... und was mir WIRKLICH hilft!! | German Podcast | EP 5 | B1-B2

None of us lives without fear. We are afraid of many different things. Of diseases. Of darkness. Of spiders. Of failure. Or of speaking in front of a large audience. But what if I tell you that we often fear the wrong things? Yes, we are often much more afraid of things that will most likely never happen. We often underestimate events that are more dangerous. I would like to show you what I mean by an example. What are you more afraid of? Of dying because of a crime, i.e. a criminal act? Or of getting killed in a house accident? If you are more afraid of a crime, you are not alone. Most people are much more afraid of a deadly crime than of losing their lives in a house accident. But the probability of dying in a house accident is actually much higher. In the year 2023, 16,388 people died in accidents in Germany, while at the same time only 214 people died in a crime. That is an almost 80 times lower probability. Let me ask you another question. Which animals are you most afraid of? Sharks, dogs or mosquitos? Many of you who have seen the film The White Shark may have just spontaneously said sharks. But statistically speaking, only about 10 people worldwide die every year from sharks, while dogs are already responsible for around 25,000 deaths. A much higher number. And now it comes. About 725,000 people die every year from a mosquito bite. Thus, the tiny mosquito is statistically the most dangerous animal for us humans. So why do we often estimate dangers completely wrong and are afraid of things that are statistically extremely unlikely? This definitely has something to do with our emotions, but also with our thinking. From the book Fast Thinking, Slow Thinking by Daniel Kahneman, I have learned that we humans use two types of thinking. System 1, fast and intuitive thinking, which is rather automatic and emotional. And system 2, slow and analytical thinking, which is conscious and also exhausting. I would like to show you the difference between these two types of thinking using the following mathematical example. Solve the following problem. A racket and a ball cost 1.10 euros each. The racket is 1 euro more expensive than the ball. How much does the ball cost? If you have now said that the ball costs 10 cents, you have used your automatic fast thinking, i.e. system 1. The ball must cost 5 cents if the racket is 1 euro more expensive, i.e. 1.05 euros. In many everyday situations we use system 1, fast thinking, because on the one hand we don't have enough time to think thoroughly or to research, and on the other hand because it is generally more convenient. This means that our judgments and decisions are often based on spontaneous thoughts and feelings, while logical and careful thinking play a smaller role. When thinking fast, we often resort to unconscious rules of thumb to simplify the thinking process. A rule of thumb is a very simple and general rule that should help us in as many situations as possible. So we use abbreviations to get to the goal faster when thinking. Unfortunately, these abbreviations often lead to erroneous results. A rule of thumb that we often use unconsciously when thinking fast is the following assumption. When I come up with many examples of an event, this event often happens in reality. We can call this the memory trap. What does this mean for our examples, i.e. household accidents and mosquitoes? Each of us keeps hearing about people who have been killed by crimes. The media like to report on when such bad things happen, because it attracts attention. Therefore, we usually come across many examples of people who have lost their lives due to crimes. We have probably only rarely or never heard that someone died in the household, although it happens much more often. But it is not spectacular enough to be reported. Consequently, we think that people in reality die more often due to crimes than due to accidents at home. My assumption is falsified by the memory trap. I estimate the probability of these two dangers incorrectly, because I spontaneously come up with more examples of one danger. But usually, when I use fast thinking, I am not aware that I only know more examples because almost every murder is reported in the media, while household accidents are almost never mentioned. If a person dies from a shark, I read about it in the media, because it is spectacular and sells well. But I probably do not know examples of people who died of diseases transmitted by mosquitos. During the research for this video, I came across another interesting mistake, which we often make when thinking. It has something to do with stereotypes. We have a certain idea of what a typical example or a typical representative of a group looks like. What do we first think of when we imagine a dangerous animal? Probably a big, strong animal with sharp teeth and an aggressive behavior, as it is typically depicted in films or books. Mosquitoes, on the other hand, are rarely seen as a typical example of a dangerous animal. Our idea of ​​a typical dangerous animal also influences and distorts our perception of danger. Another unconscious pattern that we use in fast thinking is the illusion of control. What does illusion of control mean? When we think that we can control a situation ourselves, i.e. have this situation under control, we often estimate the risk much less. Most people, for example, estimate driving a car as less risky than traveling by plane. In reality, this is a