The Four Most Dangerous Words? A New Study Shows | Laura Arnold | TEDxPennsylvaniaAvenue

  • Опубликовано: 30 май 2017
  • Laura Arnold, co-chair of the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, describes how junk science is harming all of us, personally and as a society, and offers ideas for how philanthropists and policymakers can incorporate rigorous research into efforts to solve pressing problems.
    This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at

Комментарии • 459

  • Mariah  Coverston
    Mariah Coverston 7 дней назад

    This lady has jacked up her face. It's difficult to look at her let alone pay any attention to her talk. I always think they had to look better before the "I know, let's make me look like a plastic lizard procedure".

  • Sibyl Saint
    Sibyl Saint 9 дней назад

    Power posing works wonders. I'm kinda pissed now. It has actually saved my life.

  • MintyBitesBack
    MintyBitesBack 24 дня назад

    As an academic, I agree with some of what is being said, we are under a lot of pressure to perform, but, the point of journals are they should be held accountable for their content. If the methodology is flawed then the journal should be withdrawn. Your ideology of academic truth however, is really very narrow and you don't split between natural science (positivistic) and social (interpretive (more or less)). To just dub the research community in search of a single truth which arguably doesn't exist in all cases is a very weak and dismissive point of view of what valid data is or can be. To add to this, you have massively oversimplified how academics can/will/could work together and seem to think that a unified system of can function in line with Government(s)which are arguably the most inefficient bodies in existence is grasping at ideological fabrications. We don't live in an ideal world, this video seems to be underpinned that idealism is actually possible.Anyway - better go and make some more stuff up to get published... :-D

  • Abhishek Kumre
    Abhishek Kumre 2 месяца назад

    1.Wife😂2.war 3 aur 4tha bhul gya

  • Alexandru Popescu
    Alexandru Popescu 3 месяца назад

    1. I don't understand her 1st sentence. Is it, "My husband, John and I [the 3 of us] are philanthropists" or is it "My husband, John, and I [the 2 of us] are philanthropists"? Who is John and how many husbands does she have? If John is her only husband, then why didn't she say, "John and I are philanthropists" or "My husband and I are philanthropists"? Has she recently remarried and her current husband is John? So, her sentence translates to, "My husband, John - not to be confused with my ex-husband Joe - and I are philanthropists."

  • Telum Atramenti
    Telum Atramenti 3 месяца назад

    Something is broken... yes... Something is broken in your ability to gauge validity and reliability of research findings based on methodology, sample size, techniques, etc. I am not saying policymakers are any better at this. But the very researchers she is ragging on have actually pointed out in their very studies that the conclusions they reached are tentative, specifically BECAUSE of sample size, techniques available, methodology, etc. etc. Then comes the popular magazine, and cherry picks the studies to create a catchy article, without any consideration as to HOW STRONG the evidence actually is. And yes, not all evidence is considered the same, there is a scale of how strong the evidence is based on sample size, techniques, how often the study was replicated with the same results and so on. So instead of blaming researchers, and science in general - take an introductory course in Research Methods, learn how to evaluate the strength of evidence, and read PEER REVIEWED STUDIES IN JOURNALS rather than articles in popular magazines (like the Scientific American). It is hardly surprising that you could cherry pick a bunch of studies which are either single case studies or studies with sample sizes of 30-40 individuals and no double blind or randomization and find that half of them do not provide reliable conclusions. Next time, - do the same with studies that had a large sample size, double blind and randomization and see if you find the same unreliable results. It is rather obvious that you won't, but that will not make a great sensationalist headline for your presentation. Gee... science is effective. Science was correct, yet again... Science allows us to do things our ancestors considered impossible, like curing illnesses which killed half the humans that ever lived. I have a proposal for you. When you get cancer, - instead of trusting the scientific findings, - just abandon the standard treatment and go with a folk healer's "method" and we'll all see if you outlast the folks who instead chose to rely on science. But hey, you are just not going to do this, even if we paid you millions, precisely because you know that SCIENCE IS SUPERIOR and FAR MORE RELIABLE than anything we hitherto had! End of story.

