How to Think Like a Mathematician – with Eugenia Cheng

45 thoughts on “How to Think Like a Mathematician – with Eugenia Cheng”

1. 😂 I Can't Help But Laugh At The Triggered Ppl In The Comments. So Mad When Ppl Call Out Americas BS. They Rather We Pretend It's Not There Lmao 😂

2. Dope Video! Sending blessing your way, Keep inspiring!🎒🙌🏻

3. Found nothing useful or profound in this lecture.

4. Does that mean in the extreme bottom left of that plot we can put most youtube vitriol?

5. I think she already declared in the beginning. This talk is about introducing new perspective to our minds through mathematics. Therefore her political view is only from her perspective.

6. What if the bottom rank of privilege was being unable to question your own prejudices?

7. @46.19 When you‘re emotional you cannot be reasoned with? There‘s no framework for you to accept that you might be wrong?.. emotions are ‚right‘.. hmmm.. there are times when one might feel ‚justified‘ to take action because of how one feels.. but i find it a bit far fetched/absolutist to claim that emotions are right.. however put so, that they point to a kind of truth that needs to be weighed up/discovered that may provide insight then yes.. good luck with your interconnected diagrams and applied maths Miss Cheng. I liked the way you mashed up maths and emotions 😀

8. Maths is not going to fix human relations.

9. This is brilliant. It’s looking at the human being from the full spectrum and being able to understand that no one is really right and no one is wrong. Period. She sees things from every point of view and being able to see things from the Zero point reality and that is really sacred geometry ❤️🌀❤️👌👌👌👌

10. Such a pleasure to listen to an articulate person. If we could all take her advice there would be an end to wars.Surely wars are a classic case of stupidity because they involve hurting ourselves and hurting others!
    But please could i add that at times the speech is too fast to take all this valuable information in. Of course i played the video back until i understood everything but it did give me a sense of frustration when i was excitedly following everything and things suddenly became a blur. It doesn't dampen my enthusiasm but as a newcomer to these ways of thinking i needeed to mention it.
    Btw i think i had a moment of enlightenment when words were substituted for the numbers/words and when the cube was extruded into a cuboid! Wow!

11. A Blog Post and commentary offered at the link below. Great Work Dr.Cheng
    https://www.uncoveringtheanointed.com/post/dr-cheng-and-the-art-of-logic?fbclid=IwAR26N5gyzGdSwIutVgeyiql8eUHuZ5d4BdTgNMWmTnLktTEBxKDuvChDSlA

12. Brilliant.

13. Low-level political propaganda which has very little to do with MATH. Degrades RI reputation.

14. this is fantastic, deep and interesting math made accessible

15. Bertrand Russell, mathematician and philosopher devoted decades of his life to the same goal: using logic and math to solve conflicts and miscommunication. He failed spectacularly. And he was much smarter than this very very naive lady.

16. How to Think Like a Latino – with Pedro Morales
    "We walk north and get on Welfare"

17. The Bell Curve is math. Why is it prohibited Science?

18. The low IQ races can't think about math. Sorry. They just can't. Accept it.

19. Just gonna leave this here: We benchmark 2 years of fatal shooting data on 16 crime rate estimates. When adjusting for crime, we find no systematic evidence of anti-Black disparities in fatal shootings, fatal shootings of unarmed citizens, or fatal shootings involving misidentification of harmless objects. Multiverse analyses showed only one significant anti-Black disparity of 144 possible tests. Exposure to police given crime rate differences likely accounts for the higher per capita rate of fatal police shootings for Blacks, at least when analyzing all shootings. For unarmed shootings or misidentification shootings, data are too uncertain to be conclusive.

20. There is widespread concern about racial disparities in fatal officer-involved shootings and that these disparities reflect discrimination by White officers. Existing databases of fatal shootings lack information about officers, and past analytic approaches have made it difficult to assess the contributions of factors like crime. We create a comprehensive database of officers involved in fatal shootings during 2015 and predict victim race from civilian, officer, and county characteristics. We find no evidence of anti-Black or anti-Hispanic disparities across shootings, and White officers are not more likely to shoot minority civilians than non-White officers. Instead, race-specific crime strongly predicts civilian race. This suggests that increasing diversity among officers by itself is unlikely to reduce racial disparity in police shootings.

21. 8:00

22. Wait… I thought a = banana, b= apple, and c= chair. What did I miss?

23. WTF this starts off well and turns into a not quite sure what, political nonesense?

24. Please never conflate racial predjudice with gang or tribe predjudice. Nobody gives a f*ck about the color of your skin. They are concerned you are involved in crime, dealing drugs, carrying arms, inciting violence etc.