misjudgment, because 1.3 million people worldwide die in car accidents every year, while on average less than 200 people die in a plane crash every year. The feeling of control while driving a car makes us take the risks of driving a car less seriously, although the numbers clearly show that it is far more dangerous than flying. Since we are driving ourselves, we tend to be optimistic that we have control over the situation. The illusion of control also plays a role in household accidents. We believe that we have control over our actions in our own home, which means that we underestimate the dangers associated with it. Fast thinking with all the abbreviations I have just presented also has a meaning and a function for us humans. When we encounter a real danger, such as a lion or a danger on the street, we have to react automatically and quickly. We need system 1, because in such moments there is no time to think or research. However, if we are afraid of something that is actually harmless, such as flying, our quality of life often suffers. In such cases, it is important to question the results of our fast thinking. But how do we do that? What concrete steps can we take to assess risks more rationally and realistically? One habit that helps me a lot and that I consciously train is the following. I first try to form a firm opinion on a topic when I have collected sufficient information. In other words, I try not to judge too quickly. This can be challenging at times, but it is really worth it. In everyday life, this often means the phrase I do not know how to think or express myself, because I do not yet have a founded opinion. When I do this thought exercise, I activate my system 2, my slow thinking. Suddenly, questions and doubts about widespread views come to my mind. I can think of an everyday example. I have repeatedly heard in my environment and in the media that fat in nutrition is unhealthy. The less fat you consume, the better it is, supposedly. Fat would lead to overweight and cause heart disease. For a while I thought, if so many say that, it will probably be true. I then also bought all these fat-poor foods, milk with only 1.5% fat or yogurt with almost no fat. But then I asked myself how I can really be sure that fats are as bad as they are often claimed to be. My doubts led me to do more detailed research. I was looking for evidence for and against the harmful effects of fat. I had to ask myself again and again which sources of information I could trust, which was probably the most difficult part. The image that emerged from my search was surprising and much more differentiated than the general opinion. I realized that fats are not bad, but that there are also healthy and vital fats. Our body needs them to absorb vitamins. I also found out that the American food industry massively spread the view in the 1960s and 1970s that fats are bad to market fat-poor products. A conscious manipulation of the public opinion. For this I did a self-experiment. I ate a lot of healthy fat for several months and left out carbohydrates such as pasta or bread. The result surprised me. I lost a lot of weight and some of the health problems I had suddenly disappeared. This and other examples have made me realize the importance of slow thinking. We can get closer to reality. It is worth waiting with your own judgment until you have collected enough information. To look at questions from different perspectives. To research thoroughly. To check the credibility of sources. And to trust my senses. All this has helped me to face things a little more realistically and with less fear. Let's take a look at the most interesting and important vocabularies of the podcast. To underestimate something. Something for less important or less dangerous or less well-kept than it really is. Events that are really dangerous are often underestimated. By the feeling of our own control we often underestimate the dangers in the household. The crime. A criminal act that violates the law. Are you more afraid of dying from a crime or an accident in the house? The probability. A number that shows how big the chance is that a certain event will occur. The probability of dying at home in an accident is actually much higher. To die from the consequences of something. To die from the effects or consequences of something. About 725,000 people die every year from the consequences of a mosquito bite. Statistically. Based on numbers and data, i.e. so-called statistics. Thus, the tiny mosquito is statistically the most dangerous animal for us humans. To underestimate something. To misjudge the meaning or risk of something. Why do we often underestimate dangers and are afraid of things that are statistically extremely unlikely? The assessment. The assessment of a thing, the opinion about something. My assessment of a danger is falsified by the memory trap. The misjudgment. A wrong or inaccurate assessment of something. Most people estimate driving a car as less risky than traveling by plane. In reality, this is a misjudgment. On average. If you add everything up and then divide it to find the average value. Every year, 1.3 million people die in car accidents worldwide. While on average, less than 200 people die in a plane crash every year. Intuitively. On the basis of a feeling. Not by thinking. System 1 stands for fast and intuitive thinking. Which is rather automatic and emotional. Reaching back on something. Using or applying something to solve a problem. In fast thinking, we often resort to