How to think like an expert | Maria Konnikova

Poker pro Maria Konnikova on mastering the science of deduction.

Maria Konnikova learned how to play poker for the simple purpose of research for her book, The Biggest Bluff. Then she became an accidental poker champion, winning over $300,000 in tournament earnings.

In this video, Konnikova examines the methods and techniques used by the fictional detective Sherlock Holmes, and how they can be used to improve one's own ability to think critically.

Through the “scientific method of mind” we can master the art of deduction, optimize our mental resources, and think like a detective.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

❍ About The Well ❍

Do we inhabit a multiverse? Do we have free will? What is love? Is evolution directional? There are no simple answers to life’s biggest questions, and that’s why they’re the questions occupying the world’s brightest minds.

So what do they think?

How is the power of science advancing understanding? How are philosophers and theologians tackling these fascinating questions?

Let’s dive into The Well.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Join The Well on your favorite platforms:

[LionElAtonArt]

This video is fantastic. Brilliantly explained.

[strikeback]

So impressed with her book on this subject - Sherlock Holmes is timeless. And even more impressed with the depth of knowledge she conveys in five minutes.

[arlenehutchinson]

The science of deduction added to selective attention. I believe the most profound clue to his genius was when Watson asked him certain questions politics and science and he said WHAT IS THE POINT (paraphrase) as he only has so much filing space he must be careful to take on only what is useful... understanding that should he need that information it is readily available indeed he could ask someone on the street for it. That was his true genius IMHO

[philipmitchell]

Take confidence Maria. You nailed this

[nikolayboyadzhiev]

This video sounds very inspirational. I hope that she is right about these things. As to what is my goal - I would like to improve my brain and my skills, so at some point I can say that I am a little bit smart.

[mellow-jello]

Thanks for reminding me being up that Doyle picks up Holmes well in his slouth career, age 30s/40s, when he has established his own knowledge base, and refined his methods, which is why he cracks all his cases.

[zaidsada]

Why doesn’t this video have more views?

[jonr]

I feel a Harvard grad (?) who wins at pro poker is the REAL player using multiple skill dimensions including intensive memory, maths and psychology plus a rabid ambition to win...

Whereas Sherlock's crime-solving is just a trick of the author (knowing the outcome and revealing facts as the story unfolds).

Real deduction is probability and especially demographics and statistics employing Bayes theorem and the elimination of sentiment. Of course a poker player lives by statistics, strange that she didn't even mention it... Or maybe that was a bluff??

[DrFranklynAnderson]

There must have been some factor in Holmes’ genetics or upbringing that gave him a talent for deduction. He himself said the only person better at it than him was his brother Mycroft. 🤓

[davidfunk]

If conciousness is energy then can't it be transferred purposely before the point of death.

[MrYoTambor]

Holmes have also a part what people with asperger also have . No feelings but facts.

[botodin]

Lmao she looks like the babysitter in *The Incredibles*

[mikeyates]

When he was young , Sherlock Holmes thought like , Watson - and then he turned 7

[MrMalorian]

Would have been more convincing if she didn't tell us to think like a fictional character.

Had she just talked about a mental attic and starting with the end in mind I feel it would come across better.

[bxp]

It sounds like you are about to sneeze everytime you speak

[SecretEyeSpot]

This presents a false pretext for how perceptivity of human behavior works. All the aspects generally unconscious to us that are fundamental to seeing others as they are rather than just through a prejudicial filter are missing.

Like for example when we're not granted givens to assume about another from the situation in which we've met an individual the biases that generally constitutes our comfort or discomfort with breaking the ice or reciprocating conversation must be first acknowledged to respond with intention.

All of the Sherlock example could be argued to merely be coincidence from being on a well-funded and publicly trusted Police department. Whereas reading another takes empathy and circumventing bias that can slant how we interpret the responses of others

[Snouser]

I mean regardless of your independent observations there is always a variance u are just wrong. I.e dude played flop like this, previous observations tell me hes not a fish, thus hes in this range...where perhaps dude is not necessarily a fish but just simply thinking about the game last night

[oscarcastellanos]

So when do I call an all in when holding pocket 5's?

[robot]

You do realise Holmes is a fictional character?