Introduction to Cognitive Bias: Crash Course Scientific Thinking #1
video description
Date: 2026-01-23
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 20
crash_course
A lot of this video is technically correct and might be a necessary level of approachable, but a simplified explanation kind of leads to cognitive bias concepts being utilized as a confused moral instruction. At least that's my experience with it after decades amid skeptic and pro-science communities. People get a sense of familiarity and become overly confidant (which itself might be an essential part of learning) but if they don't build some essential foundations, like basic understanding of long-term potentiation or limits of human attention, they can't really conceptualize the processes behind cognitive bias in a descriptive sense buffered against the mighty pull of social salience; one that rises above the desire to 'win' a petty conflict of epistemological authority, or excessive self-monitoring that seeks to meet some social expectation of 'open minded' rather than seriously do justice to a paradigm and its challenges.
Establishing some baseline cognitive psychology by securing its propagated education is going to be essential to properly teach people to think scientifically overall. Like, enshrined in culture and story-telling to where it becomes automatic to self-conceptualize around actual mechanics of the brain. This would have an added benefit of creating more self-awareness around habituation and less magical ideas about therapy.
reply
A lot of this video is technically correct and might be a necessary level of approachable, but a simplified explanation kind of leads to cognitive bias concepts being utilized as a confused moral instruction. At least that's my experience with it after decades amid skeptic and pro-science communities. People get a sense of familiarity and become overly confidant (which itself might be an essential part of learning) but if they don't build some essential foundations, like basic understanding of long-term potentiation or limits of human attention, they can't really conceptualize the processes behind cognitive bias in a descriptive sense buffered against the mighty pull of social salience; one that rises above the desire to 'win' a petty conflict of epistemological authority, or excessive self-monitoring that seeks to meet some social expectation of 'open minded' rather than seriously do justice to a paradigm and its challenges.
Establishing some baseline cognitive psychology by securing its propagated education is going to be essential to properly teach people to think scientifically overall. Like, enshrined in culture and story-telling to where it becomes automatic to self-conceptualize around actual mechanics of the brain. This would have an added benefit of creating more self-awareness around habituation and less magical ideas about therapy.
reply
seven2742
One of the main purposes of using randomised controlled trials is to increase our ability to establish causality. Randomisation aims to make groups comparable across conditions so that any changes after treatment can be attributed to the treatment itself rather than pre-existing differences, thereby strengthening internal validity. However, randomisation alone does not guarantee that results are generalisable to the broader population.
Selection bias does not have to result from an individual’s cognitive bias! It can arise from the nature of data collection itself. For example, relying solely on student samples skews data toward younger and more educated participants. To address this, many behavioural experiments (like the ones I’m doing) now use broader recruitment platforms such as MTurk, which offer more diverse samples than student populations. (though they still have limitations in representativeness)
reply
One of the main purposes of using randomised controlled trials is to increase our ability to establish causality. Randomisation aims to make groups comparable across conditions so that any changes after treatment can be attributed to the treatment itself rather than pre-existing differences, thereby strengthening internal validity. However, randomisation alone does not guarantee that results are generalisable to the broader population.
Selection bias does not have to result from an individual’s cognitive bias! It can arise from the nature of data collection itself. For example, relying solely on student samples skews data toward younger and more educated participants. To address this, many behavioural experiments (like the ones I’m doing) now use broader recruitment platforms such as MTurk, which offer more diverse samples than student populations. (though they still have limitations in representativeness)
reply
tuononnovainbici
I, for one, have to actively fight my confirmation bias when it comes to hoarding stuff. Like stashing some randomly shaped piece of wood aside Just in case I might need it, ending up with mountains of stuff.
Most things are useless and a waste of space, but sometimes I actually get to use that random piece I kept for years. and THAT'S when the fight begins again, fighting my brain's confirmation bias. Because after that my instinct would be to never throw anything away again, even when I know better than to keep all sorts of junk. I have to fight the voice in the back of my head that says But what if we'll need it in the future and force me to just throw it away / give it away if I don't have concrete plans of using it soon.
reply
I, for one, have to actively fight my confirmation bias when it comes to hoarding stuff. Like stashing some randomly shaped piece of wood aside Just in case I might need it, ending up with mountains of stuff.