  • Ab Guilford
    Ab Guilford 4 месяца назад

    The problem with power posing is it is intimating to others. First, you have to feel good about yourself; it called confidence. How do you feel about yourself? It is easy - no money involved.

  • Cameron Vadnais
    Cameron Vadnais 4 месяца назад

    What a clever title for the video.

  • leojun2
    leojun2 4 месяца назад

    Yes, the issue is there, scientific research is far from perfect, especially since 'publish or perish' is still the norm in many places.
    However, the talk could have been delivered in a much, much better way. There was absolutely no need to attack a researcher. There was no need to mention names, show photos, and most importantly, no need to mock the intervention (power posing) regardless of its effectiveness (or lack of).
    Randomized controlled trials really are gold-standard to test efficacy, but also have many limitations, especially in healthcare. Different study designs are needed because they complement each other (as long as they are methodologically correct).
    Also, she claims that researchers are selectively reporting only statistically significant results, but then criticizes when most of the assessed studies reported 'weak' or no positive effects? If every researcher was 'scientifically honest' and published transparent results (which would be good), there would be a lot of non significant results. This is because they cannot tell beforehand if a intervention is going to work; they need to test it first. And then publish the results, positive or negative.

  • Zombie Rhythm
    Zombie Rhythm 5 месяцев назад

    Power posing is one of the greatest tools we can use to improve our lives. I think every dancer and method's actor knew that before Amy Cuddy's video. No matter what the studies say, every day say a different thing. everyone has to feel and notice for themselves. You have to try and find yourself. In my experience, is a fantastic tool. One of the best.
    I don't really know why it works, if is the hormone levels or another thing, what I know is that science don't design nature's laws, only try to understand them and explaine them. So if the hormones aren't the reason, let give time to science to catch up
    But the important thing about this video is another issue. Amy Cuddy really wants to help people and try, honestly, and her passion and emotions moved millions of us. If she is right or wrong is not important because every researcher and scientist in the world are wrong at some point and only through constancy and perseverance hi/her achieve some positive goals.
    Laura Arnold don't come to the stage and say "look, a college of us, a researcher and professor, etc, gave some information that in my opinion is incorrect and I'm going to explain my points here so you can confront the information and decide for yourself what line of thinking is most plausible to be true". Laura Arnold came to stage an attack not only the research of Amy Cuddy but Amy Cuddy's persona directly.
    What I felt watching the 4 minutes of video that I could bear to watch are that Laura Arnold is not interested or motivated to help people, to improves peoples life, her interest is, in my opinion, are fame, exposure, and attention. My feeling is that she is jealous. Her emotions are true too, but they are very different from Amy's emotions.
    That's why I watch Amy Cuddy's video like 5 or 6 times to the date, and I can't bare more than 4 minutes of Laura Arnold video.
    To Laura Arnold: If you happen to read this critique, don't take it harsh, mine is only one opinion and I do not have to be right. I only express what I felt. Dismiss it if you think I'm wrong or use it to improve if you find some true on it. Like all criticism has to be used for.

  • Satan
    Satan 5 месяцев назад

    4 most dangerous words.
    "Will you marry me?"

  • Jeffrey Morton
    Jeffrey Morton 5 месяцев назад

    The Four Most Dangerous Words?... "Believe what I say..."

  • COOPS awright
    COOPS awright 5 месяцев назад

    I would like to show you a picture of mike hunt

  • Richard Tosh
    Richard Tosh 5 месяцев назад

    wow. Thanks.

  • Xiphane X
    Xiphane X 5 месяцев назад

    There are no birds left in your area.
    Desex them, make them a penned in sanctuary, feed them and wait for them to pass.

  • Yajuvendra Rawat
    Yajuvendra Rawat 6 месяцев назад

    Seriously where are four words other than power pose bashing nothing was there....ahhh I get it now “she is a philanthropist “

  • Elisabeth Galvan
    Elisabeth Galvan 6 месяцев назад

    Your misleading because she did not say to stand around in that posture (with arms up). Just to try it before an interview or an event that makes you nervous. The way your standing tall, with an arched back and speaking makes you feel good. Listen before you bash someone else's ted talk.

