolio reviews of the seven sample portfolios you can find at Portfolios | Risk Parity Radio.Additional links:Alpha Architect On Box Spreads:  Box Spreads: An Alternative to Treasury Bills? (alphaarchitect.com)Alpha Architect Paper On Size And Value Tilts:  AA-JBISFactorInvesting22LongOnlyValueInvesting.pdf (alphaarchitect.com)You Are Not So Smart Fallacy Podcasts (check out ones in the 60s or word search "fallacy"):  Podcast – You Are Not So SmartSample Gerd Gigerenzer Lecture:  Risk literacy: Gerd Gigerenzer at TEDxZurich - YouTubeRisk Savvy book:  Risk Savvy: How to Make Good Decisions by Gerd Gigerenzer | GoodreadsSummary of Prospecting Theory and Cognitive Biases:  The Prospecting Lens - Prospecting Mimetic FractalsDan Ariely Books:  Books - Dan ArielyFreakonomics Episode On Slippery Slopes:  Enough with the Slippery Slopes! - FreakonomicsSupport the show

Smartness has permeated our lives in the form of smartphones, smart cars, smart homes, and smart cities. It has become a mandate, a pervasive force that governs politics, economics, and the environment. As our world faces increasingly complex challenges, the drive for ubiquitous computing raises important questions. What exactly is this 'smartness mandate'? How did it emerge, and what does it reveal about our evolving understanding and management of reality? How did we come to view the planet and its inhabitants primarily as instruments for data collection? In the book 'The Smartness Mandate,' co-authored by Professor Orit Halpern, the notion of 'smartness' is presented as more than just a technology, it is presented as an epistemology — a way of knowing. In this episode of Bridging the Gaps, I speak with Professor Orit Halpern, where we delve into the concept of smartness. We explore its historical roots and its cultural implications, particularly its emphasis on data-driven technologies and decision-making processes across domains such as urban planning, healthcare, and education. Orit Halpern is Lighthouse Professor and Chair of Digital Cultures and Societal Change at Technische Universität Dresden. She completed her Ph.D. at Harvard. She has held numerous visiting scholar positions including at the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science in Berlin, IKKM Weimar, and at Duke University. At present she is working on two projects. The first project is about the history of automation, intelligence, and freedom; and the second project examines extreme infrastructures and the history of experimentation at planetary scales in design, science, and engineering. Our conversation begins by discussing the idea of “smartness” as presented in the book. To understand it better, we look at a few examples. The book suggests that the smartness paradigm relies a lot on collecting data, analysing it, as well as monitoring people through surveillance. We talk about the possible risks and consequences of this data-focused approach for personal privacy and individual rights. Next, we talk about how the smartness idea connects with the concept of resilience. We also touch on the fact, as presented in the book, that the smartness paradigm often reinforces existing power structures and inequalities. We explore the biases and ethical concerns that may arise with the use of these technologies. Furthermore, we explore the possibility of using the smartness approach to promote fairness and equality. We talk about how it could be applied to create a more just society. We discuss the significance of multidisciplinarity, and the role of higher education institutions and educators to create an enabling environment for an informed discourse to address these questions. Professor Orit Halpren emphasises the importance of exploring these questions and addressing relevant concerns to make sure we create the kind of world we truly want for ourselves. Complement this discussion with “Cloud Empires: Governing State-like Digital Platforms and Regaining Control with Professor Vili Lehdonvirta” available at: https://www.bridgingthegaps.ie/2023/01/cloud-empires-governing-state-like-digital-platforms-and-regaining-control-with-professor-vili-lehdonvirta/ And then listen to “Reclaiming Human Intelligence and “How to Stay Smart in a Smart World” with Prof. Gerd Gigerenzer” available at: https://www.bridgingthegaps.ie/2023/04/reclaiming-human-intelligence-and-how-to-stay-smart-in-a-smart-world-with-prof-gerd-gigerenzer/

