Best 22 quotes of Leonard Mlodinow on MyQuotes

A failure doesn't mean you are unworthy, nor does it preclude success on the next try.

Listeners instinctively detect that when we lower the usual pitch of our voice, we are sad, and when we raise it, we are angry or fearful.

Nonverbal communication forms a social language that is in many ways richer and more fundamental than our words.

Our inner weighing of evidence is not a careful mathematical calculation resulting in a probabilistic estimate of truth, but more like a whirlpool blending of the objective and the personal. The result is a set of beliefs - both conscious and unconscious - that guide us in interpreting all the events of our lives.

Social rejection doesn't just cause emotional pain; it affects our physical being.

Regression toward the mean. That is, in any series of random events an extraordinary event is most likely to be followed, due purely to chance, by a more ordinary one.

Research suggests when it comes to understanding our feelings, we humans have an odd mix of low ability and high confidence.

Says Bargh: "We all hold dear idea that we´re the captain of our own sould, and we´re in charge, and it´s a very scary feeling when we are not. In fact, that´s what psychosis is - the feeling of detachment from reality and that you are not in control, and that´s a very frightening feeling for anyone.

Science has revealed a universe that is vast, ancient, violent, strange, and beautiful, a universe of almost infinite variety and possibility one in which time can end in a black hole, and conscious beings can evolve from a soup of minerals.

Subliminal is about how we misinterpret our behavior because were unaware of what our unconscious minds are doing.

That's why successful people in every field are almost universally members of a certain set - the set of people who don't give up.

We also use our imagination and take shortcuts to fill gaps in patterns of nonvisual data. As with visual input, we draw conclusions and make judgments based on uncertain and incomplete information, and we conclude, when we are done analyzing the patterns, that out picture is clear and accurate. But is it?

We believe that when we choose anything, judge a stranger and even fall in love, we understand the principal factors that influenced us. Very often nothing could be further from the truth. As a result, many of our most basic assumptions about ourselves, and society, are false.

We judge people and initiatives by their results, and we expect events to happen for good, understandable reason. But our clear visions of inevitability are often only illusions.

What I've learned, above all, is to keep marching forward because the best news is that since chance does play a role, one important factor in success is under our control: the number of at bats, the number of chances taken, the number of opportunities seized.

When we are in the grasp of illusion - or, for that matter, whenever we have a new idea - instead of searching for ways to prove our ideas wrong, we usually attempt to prove them correct. Psychologists call this the confirmation bias, and it presents a major impediment of our ability to break free from the misinterpretation of randomness.

Another mistaken notion connected with the law of large numbers is the idea that an event is more or less likely to occur because it has or has not happened recently. The idea that the odds of an event with a fixed probability increase or decrease depending on recent occurrences of the event is called the gambler's fallacy. For example, if Kerrich landed, say, 44 heads in the first 100 tosses, the coin would not develop a bias towards the tails in order to catch up! That's what is at the root of such ideas as "her luck has run out" and "He is due." That does not happen. For what it's worth, a good streak doesn't jinx you, and a bad one, unfortunately , does not mean better luck is in store.

Dar, oricât de departe am ajuns, e aproape sigur greşit să ne închipuim că suntem aproape de răspunsul final. A gândi astfel este o greşeală recurentă de-a lungul istoriei. În Antichitate, babilonienii erau siguri că Pământul a fost creat din cadavrul zeiţei mării, Tiamat. Mii de ani mai târziu, după ce grecii au făcut progrese incredibile în înţelegerea naturii, mulţi erau la fel de convinşi că toate obiectele din lumea terestră sunt alcătuite dintr-o combinaţie de pământ, aer, foc şi apă. După alte două milenii, newtonienii credeau că tot ce s-a întâmplat sau se va întâmpla, de la mişcările atomilor până la orbitele planetelor, poate fi în principiu explicat şi prezis folosind legile mişcării ale lui Newton. Toate acestea au fost convingeri susţinute cu fervoare, şi toate au fost greşite.

Fewer than eight hundred Americans earn a Ph.D. in physics each year. Worldwide, the number is probably in the thousands. And yet from this small pool comes the discovery and innovation that shapes the way we live and think. From X-rays, lasers, radio waves, transistors, atomic energy—and atomic weapons—to our view of space and time, and the nature of the universe, all this has arisen from this dedicated pool of individuals. To be a physicist is to have an enormous potential to change the world.