  • Rohit Goswami
    Rohit Goswami 6 месяцев назад

    Welcome God bless u take care..... You are not bound You are free to make your decision anytime

  • Jimbissle
    Jimbissle 6 месяцев назад

    'We need to Talk'.

  • TheMostGodless SinfulBastard
    TheMostGodless SinfulBastard 6 месяцев назад +1

    In the academic circles they are always afraid to challenge experts... they don't have the guts to do it. Even clearly flawed studies. The exceptions prove the rule in this case.

  • MetteC5
    MetteC5 7 месяцев назад

    Laura is indeed clearly not an academic and does not apply the scientific rigour that she professes to her own work: she's only talking about American science, which, as the rest of the world knows, is indeed largely junk. What about enlarging your sample size, Laura?... Appalling.

  • Wesley Terry
    Wesley Terry 7 месяцев назад +1

    Possibly the most beautiful woman I've ever seen

  • James Clark
    James Clark 7 месяцев назад

    CEO'S AND 1% LOVE THIS TALK! Its a ready made justification for giving nothing, and then blaming the research... Bravo! Let's keep the rich... rich and guilt free. You (and your wealthy brethren) can now dissect any study and find a way to call it Junk science. Trump loves you!

  • dany
    dany 7 месяцев назад

    i need my boat

  • Jacob Andrews
    Jacob Andrews 8 месяцев назад

    “I hate anecdotal evidence... let me give you an example”

  • Pfjom Bygh
    Pfjom Bygh 8 месяцев назад

    Amy Cuddy´s talk changed my life for the better. Every day this statement proves itself again.

  • Bengun67
    Bengun67 8 месяцев назад

    I wonder how many dissertations for PhD got streamlined towards some agenda or another....

  • Frank Cannon
    Frank Cannon 8 месяцев назад

    her words trail off -what awaste of time

  • Impari Safari
    Impari Safari 8 месяцев назад

    TED talk
    Person. ..

  • Ilona Zielinska
    Ilona Zielinska 8 месяцев назад

    You don't have to be a scientist to see the false and far fetched cocnlusions being drawn from some research done on a tiny group.

  • Paul Robertson
    Paul Robertson 8 месяцев назад

    I thought that the four most dangerous words might just be "you're a f**king a** hole!"

  • Noel Sussex
    Noel Sussex 8 месяцев назад

    I'm a professional scientist.. a biologist. There is much truth in what Laura says. Integrity is the most Important attribute that a scientist can have.

  • Michelle Ross
    Michelle Ross 8 месяцев назад

    The best tall I’ve watched in a while!

  • Albert Guilmont
    Albert Guilmont 10 месяцев назад

    It's too late.
    Incompetence already infected the scientific and academic environment. And the worst (millenials and Zs) is yet to come!

  • USN Corpsman
    USN Corpsman 10 месяцев назад

    Hubby and wife support George Soros

  • LimLux
    LimLux 10 месяцев назад

    To much of everything is bad for you.

  • Dave Judd
    Dave Judd 11 месяцев назад

    Puss in boots. she cute but talk rubbish.

  • werlkj567
    werlkj567 11 месяцев назад

    Our society is full of scams, lies, truth bending, and half-assery. It's systemic.

  • Amanda Jean's Drawings
    Amanda Jean's Drawings 11 месяцев назад

    this is the tedx talk of my dreams

  • simplymovingon
    simplymovingon 11 месяцев назад

    this woman looks like Jessica Lange

  • Jayson T
    Jayson T 11 месяцев назад

    This is fantastic! I've wanted to give this speech for ever.

  • Jayson T
    Jayson T 11 месяцев назад

    True, power poses are bullcrap.

  • Pauline Schmitt
    Pauline Schmitt 11 месяцев назад

    She could easily be talking about vaccinations and their lack of evidence.

  • dave angel
    dave angel 11 месяцев назад

    this young lady has a lot to say for herself ,

  • Carlo Calabrese
    Carlo Calabrese 11 месяцев назад

    A lawyer and a hedge fund manager (with an Enron background) are denigrating the scientific community on a host of grounds while setting themselves up as the arbiters of truth. Science in the acquisition of knowledge is like democracy in government: it's not a good system; but it's the best system.