Most things are useless and a waste of space, but sometimes I actually get to use that random piece I kept for years. and THAT'S when the fight begins again, fighting my brain's confirmation bias. Because after that my instinct would be to never throw anything away again, even when I know better than to keep all sorts of junk. I have to fight the voice in the back of my head that says But what if we'll need it in the future and force me to just throw it away / give it away if I don't have concrete plans of using it soon.
reply
Meteotrix
I like to explain that people who insist on using it's just common sense-type thinking and nothing else, are condemning themselves to trip on every counter-intuitive problem out there. I don't know what proportion of problems are counter-intuitive, but they're common enough that we need to account for them. I've ended up explaining that there's low-effort common sense, and high-effort common sense. The idea is that /double-checking/ is also common sense, just more expensive. But it kinda means that, someone spending 3 seconds doing common sense, is going to have worse outcomes than someone who spends 30, 000, 000s doing common sense. To me science really boils down to ok but have you /actually/ checked though, recursively.
reply
I like to explain that people who insist on using it's just common sense-type thinking and nothing else, are condemning themselves to trip on every counter-intuitive problem out there. I don't know what proportion of problems are counter-intuitive, but they're common enough that we need to account for them. I've ended up explaining that there's low-effort common sense, and high-effort common sense. The idea is that /double-checking/ is also common sense, just more expensive. But it kinda means that, someone spending 3 seconds doing common sense, is going to have worse outcomes than someone who spends 30, 000, 000s doing common sense. To me science really boils down to ok but have you /actually/ checked though, recursively.
reply
RayBoulay
I love this video! I love this content! I love Crash Course ($$ support to follow, AND I didn't know John is your brother! I just binged CC Religion. So good!
A lot of bias' were presented in this video and I am interested in all of them as I work in the paranormal (OK, roll your eyes. I'll wait. Ok, that's now that's over, I'd love to have a list of the types of bias' you presented because they apply to folks that believe that everything is paranormal. OK, maybe 'everything' is a broad statement, but I think you know what I mean.
In your CC, do you have a CC guide that follows the video That would be neat!
I love what you do!
Ray
reply
I love this video! I love this content! I love Crash Course ($$ support to follow, AND I didn't know John is your brother! I just binged CC Religion. So good!
A lot of bias' were presented in this video and I am interested in all of them as I work in the paranormal (OK, roll your eyes. I'll wait. Ok, that's now that's over, I'd love to have a list of the types of bias' you presented because they apply to folks that believe that everything is paranormal. OK, maybe 'everything' is a broad statement, but I think you know what I mean.
In your CC, do you have a CC guide that follows the video That would be neat!
I love what you do!
Ray
reply
mariannetfinches
As a science nerd, i love it when a study gets published that tests something we all thought we knew. Even if it only confirms that our gut was right!
Because sometimes, a study will find that Urine Isn't Sterile! Like we thought it was until just a few years ago because of a paper a few decades old and a lack of follow-up!
Or that the Microplastics = Worse Outcomes from Heart Attacks samples were contaminated & thus unreliable.
Or that Duck Quacks Do Echo, actually!
Hank is ultimately right, though: Butt is Legs
reply
As a science nerd, i love it when a study gets published that tests something we all thought we knew. Even if it only confirms that our gut was right!
Because sometimes, a study will find that Urine Isn't Sterile! Like we thought it was until just a few years ago because of a paper a few decades old and a lack of follow-up!
Or that the Microplastics = Worse Outcomes from Heart Attacks samples were contaminated & thus unreliable.
Or that Duck Quacks Do Echo, actually!