I have stressed this distinction because it is an important one. It defines the fundamental difference between probability and statistics: the former concerns predictions based on fixed probabilities; the latter concerns the inference of those probabilities based on observed data.

Perception requires imagination because the data people encounter in their lives are never complete and always equivocal. For example, most people consider that the greatest evidence of an event one can obtain is to see it with their own eyes, and in a court of law little is held in more esteem than eyewitness testimony. Yet if you asked to display for a court a video of the same quality as the unprocessed data catptured on the retina of a human eye, the judge might wonder what you were tryig to put over. For one thing, the view will have a blind spot where the optic nerve attaches to the retina. Moreover, the only part of our field of vision with good resolution is a narrow area of about 1 degree of visual angle around the retina’s center, an area the width of our thumb as it looks when held at arm’s length. Outside that region, resolution drops off sharply. To compensate, we constantly move our eyes to bring the sharper region to bear on different portions of the scene we wish to observe. And so the pattern of raw data sent to the brain is a shaky, badly pixilated picture with a hole in it. Fortunately the brain processes the data, combining input from both eyes, filling in gaps on the assumption that the visual properties of neighboring locations are similar and interpolating. The result - at least until age, injury, disease, or an excess of mai tais takes its toll - is a happy human being suffering from the compelling illusion that his or her vision is sharp and clear. We also use our imagination and take shortcuts to fill gaps in patterns of nonvisual data. As with visual input, we draw conclusions and make judgments based on uncertain and incomplete information, and we conclude, when we are done analyzing the patterns, that out “picture” is clear and accurate. But is it?

Tatăl meu mi-a povestit odată de un tovarăş de detenţie emaciat, din lagărul de concentrare de la Buchenwald, care era de formaţie matematician. Poţi spune unele lucruri despre oameni după ceea ce le vine în minte când aud cuvântul "pi". Pentru un "matematician", "pi" reprezintă raportul dintre circumferinţa şi diametrul unui cerc. Dacă l-aş fi întrebat pe tatăl meu, care avea doar şapte clase, ar fi spus că "pi" este o plăcintă rotundă, cu mere. Într-o zi, în pofida discrepanţei dintre ei, deţinutul matematician i-a dat tatălui meu să rezolve o enigmă matematică. Tatăl meu s-a gândit la ea timp de câteva zile, dar nu a reuşit să-i dea de capăt. Când s-a întâlnit din nou cu matematicianul, i-a cerut soluţia. Omul nu a vrut să i-o dea, zicându-i că trebuie s-o găsească el însuşi. După câtva timp, tatăl meu l-a rugat din nou, dar omul ţinea la secretul său ca la ochii din cap. Tatăl meu a încercat să-şi ignore curiozitatea, dar nu a putut. Înconjurat de duhoare şi moarte, el a făcut o obsesie pentru cunoaşterea răspunsului. Până la urmă, celălalt deţinut i-a propus un târg - el îi va dezvălui soluţia enigmei în schimbul colţului lui de pâine. Nu ştiu ce greutate avea tatăl meu atunci, dar când trupele americane au eliberat lagărul, el cântărea 38 de kilograme. Cu toate acestea, dorinţa lui de a şti a fost atât de puternică, încât a renunţat la pâine în schimbul răspunsului. Aveam aproapre douăzeci de ani când tatăl meu mi-a povestit episodul acesta, care a avut un impact enorm asupra mea. Familia tatălui meu pierise, bunurile îi fuseseră confiscate, el însuşi era înfometat, emaciat şi bătut. Naziştii îl despuiaseră de tot ce era palpabil, şi totuşi imboldul lui de a gândi, de a raţiona şi de a cunoaşte supravieţuise. Deşi era întemniţat, mintea îi era liberă să cutreiere, şi aşa a şi făcut. Am înţeles atunci că a căuta cunoaşterea este cea mai omenească dintre toate dorinţele şi că, oricât de diferite ar fi circumstanţele noastre, pasiunea mea de a înţelege lumea a fost stimulată de acelaşi instinct ca şi a tatălui meu.