  • razorwireclouds
    razorwireclouds 11 месяцев назад

    well America needs to stop trying to reinvent the wheel on everything and just learn from Europeans, clearly EU education, healthcare, infrastructure and other social services are better.

  • Paul Marostica
    Paul Marostica Год назад

    To Laura Arnold: If what you are claiming here about the results of various "scientific" studies is true, then I had no idea that science, in general, was being that badly done. My specialty is physics theory, and I am certain that that is being extremely badly done. Unfortunately, the physics theories, quantum theory and relativity theory, and their various derivative theories, are also junk science theories. Both quantum theory and relativity theory are very useful for calculating various physics observables, with the results of quantum theory calculations tending to be significantly more accurate. But the assumptions of what is physically occurring claimed for these theories all fail to be logical, with some being ridiculously illogical. My new unifying physics theory, matter theory, will easily replace all these theories, to become the only logical theory. But there seems to be no funding organization which will fund an independent theorist for a guaranteed better theory. Instead, funding seems to be available only for theorists to try to invent a better theory. Can you help? You can find my videos advertising my theory using the 3 search keywords: matter theory marostica.

  • MrJohnisthename
    MrJohnisthename Год назад

    So basically what she's saying is, Philanthropists can alter the results of studies they disagree with if they fund the research it takes to refute the data. Hmmm...How's that line go?...."There's a lady who's sure all that glitters is gold. And she's buying a stairway to heaven."

  • Nick MaGrick
    Nick MaGrick Год назад

    a TED talk bashing other TED talks, so meta
    I think she just started digging into corruption, and didnt even realize it. Or she does, and shes finding a way to make it palatable

  • Dennis R. Levesque
    Dennis R. Levesque Год назад

    It seems to me that you're starting to notice the difference between money and value. Sometimes people think money IS value. And sometimes people think you have to trade your values to get money, or that money can be traded to get values. When in fact, money is just a bookkeeping tool used as a place-holder for real value. Whenever the link between money and real value is broken, you'll always feel cheated, regardless if you're the payER or the payEE. Sometimes that gets in the way of real science/economics. Sometimes you need a serious/honest reality-check. Do those ever get funded? I've never heard of anyone ever (trying to) starting a buisness called Wisdom 'R' Us, or Reality Checks While You Wait, or Think-Tank Inc, or even an open-to-the-public R&D center. Until the public in general can have access to resources to do their own research towards their own values (without external influence, positive or negative), then the results will always be biased toward the entity in charge, and away from the entity searching for the real truth. That's why it's so important to never abdicate your own thinking to any "expert" (even if it's the most perfect Artificial Intelligence that can exist) .

  • Potassuim_Cation
    Potassuim_Cation Год назад

    THIS is the science talk that needs to go viral!

  • Potassuim_Cation
    Potassuim_Cation Год назад

    The problem with the way we do research is that it's all about funding. Of course I'm going to report the data that gets me a grant or continues to employ me.

  • Haley Mathiot
    Haley Mathiot Год назад

    Love how she talks about cherry-picking the data... this happened in the CDC and people foudn out, but nobody has done anything about it.

  • Let Go
    Let Go Год назад

    I really don’t like this Ted talks, it really seems like a petty example to use for the purpose of criticizing pseudo science. I also don’t like the bratty mocking tone she occasionally takes when bringing up things she is trying to critique.

  • Stephen Brackin
    Stephen Brackin Год назад

    Dishonest title: What are the four most dangerous words?

  • Stephen Brackin
    Stephen Brackin Год назад

    Cherry-picking the data to get something publishable is a scandal in science these days. One guy's made a career out of yelling about it, and a friend of mine who's a top researcher, is doing his best to spread the word.
    And it's even worse for us poor bastards who get our news from the Web -- with it's many lies and many, many accusations that other people are lying. Paul Simon said it years ago: "All lies and jest, 'til a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest." I cope by mostly listening to the nerds.