This podcast is a commentary and does not contain any copyrighted material of the reference source. We strongly recommend accessing/buying the reference source at the same time. ■Reference Source https://www.ted.com/talks/gerd_gigerenzer_why_do_people_fear_the_wrong_things ■Post on this topic (You can get FREE learning materials!) https://englist.me/47-academic-words-reference-from-gerd-gigerenzer-why-do-people-fear-the-wrong-things--ted-talk/ ■Youtube Video https://youtu.be/NJ299_prnUw (All Words) https://youtu.be/0NshcwfRxi8 (Advanced Words) https://youtu.be/kNhm6f2UWgs (Quick Look) ■Top Page for Further Materials https://englist.me/ ■SNS (Please follow!)

Gerd Gigerenzer discusses his book "How to Stay Smart in a Smart World." Gerd is Director Emeritus at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development and an award-winning author. He applies his expertise in behavioral science to the world of smart technology and argues that we shouldn't trust technology unconditionally, but we shouldn't fear it unthinkingly, either. Gerd has trained US federal judges, physicians, and top managers around the world in decision making, and is named as one of the top-100 Global Thought Leaders worldwide. Listen for three action items you can use today. Host, Kevin Craine Do you want to be a guest?

Common sense is shared knowledge about people and the physical world, enabled by the biological brain. It comprises intuitive psychology, intuitive physics, and intuitive sociality. Unlike deep neural networks, common sense requires only limited experience. Human intelligence has evolved to deal with uncertainty, independent of whether big or small data are available. Complex AI algorithms, in contrast, work best in stable, well-defined situations such as chess and Go, where large amounts of data are available. This stable-world principle helps to understand what statistical algorithms are capable of and distinguish it from commercial hype or techno-religious faith. Gerd Gigerenzer introduces the program of psychological AI, which uses psychological heuristics to make algorithms smart. What we need is a fusion of the adaptive heuristics that embody common sense with the power of machine learning. Series: "CARTA - Center for Academic Research and Training in Anthropogeny" [Humanities] [Science] [Show ID: 38683]

Common sense is shared knowledge about people and the physical world, enabled by the biological brain. It comprises intuitive psychology, intuitive physics, and intuitive sociality. Unlike deep neural networks, common sense requires only limited experience. Human intelligence has evolved to deal with uncertainty, independent of whether big or small data are available. Complex AI algorithms, in contrast, work best in stable, well-defined situations such as chess and Go, where large amounts of data are available. This stable-world principle helps to understand what statistical algorithms are capable of and distinguish it from commercial hype or techno-religious faith. Gerd Gigerenzer introduces the program of psychological AI, which uses psychological heuristics to make algorithms smart. What we need is a fusion of the adaptive heuristics that embody common sense with the power of machine learning. Series: "CARTA - Center for Academic Research and Training in Anthropogeny" [Humanities] [Science] [Show ID: 38683]

Common sense is shared knowledge about people and the physical world, enabled by the biological brain. It comprises intuitive psychology, intuitive physics, and intuitive sociality. Unlike deep neural networks, common sense requires only limited experience. Human intelligence has evolved to deal with uncertainty, independent of whether big or small data are available. Complex AI algorithms, in contrast, work best in stable, well-defined situations such as chess and Go, where large amounts of data are available. This stable-world principle helps to understand what statistical algorithms are capable of and distinguish it from commercial hype or techno-religious faith. Gerd Gigerenzer introduces the program of psychological AI, which uses psychological heuristics to make algorithms smart. What we need is a fusion of the adaptive heuristics that embody common sense with the power of machine learning. Series: "CARTA - Center for Academic Research and Training in Anthropogeny" [Humanities] [Science] [Show ID: 38683]