25. You can find mathematical equations in nature. Such as the Golden Ratio

26. Her argument would be perfect if morality had no important role in human life.

27. Very very naive lady.

28. Mathematically, heterosexual males fight against their own interests when they fight against homosexuals and transgenders.

    Male homosexuals out numbered female homosexuals 2:1 while Male to female transgenders out numbered female to male transgenders 4:1. Therefore, if both homosexuality and transgenders are allowed to thrive. Heterosexual women will eventually and overwhelmingly outnumber heterosexual males and according to the law of supply and demand. The ease of finding heterosexual female mates will become much easier for heterosexual males. LoL

29. God bless this woman

30. 8:31 there is a ghost

31. Really enjoyed her presentation (minus the burst of ignorance and racism at approx. 32:00)

32. This is brilliant, it's like an entry-level guide to systemic critique. 10/10

33. Thankfully, not all mathematcians think like Eugenia.

34. I beg to disagree… broccoli is not delicious.

35. To all those hating on this video because of the liberal leaning political examples, consider this:

    Suppose you are a mathematician. You're an intelligent individual, so you study prime numbers and how they relate to the million dollar Riemann Hypothesis. One day, you go to a colleague's lecture, but the numbers in the examples he gives are all prime which are one less than a power of 2, which you would know as Mersenne primes. After the lecture, you go to your office, deeply disturbed. You hate Mersenne primes. You conclude that the lecture was rubbish and choose not to waste your time thinking about the techniques presented in the lecture.

    This is a ridiculous scenario, of course. But by focusing your attention on the examples which you dislike, you have missed the meat of this lecture. Many of you think the point of this talk is to "shove liberal ideology down your throat." Clearly Dr. Cheng is left leaning, but the thesis of this talk is not left-leaning.

    Instead, what Dr. Cheng demonstrates are techniques which can allow us to think more clearly about topics from everyday life. In particular, the diagrams she presented are extremely helpful for analyzing why something happens. I'm not being very specific about the techniques because they're in the video if you want to learn them. You may not agree with the examples she gave, but if you try to apply the same techniques to different examples, they will still work. They allow us to be critical of a world in which it seems that everyone is trying to manipulate us. It's important to do this to all aspects of our lives whether we are on the left, on the right, or just somewhere else.

36. Without a publication in math journals, how do you call yourself a mathematician?

37. Not everything in mathematics is equal. Some things are greater than, or less than.

38. That smell (after reading the comments)? The smell of snowflake privilege melting in the face of a strong, articulate, intelligent woman.

    Poor. You.

39. Dear Dr. Cheng I love your mind. Dr. Cheng I have had a problem with the commutative property of multiplication for 46 years when I argued my point when: A=1apple and B =0 for example, so I say yes B X A = 0, but not A X B = 0 (sorry I do not have the not equal to symbol in my keyboard) or rather A X B = C and B X A = C exept when B = 0. as you have a apple and you multiply it zero times you still have a apple. I would greatly appreciate explaining how I am wrong or hopefully agreeing with me. Thank You! anxiously awaiting your reply.

40. great communicator, is Eugenia . highly illuminating presentation, it was. Easy to imagine that thinking in this 'categorised' way would truly be a great leap forward from where we are today.

41. 37:10 "..so, these things aren't fixed."

    it appears from a number of the comments here, that some folks are not yet intelligent enough to grasp the meaning and/or connotations of that statement.

42. Interesting.

43. I am a mathematician so I very much appreciate the necessity of making assumptions when constructing mathematical models. But almost every assumption she makes in this is either not backed by statistical data or the very contrary to statistical data. Such as the statistics that show white males are more likely to be harmed/shot by police (adjusted for demographics). Or even the assumptions that something is even a problem. She is playing the frame game and using her radical assumptions to frame an argument that fits nicely in her frame of faulty assumptions. It's like making a mistake and finding that 3=7 and then teaching a lecture based on the assumption that 3=7. Either expand the logic behind the assumptions or don't talk politics in an education lecture because she is not genuine in her intentions what so ever. And I feel it is a little obvious that she knows she is close minded and deep in a liberal eco chamber because she feels the need to protest it so much. This is why you don't mix education and politics. I am downvoting this video.

44. Logic thinking, explained by a woman, is not logic.. just kidding.

45. Excellent excellent excellent thank you.

Comments are closed.