georg wachberger

Vienna, Wien, Austria

Someone is shy

Georg hasn't completed a profile. Should we look for some other people?

Comments & conversations

110702
georg wachberger
Posted over 3 years ago
Paul Gilding: The Earth is full
dear paul, i wonder if you share this thought. at the centre of the change will be new media. we need credible, highly professional media which covers the big issues. in a way TED.com already is such a media. as did conservative america invent FOX news, we have to invent TED news or something alike, which simply does more (actually much more) than it already does. and as america invented hollywood to broadcast the idea and story of ... well: "america", we need a new hollywood that puts forward the idea of sustainability. and it better does so in a way that can visually and creatively compete with what exists today. i would love to have media that cover interesting things on a daily basis. a combination of kickstarter, TED and some others ... i'd like to have "good news" for breakfast. thnx for the talk g
110702
georg wachberger
Posted about 4 years ago
TED fund
actually i would think that such fund already exists, i mean given the size and standing of TED; and there is definitely no lack of expertise or connectivity either. it should be a fund though that can be accessed with a few thousand dollars. i do not know if few hundred would be feasible but if minimum investment was fifty thousand it is uninteresting. at least i could not afford it.
110702
georg wachberger
Posted about 6 years ago
Dan Ariely: Are we in control of our own decisions?
to me nature is perfectly rationale. from a bigger perspective natural selection is a perfectly rationale process to adapt to any kind of situation. my definition of rationality seems to be different. to me the perspective, the landscape i am talking about, is the important issue. again the chess player, giving up a pawn is waste in itself, overall it wins the game. irrational on pawn level, rationale on game level. same in nature. the single mutation is random, thus not rationale (which is btw maybe not the same as irrational). but from perspective of evolution (wider landscape) the method is perfectly rationale.
110702
georg wachberger
Posted about 6 years ago
Dan Ariely: Are we in control of our own decisions?
i would not think the two color example is proving irrationality. look at a wider context. our brain is wired in a way that we immediately put our surrounding literally "into perspective". just imagine if you had to ask yourself for each line out there right now if it is part of a perspective picture or not. throughout our evolution our brain was hardly ever confronted with cases where the question whether the two colors are "truly" the same color was necessary to our survival. but there are thousands of cases where detecting perspective, meaning 3d objects, immediately was of immense importance. now is it rationale from my brain to immediately detect the shadow and consequently give the two colors different meaning? well, maybe we are just sacrificing a pawn here to win the game ... do not get me wrong. i do not intend to play nasty contrarian here, but i do believe that we have to be careful with some wording if such wording is loaded with tons of ... meaning.
110702
georg wachberger
Posted about 6 years ago
Dan Ariely: Are we in control of our own decisions?
dear guido, i believe "rationality" is hard to define. i tend to believe what seems rationale and what not depends on how far out one looks. for example, take a chess player. sacrificing a pawn is an immediate loss and in the context of just looking to the next move it is clearly irrational. yet it is quite obvious to most of us that such pawn sacrifice can be quite rationale. same for the suicide bomber. these people believe basically two things: dying this way will make their personal existence better by transporting them straight to heaven. and second they believe that it is the only way to help their fellows, since all other means are useless. unfortunately that is perfectly rationale. we might contradict with initial assumptions, but from there on everything is ... well, rationale. this is the problem in palestine. once people are so desperate, you cannot win any longer. especially in times where dangerous weapons become easier and easier obtainable.
110702
georg wachberger
Posted about 6 years ago
Dan Ariely: Are we in control of our own decisions?
the reason for me writing the previous posts: i believe human beings are very rationale. it is just often not clear how complex a situation is. most suicide bombers are perfectly rationale, as well as their mothers cheering them in the effort. ... as long as we do not dig deep enough to see such rationality and label things irrational, we (in my eyes) tend to close out parts of reality.
110702
georg wachberger
Posted about 6 years ago
Dan Ariely: Are we in control of our own decisions?
regarding the visual illusion of the red bar with the same length and the brown square in light and in shade, i would not use the term irrational. our eye and brain give us the perfect answer in both cases. in fact it does NOT get fooled by the trick. here is my argument: our brain is best prepared for our environment and our perception immediately detects perspective. and it does that fast, not second guessing. under almost all circumstances our brain's answer about the length is absolutely right. only when someone tries to fool us, it is not. all cases we face otherwise we solve perfectly correct. the lengths ARE different. just think about how your life would be if that perception of perspective would not kick in immediately without second guessing. we would most likely have not survived as a species. and to hardwire it in was very rationale by nature ... the question is not: "are the two lengths equal?" but: "is this a useful question to test our perception's rationality?"