Common sense is shared knowledge about people and the physical world, enabled by the biological brain. It comprises intuitive psychology, intuitive physics, and intuitive sociality. Unlike deep neural networks, common sense requires only limited experience. Human intelligence has evolved to deal with uncertainty, independent of whether big or small data are available. Complex AI algorithms, in contrast, work best in stable, well-defined situations such as chess and Go, where large amounts of data are available. This stable-world principle helps to understand what statistical algorithms are capable of and distinguish it from commercial hype or techno-religious faith. Gerd Gigerenzer introduces the program of psychological AI, which uses psychological heuristics to make algorithms smart. What we need is a fusion of the adaptive heuristics that embody common sense with the power of machine learning. Series: "CARTA - Center for Academic Research and Training in Anthropogeny" [Humanities] [Science] [Show ID: 38683]

Common sense is shared knowledge about people and the physical world, enabled by the biological brain. It comprises intuitive psychology, intuitive physics, and intuitive sociality. Unlike deep neural networks, common sense requires only limited experience. Human intelligence has evolved to deal with uncertainty, independent of whether big or small data are available. Complex AI algorithms, in contrast, work best in stable, well-defined situations such as chess and Go, where large amounts of data are available. This stable-world principle helps to understand what statistical algorithms are capable of and distinguish it from commercial hype or techno-religious faith. Gerd Gigerenzer introduces the program of psychological AI, which uses psychological heuristics to make algorithms smart. What we need is a fusion of the adaptive heuristics that embody common sense with the power of machine learning. Series: "CARTA - Center for Academic Research and Training in Anthropogeny" [Humanities] [Science] [Show ID: 38683]

Common sense is shared knowledge about people and the physical world, enabled by the biological brain. It comprises intuitive psychology, intuitive physics, and intuitive sociality. Unlike deep neural networks, common sense requires only limited experience. Human intelligence has evolved to deal with uncertainty, independent of whether big or small data are available. Complex AI algorithms, in contrast, work best in stable, well-defined situations such as chess and Go, where large amounts of data are available. This stable-world principle helps to understand what statistical algorithms are capable of and distinguish it from commercial hype or techno-religious faith. Gerd Gigerenzer introduces the program of psychological AI, which uses psychological heuristics to make algorithms smart. What we need is a fusion of the adaptive heuristics that embody common sense with the power of machine learning. Series: "CARTA - Center for Academic Research and Training in Anthropogeny" [Humanities] [Science] [Show ID: 38683]

The future of technology is a subject of debate among experts. Some predict a bleak future where robots become dominant, leaving humans behind. Others, known as tech industry boosters, believe that replacing humans with software can lead to a better world. Critics of the tech industry express concern about the negative consequences of surveillance capitalism. Despite these differences, there is a shared belief that machines will eventually surpass humans in most areas. In his recent book "How to Stay Smart in a Smart World: Why Human Intelligence Still Beats Algorithms" professor Gerd Gigerenzer argues against this notion and offers insights on how we can maintain control in a world where algorithms are prevalent. In this episode of Bridging the Gaps, I speak with professor Gerd Gigerenzer to discuss challenges posed by rapid developments in the tech sector, particularly in the field of artificial intelligence. We discuss different approaches that individuals can adopt to enhance their awareness of the potential hazards that come with using such systems and explore strategies to maintain control in a world where algorithms play a significant role. Gerd Gigerenzer is a psychologist and researcher who has made significant contributions to the fields of cognitive psychology and decision-making. He is director emeritus at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development, and is director of the Harding Center for Risk Literacy at the University of Potsdam. He is a professor of psychology at the University of Chicago and is a visiting professor at the University of Virginia. His research focuses on how people make decisions under conditions of uncertainty and how to improve people's understanding of risk and probability. He has trained judges, physicians, and managers in decision-making and understanding risk. Our discussion begins by exploring the limitations of present-day narrow and task-specific artificial intelligence systems in dealing with complex scenarios. Professor Gerd Gigerenzer's argument that simple heuristics may outperform complex algorithms in solving complex problems is particularly noteworthy. In fact, in some complex scenarios, relying on our intuition or "gut feelings" may result in better decisions than relying on sophisticated technological systems. We then discuss the importance of assessing the risks associated with using seemingly free services that actually collect and exploit users' data and information to sustain their business models. We delve into the topic of recommender systems that subtly influence users' choices by nudging them towards certain features, services, or information. Next, we examine various strategies for individuals to become more mindful of the potential risks associated with using such systems, and consider ways to maintain control in a world where algorithms wield considerable influence. This has been an insightful discussion. Complement this discussion with ““Machines like Us: TOWARD AI WITH COMMON SENSE” with Professor Ronald Brachman” available at: https://www.bridgingthegaps.ie/2022/06/machines-like-us-toward-ai-with-common-sense-with-professor-ronald-brachman/ And then listen to ““Philosophy of Technology” with Professor Peter-Paul Verbeek” available at: https://www.bridgingthegaps.ie/2021/01/philosophy-of-technology-with-professor-peter-paul-verbeek/