unconscious rules of thumb. To simplify the thinking process. The shortcut. A shorter way or a faster method to reach a goal. So we use shortcuts to get to the goal faster while thinking. But unfortunately, these shortcuts often lead to erroneous results. Falling for someone. An idea or thought suddenly comes to mind. I think, when I think of many examples of an event, this event often happens in reality. Spectacular. Especially impressive or exciting. An accident in the household is not spectacular enough to be reported. The stereotype. A fixed image or a fixed idea about a group of people. Which is not necessarily true. When researching this video, I came across another interesting thought error. This error has something to do with stereotypes. Distorting perception. Distorting. Changing the way we see or understand something so that it becomes false. Our idea of a typical dangerous animal also influences and distorts our perception of danger. The illusion. Something that one imagines but is not real. Another unconscious thought pattern that we use in fast thinking is the illusion of control. Tending to something. Having a certain tendency to do something often. Since we are sitting in the car at the wheel ourselves, we tend to the optimistic assumption that we have control over the situation. Question something. Check something carefully to find out the truth. It is important to question the results of our fast thinking. The evidence. A proof or confirmation of something. I was looking for evidence for as well as against the harmful effect of fat. The credibility. The reliability or credibility of something or someone. To look at questions from different perspectives and to check the credibility of sources. That helped me to face things a little more realistically and with less fear. Now listen to the whole podcast again without subtitles. This way you can greatly improve your vocabulary and your view of the details. So, let's go! None of us lives without fear. We are afraid of many different things. Of diseases. Of darkness. Of spiders. Of failure. Or of speaking in front of a large audience. But what if I tell you that we often fear the wrong things? Yes, we are often much more afraid of things that will probably never happen. However, we often underestimate events that are more dangerous. I would like to show you what I mean by an example. What are you more afraid of? To die from a crime, i.e. a criminal act? Or to die in a house accident? If you are more afraid of the crime, you are not alone. Most people are much more afraid of a deadly crime than of losing their lives in a household accident. But the probability of dying in a household accident is actually much higher. In the year 2023, 16,388 people died in accidents at home in Germany, while at the same time only 214 people died in a crime. That is an almost 80 times lower probability. Let me ask you another question. Which animals do you consider the greatest danger? Sharks? Dogs? Or mosquitos? Many of you who have seen the film The White Shark may have just spontaneously said sharks. But statistically speaking, only about 10 people per year die from sharks worldwide, while dogs are already responsible for around 25,000 deaths. A much higher number. And now it comes. About 725,000 people die every year as a result of a mosquito bite. Thus, the tiny mosquito is statistically the most dangerous animal for us humans. So why do we often estimate dangers completely wrong and are afraid of things that are statistically extremely unlikely? This definitely has something to do with our emotions, but also with our thinking. From the book Fast Thinking, Slow Thinking by Daniel Kahneman, I have learned that we humans use two types of thinking. System 1, fast and intuitive thinking, which is rather automatic and emotional. And System 2, slow and analytical thinking, which is conscious and also exhausting. I would like to show you the difference between these two types of thinking using the following mathematical example. Solve the following problem. A racket and a ball cost 1.10 euros each. The racket is 1 euro more expensive than the ball. How much does the ball cost? If you have now said that the ball costs 10 cents, you have used your automatic fast thinking, i.e. System 1. The ball must cost 5 cents if the racket is 1 euro more expensive, i.e. 1.05 euros. In many everyday situations we use System 1, fast thinking, because on the one hand we do not have enough time to think thoroughly or to research, and on the other hand because it is generally more convenient. This means that our judgments and decisions are often based on spontaneous thoughts and feelings, while logical and careful thinking play a smaller role. When thinking fast, we often resort to unconscious rules of thumb to simplify the thinking process. A rule of thumb is a very simple and general rule that should help us in as many situations as possible. So we use abbreviations to get to the goal faster when thinking. Unfortunately, these abbreviations often lead to erroneous results. A rule of thumb that we often use unconsciously when thinking fast is the following assumption. When I come up with many examples of an event, this event often happens in reality. We can call this the memory trap. What does this mean for our examples, i.e. household accidents and mosquitoes? Each of us keeps hearing about people who have been killed by crimes. The media like to report on such bad things, because it draws attention. Therefore, we usually come