Hank is ultimately right, though: Butt is Legs
reply
Meteotrix
i don't know if you'll mention it for the peer review segment, but i think i remember a rebecca watson video where she talks about research pointing out that peer reviewing papers /before publication/ doesn't actually help the overall collective scientific process much. Bad science can always be published elsewhere, reviewers are too busy to do their job properly, and they can even reject good science; except thankfully, good science does end up being surfaced sooner or later, as long as it is published somewhere.
reply
i don't know if you'll mention it for the peer review segment, but i think i remember a rebecca watson video where she talks about research pointing out that peer reviewing papers /before publication/ doesn't actually help the overall collective scientific process much. Bad science can always be published elsewhere, reviewers are too busy to do their job properly, and they can even reject good science; except thankfully, good science does end up being surfaced sooner or later, as long as it is published somewhere.
reply
koda_pop
Omg the airplane crash statistic, some friends called me a liar or blind when I pulled up the actual statistics and got mad at me. I'm straight up told them about cognitive bias and how it directly relates to news reporting, and all but one actually listened lol
Cognitive bias really can get anyone, because those pals are smart as heck. That was just one I noticed, guarantee you I got plenty of biases under the hood that I've denied several times. It just be a human thing: p
reply
Omg the airplane crash statistic, some friends called me a liar or blind when I pulled up the actual statistics and got mad at me. I'm straight up told them about cognitive bias and how it directly relates to news reporting, and all but one actually listened lol
Cognitive bias really can get anyone, because those pals are smart as heck. That was just one I noticed, guarantee you I got plenty of biases under the hood that I've denied several times. It just be a human thing: p
reply
t1p1may0
Love it. As a science communicator, my life will be so much easier the more people engage with this series and those like it.
Whether or not evidence is developed through the scientific method and subject to things like peer review, evidence is the foundation for all decision making. Evidence could be built on bias ir not, be top of the hierarchy of validity or not, but its the foundation that businesses and governments use to make decisions that affect all our lives.
reply
Love it. As a science communicator, my life will be so much easier the more people engage with this series and those like it.
Whether or not evidence is developed through the scientific method and subject to things like peer review, evidence is the foundation for all decision making. Evidence could be built on bias ir not, be top of the hierarchy of validity or not, but its the foundation that businesses and governments use to make decisions that affect all our lives.
reply
Przemo-c
The community aspect of science is problematic as it relies on structures which often have perverse incentives. As in low to no compensation for a good peer review, academic structures publish or perish, skew that's promoted by impact scores. Let's also not forget bias towards novel studies than all needed replication studies and classic publishing only positive results which at the very least wastes other scientists time and resources and at worst skewing meta-analysis.
reply
The community aspect of science is problematic as it relies on structures which often have perverse incentives. As in low to no compensation for a good peer review, academic structures publish or perish, skew that's promoted by impact scores. Let's also not forget bias towards novel studies than all needed replication studies and classic publishing only positive results which at the very least wastes other scientists time and resources and at worst skewing meta-analysis.
reply
CorwynGC
If everything moves in the same way, it is far more likely that there is one cause. The stars all move the same amount in the same way every day (tiny movements aren't noticeable until accurate instruments are created. The Sun moves the same as the stars plus a bit. The moon moves the same minus a bit. The planets move the same with a bunch of wackiness attached. Subtract off the starlike movement and everything moves pretty slowly.
reply
If everything moves in the same way, it is far more likely that there is one cause. The stars all move the same amount in the same way every day (tiny movements aren't noticeable until accurate instruments are created. The Sun moves the same as the stars plus a bit. The moon moves the same minus a bit. The planets move the same with a bunch of wackiness attached. Subtract off the starlike movement and everything moves pretty slowly.
reply
biggerdoofus
One other thing to keep in mind: other people have cognitive bias as well, and you should be aware of that as a possible reason they're wrong about something, but that is not itself a good argument against their ideas, and it is especially not a cudgel to try to fight someone with. Responding to someone's ideas by just citing their cognitive bias without citing any actual counter to those ideas is a genuine ad-hominem fallacy.
reply
One other thing to keep in mind: other people have cognitive bias as well, and you should be aware of that as a possible reason they're wrong about something, but that is not itself a good argument against their ideas, and it is especially not a cudgel to try to fight someone with. Responding to someone's ideas by just citing their cognitive bias without citing any actual counter to those ideas is a genuine ad-hominem fallacy.