Gerd Gigerenzer discusses his book "How to Stay Smart in a Smart World." Gerd is Director Emeritus at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development and an award-winning author. He applies his expertise in behavioral science to the world of smart technology.  Host, Kevin Craine

In his latest book, How to Stay Smart in a Smart World: Why Human Intelligence Still Beats Algorithms, psychologist Gerd Gigerenzer examines how humans need to adapt in order to make the best use of new technologies like AI. Gerd Gigerenzer is director of the Harding Center for Risk Literacy at the University of Potsdam and director emeritus of the Center for Adaptive Behavior and Cognition at the Max Planck Institute and is an expert on human decision making. Together with Martin Reeves, Chairman of BCG Henderson Institute, he discusses the uses and limits of AI, the cost-benefit of using technology, and how we can do to better equip ourselves as individuals and societies to deal with this. In particular, he argues that shaping the context for using AI or improving the skills of users may often yield greater returns than improving the technology itself. He proposes that using AI without doing either of these things can cause the atrophy of skills, create ambiguity around truthfulness, and foster unhealthy reliance. He proposes various practical strategies for making ourselves smarter in an increasingly algorithmic world. *** About the BCG Henderson Institute The BCG Henderson Institute is the Boston Consulting Group's think tank, dedicated to exploring and developing valuable new insights from business, technology, economics, and science by embracing the powerful technology of ideas. The Institute engages leaders in provocative discussion and experimentation to expand the boundaries of business theory and practice and to translate innovative ideas from within and beyond business. For more ideas and inspiration, sign up to receive BHI INSIGHTS, our monthly newsletter, and follow us on LinkedIn and Twitter. This podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis: Chartable - https://chartable.com/privacy