  • Calvin Chang
    Calvin Chang Год назад


  • At0micAllison
    At0micAllison Год назад

    "A. New. Study. Shows." :(

  • John Sullivan
    John Sullivan Год назад

    Everything she mentioned that failed are Marxist Government BS. Government doesn't do anything correct, so why do these leftist loons want a bigger government ?

  • Leonardo Schwerin
    Leonardo Schwerin Год назад +2

    The Four Most Dangerous Words? Make America Great Again

  • Janta Janardhan
    Janta Janardhan Год назад

    So what are those 4 words anyway?

  • Ron Mexico
    Ron Mexico Год назад

    Google "Tiljander proxy" and read up on it. Scientists flip proxies upside down to find what the want and it still passes pal review (peer review) because their pals want the same leeway given to them when then send their shoddy work into a journal. Keep that grant money flowing.

  • Lothar Scholz
    Lothar Scholz Год назад

    The chocolate story was setup by german journalist to see how many newspaper print junk science stories without any research.

  • KraigvAluE NovA
    KraigvAluE NovA Год назад

    I like the concept and the means by which it touches what its life, yet what four words are bad

  • Shareef Taylor
    Shareef Taylor Год назад

    I KNEW something was wrong with those blue M&Ms!

  • 歐陽Yang
    歐陽Yang Год назад

    Great truth that need to be said again and again until it's heard

  • Pepins Spot
    Pepins Spot Год назад

    Love it. Common sense and facts in the age o Trump.

  • biker
    biker Год назад

    As soon as you said social justice I left .

  • Blue Fluke
    Blue Fluke Год назад

    philanthropist: one who pays no taxes

  • larry cork
    larry cork Год назад

    Reseach funding postings should be required on by the title of all studies

  • Kallyjon
    Kallyjon Год назад

    Is she cross-eyed, her eyes are upside down

  • Paul White
    Paul White Год назад

    Cant get any plainer than that...are you listening all you gold-bricking, tenure-hugging quackademics .?...let's not leave out the politics of university management as well, pandering to big money as the gutless weasels you know you are.

  • John Juster
    John Juster Год назад

    Philanthropy is commendable, but it must not cause the philanthropist to overlook the circumstances of economic injustice which make philanthropy necessary.
    Martin Luther King, Jr.

  • Missa McFadden
    Missa McFadden Год назад

    Statistics in general are flawed. Most go off of opinion or questionarres in which the subjects don't tell the truth anyways hence why you get so many outcomes.

  • ell diavolo
    ell diavolo Год назад

    Is she related to Jessica Lange?

  • Sadat Mian
    Sadat Mian Год назад

    how did she memorize the whole speach

  • JLWH
    JLWH Год назад

    How many studies do we hear breaking news about and believe, only to find out 1, 2 or 10 years down the road, that they were all biased, wrong and not done correctly then, reversed and something new comes up. Drink coffee, don't drink coffee, only drink so much coffee, drink wine, don't drink wine, only drink so much fats, don't eat fats, base your entire diet on fats...the list is endless. The same holds true with drugs from Big Pharma, put onto the market far too quickly, others not put on that could help people because it isn't going to bring in enough money...blah, blah, blah. Money, Money, Money and more money and fame or self-promotion. Nothing is 100% and no one is un-corruptable when facing enough money or fame.

  • Delphinium Flower
    Delphinium Flower Год назад +3

    The solution is to stop depending on wealthy philanthropists to solve the problems of the poor, because the very existence of wealthy people is what causes the problems of poverty and inequality in the first place. We need to eliminate the wealthy as a class. The four most false, dangerous, and oppressive words are "we need the rich". Philanthropy is not, and it can never be, the solution to poverty and society's problems.

    • Bad Informeiyon
      Bad Informeiyon 6 месяцев назад

      I agree with you, let's give it to the poor. But just one thing... Could we start with you first please? I am poor, so can I give you my bank details for your deposit? Any number with 5 zeros behind will due.