reply
Dave_DuPlantis
I was hoping to see something like accidents per 1K or 10K flights rather than a raw number (since a significant decrease in the number of flights could have led to a higher percentage of accidents); there are other potential factors, like airports opening or closing in the past year, but unless one of those airports was an outlier, those other factors might not matter when looking at US-wide data
reply
I was hoping to see something like accidents per 1K or 10K flights rather than a raw number (since a significant decrease in the number of flights could have led to a higher percentage of accidents); there are other potential factors, like airports opening or closing in the past year, but unless one of those airports was an outlier, those other factors might not matter when looking at US-wide data
reply
crash_course
I love this especially as someone with an information science degree and a parent. So much nonsense is put out there for parents and a lot of it can't be proven because there is no way to get away from the cognitive bias. Sleep training is one of the big ones because there is no way to ethically test this and even if their was it still couldn't be done because everyone sleeps differently.
reply
I love this especially as someone with an information science degree and a parent. So much nonsense is put out there for parents and a lot of it can't be proven because there is no way to get away from the cognitive bias. Sleep training is one of the big ones because there is no way to ethically test this and even if their was it still couldn't be done because everyone sleeps differently.
reply
tessapugh868
if you want to learn more about cognitive bias and the ways that human thinking goes wrong i give my highest suggestion to the book thinking, fast and slow. the entire book is about cognitive bias, and prefers to show, rather than tell the entire book is full of little experiments you can play on yourself to unveil and understand your cognitive biases. highly highly highly recommend
reply
if you want to learn more about cognitive bias and the ways that human thinking goes wrong i give my highest suggestion to the book thinking, fast and slow. the entire book is about cognitive bias, and prefers to show, rather than tell the entire book is full of little experiments you can play on yourself to unveil and understand your cognitive biases. highly highly highly recommend
reply
dockboysgaming
4: 00 Also known as what Daniel Kahneman in Thinking, Fast and Slow calls the What You See is All There Is (WYSIATI) principle.
7: 50 This is also kinda like the Ulysses contract, whereby you cannot trust yourself to make the right decision in the future, so you put a system in place to automatically steer you in the right direction
reply
4: 00 Also known as what Daniel Kahneman in Thinking, Fast and Slow calls the What You See is All There Is (WYSIATI) principle.
7: 50 This is also kinda like the Ulysses contract, whereby you cannot trust yourself to make the right decision in the future, so you put a system in place to automatically steer you in the right direction
reply
crash_course
My favourite explanation related to geocentrism is horizons. On the sea, it looks like you are at the centre of everything, but it just the horizon. Same with the universe, we are at the centre of the observable universe, because that is just our horizon. And without a telescope and good records, the sky is basically just another horizon.
reply
My favourite explanation related to geocentrism is horizons. On the sea, it looks like you are at the centre of everything, but it just the horizon. Same with the universe, we are at the centre of the observable universe, because that is just our horizon. And without a telescope and good records, the sky is basically just another horizon.
reply
tab2do
Out of all topics CC could have chosen to do next, cognitive biases are my absolute favourite. I am about to defend my PhD and the most impactful lesson I learned in these 5 years is that these biases are just so nasty and underestimated. Let's give this topic as much visibility as possible so kids can learn earlier about this than I did.
reply
Out of all topics CC could have chosen to do next, cognitive biases are my absolute favourite. I am about to defend my PhD and the most impactful lesson I learned in these 5 years is that these biases are just so nasty and underestimated. Let's give this topic as much visibility as possible so kids can learn earlier about this than I did.
reply
bonniemf1022
Cool fact: humans aren't even the only animals that have cognitive bias! Lots of animals show cognitive biases, like judgement bias and attention bias. We can test to see, for example, whether an animal pessimistic or optimistic in the face of an ambiguous stimulus to help us understand that animal's emotional state.
reply
Cool fact: humans aren't even the only animals that have cognitive bias! Lots of animals show cognitive biases, like judgement bias and attention bias. We can test to see, for example, whether an animal pessimistic or optimistic in the face of an ambiguous stimulus to help us understand that animal's emotional state.
reply
Femdaddyx
MORE OF THIS PLEASE OMG! I think we would all benefit from the tennents of the scientific method, please continue with this and make it a series! Once you get into the weeds of things, I'd love more content on ethics, professionalism, morality (in relation to science/scientific thinking) and bigger picture issues
reply
MORE OF THIS PLEASE OMG! I think we would all benefit from the tennents of the scientific method, please continue with this and make it a series! Once you get into the weeds of things, I'd love more content on ethics, professionalism, morality (in relation to science/scientific thinking) and bigger picture issues
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