Computer algorithms and artificial intelligence increasingly affect more and more of our lives, from the content we're shown online, to the music we enjoy, to how our household appliances work. But the results these algorithms produce may be changing our world in ways users may not fully understand. WSJ's Danny Lewis speaks with psychologist Gerd Gigerenzer, director of the Harding Center for Risk Literacy at the University of Potsdam. He's spent decades studying how people make choices and find patterns when faced with uncertainty, and has some ideas about how to navigate and improve the relationship between AI and our society. Further reading: The Backstory of ChatGPT Creator OpenAI  New York City Delays Enforcement of AI Bias Law  How AI That Powers Chatbots and Search Queries Could Discover New Drugs  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Doomsday prophets of technology predict that robots will take over the world, leaving humans behind in the dust. Tech industry boosters think replacing people with software might make the world a better place--while tech industry critics warn darkly about surveillance capitalism. Despite their differing views of the future, they all agree: machines will soon do everything better than humans. In How to Stay Smart in a Smart World: Why Human Intelligence Still Beats Algorithms (MIT Press, 2022), Gerd Gigerenzer shows why that's not true, and tells us how we can stay in charge in a world populated by algorithms. Machines powered by artificial intelligence are good at some things (playing chess), but not others (life-and-death decisions, or anything involving uncertainty). Gigerenzer explains why algorithms often fail at finding us romantic partners (love is not chess), why self-driving cars fall prey to the Russian Tank Fallacy, and how judges and police rely increasingly on nontransparent "black box" algorithms to predict whether a criminal defendant will reoffend or show up in court. He invokes Black Mirror, considers the privacy paradox (people want privacy, but give their data away), and explains that social media get us hooked by programming intermittent reinforcement in the form of the "like" button. We shouldn't trust smart technology unconditionally, Gigerenzer tells us, but we shouldn't fear it unthinkingly, either. Galina Limorenko is a doctoral candidate in Neuroscience with a focus on biochemistry and molecular biology of neurodegenerative diseases at EPFL in Switzerland. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Doomsday prophets of technology predict that robots will take over the world, leaving humans behind in the dust. Tech industry boosters think replacing people with software might make the world a better place--while tech industry critics warn darkly about surveillance capitalism. Despite their differing views of the future, they all agree: machines will soon do everything better than humans. In How to Stay Smart in a Smart World: Why Human Intelligence Still Beats Algorithms (MIT Press, 2022), Gerd Gigerenzer shows why that's not true, and tells us how we can stay in charge in a world populated by algorithms. Machines powered by artificial intelligence are good at some things (playing chess), but not others (life-and-death decisions, or anything involving uncertainty). Gigerenzer explains why algorithms often fail at finding us romantic partners (love is not chess), why self-driving cars fall prey to the Russian Tank Fallacy, and how judges and police rely increasingly on nontransparent "black box" algorithms to predict whether a criminal defendant will reoffend or show up in court. He invokes Black Mirror, considers the privacy paradox (people want privacy, but give their data away), and explains that social media get us hooked by programming intermittent reinforcement in the form of the "like" button. We shouldn't trust smart technology unconditionally, Gigerenzer tells us, but we shouldn't fear it unthinkingly, either. Galina Limorenko is a doctoral candidate in Neuroscience with a focus on biochemistry and molecular biology of neurodegenerative diseases at EPFL in Switzerland. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/sociology

Doomsday prophets of technology predict that robots will take over the world, leaving humans behind in the dust. Tech industry boosters think replacing people with software might make the world a better place--while tech industry critics warn darkly about surveillance capitalism. Despite their differing views of the future, they all agree: machines will soon do everything better than humans. In How to Stay Smart in a Smart World: Why Human Intelligence Still Beats Algorithms (MIT Press, 2022), Gerd Gigerenzer shows why that's not true, and tells us how we can stay in charge in a world populated by algorithms. Machines powered by artificial intelligence are good at some things (playing chess), but not others (life-and-death decisions, or anything involving uncertainty). Gigerenzer explains why algorithms often fail at finding us romantic partners (love is not chess), why self-driving cars fall prey to the Russian Tank Fallacy, and how judges and police rely increasingly on nontransparent "black box" algorithms to predict whether a criminal defendant will reoffend or show up in court. He invokes Black Mirror, considers the privacy paradox (people want privacy, but give their data away), and explains that social media get us hooked by programming intermittent reinforcement in the form of the "like" button. We shouldn't trust smart technology unconditionally, Gigerenzer tells us, but we shouldn't fear it unthinkingly, either. Galina Limorenko is a doctoral candidate in Neuroscience with a focus on biochemistry and molecular biology of neurodegenerative diseases at EPFL in Switzerland. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/psychology