across many examples of people who have lost their lives due to crimes. We have probably only rarely or never heard that someone died in the household, although it happens much more often. But it is not spectacular enough to be reported. Consequently, we think that people in reality die more often due to crimes than due to accidents at home. My assessment is distorted by the memory trap. I misjudge the probability of these two dangers, because I spontaneously come up with more examples of one danger. But usually, when I use fast thinking, I am not aware that I only know more examples because almost every murder is reported in the media, while household accidents are almost never mentioned. If a person dies somewhere due to a shark, I read about it in the media, because it is spectacular and sells well. But I probably don't know examples of people who died of diseases transmitted by mosquitos. During the research for this video, I came across another interesting mistake that we often make when thinking. It has something to do with stereotypes. We have a certain idea of what a typical example or typical representative of a group looks like. What do we first think of when we imagine a dangerous animal? Probably a big, strong animal with sharp teeth and an aggressive behavior, as it is typically depicted in films or books. Mosquitoes, on the other hand, are rarely seen as a typical example of a dangerous animal. Our idea of a typical dangerous animal also influences and distorts our perception of danger. Another unconscious pattern that we use in fast thinking is the illusion of control. What does illusion of control mean? When we think that we can control a situation ourselves, i.e. have this situation under control, we often estimate the risk much less. Most people, for example, estimate driving a car as less risky than traveling by plane. In reality, this is a misjudgment, because 1.3 million people worldwide die in car accidents every year, while on average less than 200 people die in a plane crash every year. The feeling of control while driving a car makes us take the risks of driving a car less seriously, although the numbers clearly show that it is far more dangerous than flying. Since we ourselves are at the helm, we tend to be optimistic that we have control over the situation. The illusion of control also plays a role in household accidents. We believe that we have control over our actions in our own home, which means that we underestimate the dangers associated with it. Fast thinking, with all the abbreviations I have just presented to you, of course also has a meaning and function for us humans. When we encounter a real danger, such as a lion or a danger on the street, we have to react automatically and quickly. We need system 1, because in such moments there is no time to think or research. However, if we are afraid of something that is actually harmless, such as flying, our quality of life often suffers. In such cases, it is important to question the results of our fast thinking. But how do we do that? What concrete steps can we take to assess risks more rationally and realistically? One habit that helps me a lot and that I consciously train is the following. I first try to form a firm opinion on a topic when I have gathered sufficient information. In other words, I try not to judge too quickly. This can be challenging at times, but it is really worth it. In everyday life, this often means the sentence for me, I do not know how to think or express myself because I do not yet have a founded opinion. When I do this thoughtful exercise, I activate my system 2, my slow thinking. Suddenly, questions and doubts about widespread views come to my mind. An everyday example comes to mind. I have repeatedly heard in my environment and in the media that fat in nutrition is unhealthy. The less fat you consume, the better, supposedly. Fat would lead to overweight and cause heart disease. For a while I thought, if so many say that, it will probably be true. I then bought all these fat-free foods, milk with only 1.5% fat or yogurt with almost no fat. But then I asked myself how I can really be sure that fats are as bad as often claimed. My doubts led me to do more detailed research. I was looking for evidence for and against the harmful effects of fat. I had to ask myself again and again which sources of information I could trust, which was probably the most difficult part. The picture that emerged from my search was surprising and much more differentiated than the general opinion. I realized that fats are not bad, but that there are also healthy and vital fats. Our body needs them to absorb vitamins. I also found out that the American food industry in the 1960s and 1970s massively spread the view that fats were bad to market fat-free products. A conscious manipulation of the public opinion. To this end, I did a self-experiment. I ate a lot of healthy fat for several months and left out carbohydrates such as pasta or bread. The result surprised me. I lost a lot of weight and some of the health problems I had suddenly disappeared. This and other examples have made me realize the importance of slow thinking. We can get closer to reality. It is worth waiting with your own judgment until you have collected sufficient information, to look at questions from different perspectives, to research thoroughly, to check the credibility of sources and to trust my senses. All this has helped me to encounter things a little more realistically and with less fear.