Doomsday prophets of technology predict that robots will take over the world, leaving humans behind in the dust. Tech industry boosters think replacing people with software might make the world a better place--while tech industry critics warn darkly about surveillance capitalism. Despite their differing views of the future, they all agree: machines will soon do everything better than humans. In How to Stay Smart in a Smart World: Why Human Intelligence Still Beats Algorithms (MIT Press, 2022), Gerd Gigerenzer shows why that's not true, and tells us how we can stay in charge in a world populated by algorithms. Machines powered by artificial intelligence are good at some things (playing chess), but not others (life-and-death decisions, or anything involving uncertainty). Gigerenzer explains why algorithms often fail at finding us romantic partners (love is not chess), why self-driving cars fall prey to the Russian Tank Fallacy, and how judges and police rely increasingly on nontransparent "black box" algorithms to predict whether a criminal defendant will reoffend or show up in court. He invokes Black Mirror, considers the privacy paradox (people want privacy, but give their data away), and explains that social media get us hooked by programming intermittent reinforcement in the form of the "like" button. We shouldn't trust smart technology unconditionally, Gigerenzer tells us, but we shouldn't fear it unthinkingly, either. Galina Limorenko is a doctoral candidate in Neuroscience with a focus on biochemistry and molecular biology of neurodegenerative diseases at EPFL in Switzerland. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/science-technology-and-society

Gerd Gigerenzer discusses his book "How to Stay Smart in a Smart World." Gerd is Director Emeritus at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development and an award-winning author. He applies his expertise in behavioral science to the world of smart technology and argues that we shouldn't trust technology unconditionally, but we shouldn't fear it unthinkingly, either. Gerd has trained US federal judges, physicians, and top managers around the world in decision making, and is named as one of the top-100 Global Thought Leaders worldwide. Listen for three action items you can use today. Host, Kevin Craine Do you want to be a guest?

0:00 - Dan & Amy remember Queen Elizabeth   7:26 - Dan & Amy react to Governor Pritzker's turn at attacking Governor Abbott   25:39 - Dominic Green, columnist for The Washington Examiner, contributor to the Wall Street Journal and Fellow of the Royal Historical Society: Queen Elizabeth's Reign Spanned the Age of Giants. Keep track of what Dominic is working on @DrDominicGreen   40:11 - Director Emeritus at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Gerd Gigerenzer, give a glimpse into his new book How to Stay Smart in a Smart World   55:41 - Dan & Amy react to Gov Pritzker doubling down on Dan Proft   01:19:01 - Dan & Amy run the numbers on Illinois PPP   01:32:49 - Kathy Salvi, republican US Senate candidate for IL, wants to give a voice to the people of Illinois and make the changes to improve our lives. For more on Kathy's run for Senate visit kathysalvi.com 01:49:21 - OPEN MIC FRIDAY!!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

How should we respond and react to artificial intelligence and its impact on the world and each other? How should we handle the risk and uncertainty risk caused by the permeation of AI throughout our lives?To tackle these questions, we talked with Gerd Gigerenzer about his recent book, How to Stay Smart in a Smart World. We talk with Gerd about the impacts of big data on making decisions, the increasing use of AI for surveillance, the risks of trusting smart technology too much, and the broader impact of technology on our human dignity.Gerd is the Director Emeritus at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development and the author of several books, including Calculated Risks, Gut Feelings, and Risk Savvy and the coeditor of Better Doctors, Better Patients, Better Decisions and Classification in the Wild. He has trained judges, physicians, and managers in decision-making and understanding risk.We thoroughly enjoyed Gerd's book and recommend it to both those new to AI who may be looking for an approachable introduction and to those expert in AI who may be looking for a new perspective to think about the future of our digital world.If you enjoy our podcasts, please subscribe and leave a positive rating or comment. Sharing your positive feedback helps us reach more people and connect them with the world's great minds.Subscribe to get Artificiality delivered to your emailLearn more about Sonder StudioThanks to Jonathan Coulton for our music This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit artificiality.substack.com

Hosted by Andrew Keen, Keen On features conversations with some of the world's leading thinkers and writers about the economic, political, and technological issues being discussed in the news, right now. In this episode, Andrew is joined by Gerd Gigerenzer, author of How to Stay Smart in a Smart World: Why Human Intelligence Still Beats Algorithms. Gerd Gigerenzer is Director Emeritus at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development and the author of Calculated Risks, Gut Feelings, and Risk Savvy and the coeditor of Better Doctors, Better Patients, Better Decisions and Classification in the Wild (both published by the MIT Press). He has trained judges, physicians, and managers in decision making and understanding risks and uncertainties. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

IBM's super-computer Watson was a runaway success on Jeopardy! But it wasn't nearly as good at diagnosing cancer. This came as no surprise to Max Planck Institute psychologist Gerd Gigerenzer, who argues that when it comes to life-and-death decisions, we'll always need real, not artificial, brains. Listen as the author of How to Stay Smart in a Smart World tells EconTalk host Russ Roberts why computers aren't nearly as smart as we think. But, Gigerenzer says, human beings need to get smarter in order to avoid being manipulated by people who use AI for their own ends.

Quite often the ideas of ‘risk' and of ‘uncertainty' get bandied about interchangeably, but there's a world of difference between them and it matters greatly when that distinction gets lost. That's a key message from psychologist Gerd Gigerenzer, who has created an impressive case for both understanding the distinction and then acting appropriately based on the distinction. “A situation with risk,” he tells interviewer David Edmonds in this Social Science Bites podcast, “is one where you basically know everything. More precisely, you know everything that can happen in the future … you know the consequences and you know the probabilities.” It is, as Bayesian decision theorist Jimmie Savage called it, “a small world.” As an example, Gigerenzer takes us a spin on a roulette wheel – you may lose your money on a low-probability bet, but all the possible options were known in advance. Uncertainty, on the other hand, means that all future possible events aren't known, nor are their probabilities or their consequences. Rounding back to the roulette wheel, under risk all possibilities are constrained to the ball landing on a number between 1 and 36. “Under uncertainty, 37 can happen,” he jokes. “Most situations in which we make decisions,” says Gigerenzer, “involve some sort of uncertainty.” Dealing with risk versus dealing with uncertainty requires different approaches. With risk, all you need is calculation. With uncertainty, “calculation may help you to some degree, but there is no way to calculate the optimal situation.” Humans nonetheless have tools to address uncertainty. Four he identifies are heuristics, intuition, finding people to trust, and adopting narratives to sustain you. In this podcast, he focuses on heuristics, those mental shortcuts and rules of thumb that often get a bad rap. “Social science,” he says, “should take uncertainty seriously, and heuristics seriously, and then we have a key to the real world.” When asked, Gigerenzer lauds Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky for putting “the concept of heuristics back on the table.” But he disagrees with their fast-slow thinking model that gives quick, so-called System 1 thinking less primacy than more deliberative thinking. “We have in the social sciences a kind of rhetoric that heuristics are always second best and maximizing would be always better. That's wrong. It is only true in a world of risk; it is not correct in a world of uncertainty, where by definition you can't find the best solution simply because you don't know the future.” Researchers, he concludes, should “take uncertainty seriously and ask the question, ‘In what situations do these heuristics that people use (and experts use) actually work?' and not just say, ‘They must be wrong because they are a heuristic.'” Gigerenzer is the director of the Harding Center for Risk Literacy at the University of Potsdam and partner at Simply Rational – The Institute for Decisions. Before that he directed the Center for Adaptive Behavior and Cognition at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development and at the Max Planck Institute for Psychological Research. His books include general titles like Calculated Risks, Gut Feelings: The Intelligence of the Unconscious, and Risk Savvy: How to Make Good Decisions, as well as academic books such as Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart, Rationality for Mortals, Simply Rational, and Bounded Rationality. Awards for his work include the American Association for the Advancement of Science Prize for Behavioral Science Research for the best article in the behavioral sciences in 1991, the Association of American Publishers Prize for the best book in the social and behavioral sciences for The probabilistic revolution, the German Psychology Award, and the Communicator Award of the German Research Foundation. He was a 2014 fellow at the SAGE Center for the Study of the Mind University of California, Santa Barbara (SAGE Publishing is the parent of Social Science Space) and a fellow of the Association for Psychological Science in 2008.