  • Assala Garoui
    Assala Garoui Год назад

    i dont know how but im infatuated by the way u presented your speech

  • Nicholas Mann
    Nicholas Mann Год назад


  • Jackie Joseph
    Jackie Joseph Год назад

    Ja iSri Krishna. Looks to be bully body language.

  • Vicky Vasiliauskaite
    Vicky Vasiliauskaite Год назад

    wow! the worst Tedx talk I've seen. All the problems and no solutions! Beautiful presenter and wonderfully spoken but How "inspiring" :-/ to see people like this having any influence...

  • ThE BeSt !
    ThE BeSt ! Год назад

    Make America great again#3
    The Egyptians were white #2
    Jesus Christ is white#1
    #4 weapons of mass destruction
    #5 Republican Democratic fox news
    #6 the jerry springer show
    #7 this is not religious

  • Venum Ames
    Venum Ames Год назад

    6 minutes in and boring...what are those 4 dangerous words?

  • Magdalena Luchter
    Magdalena Luchter Год назад

    So what are the 4 most dangerous words ?

  • Vantastic Voyage
    Vantastic Voyage Год назад

    Apply this perspective to the recent events in Vegas.

  • omg hey there
    omg hey there Год назад

    1- it means RICH LOL

  • david mccallum
    david mccallum Год назад

    As we diminish the self, the ego, we make more space within us, for the occupation of our creator, unless we have gone down the dark path of necromancing. Power positioning, puffs up the pride of self & the ego, believing we are able to do all, of ourselves. Nothing could be further from the truth. We need G-d, and must be dependent on him for all things.

  • Unsettled On Purpose
    Unsettled On Purpose Год назад

    the front fell off

  • G K
    G K Год назад +4

    Her husband was dubbed the "king of natural gas." That makes her the queen. Check out where they made their money. Enron. And now she is throwing words around so we begin to mistrust science. She is part and parcel of the problem.

    • Qamar Shahbaz
      Qamar Shahbaz 2 дня назад

      go eat some chocolate to lose all that salt

  • Rose Bud
    Rose Bud Год назад

    I don't'understand her.

  • princess melody
    princess melody Год назад

    True 🖒👏

  • A B
    A B Год назад

    She sounds like Piper from Fallout 4

  • demon dj930
    demon dj930 Год назад

    Four most dangerous words “science math English history” four of any school classes you can name

  • jennifer86010
    jennifer86010 Год назад +3

    Her points are quite valid, but she needs professional coaching on her public speaking and presentation. She speaks way too fast. Her speaking volume drops down to a whisper at the end of many of her sentences. Her outfit makes a statement about riding a horse, not presenting credibility to a listening audience, and she needs to warm her personality a bit to connect with the audience. She is anticharismatic.

  • The Shadow Justice Warrior
    The Shadow Justice Warrior Год назад

    My private parts itch

  • Texas KatWoman
    Texas KatWoman Год назад +4

    In the late 70s, in my last two years of HS and first of University, I noted these things-yes, it has been that long that I became aware. People want to make a name and keep the funds rolling it. The push to publish is insane, and that is superseded only by the push to bring in funds by tenured professors.
    Stats are bent beyond where they should break, the twisted to fit the "facts" of the test result. I was taught precisely what the scientific method is, and honestly? There is NO penalty for lying in your result report. That was it for me. And Ms. Arnold is discussing the exact same issues forty years later. Now, how can see hope to change what is standard practice? Its a shell game...for every study that concludes this, five more will contradict, as she so eloquently pointed out. Forty years of my personal knowledge. But look at how long it took to make any real changes, with only slight movement forward, in the mental health field. Drugs lobotomize now. And we don't burn women at the stake as witches for practicing healing, as it was forbidden to all but men who killed repeatedly by bleeding their patients to death. And woe! to anyone that dared contradict event the stupidest "cured". To shake up an entrenched field of study or practice takes an apple falling, and another few centuries, regardless how pathetically preposterous the "standard" is.

  • A Butler
    A Butler Год назад

    i cannot prove it, btu this is subjectively the best TED talk I have heard in a year :) She sounds like she is talking about IStation :) It only has research from internal researchers.

  • Lady Sarah
    Lady Sarah Год назад

    Just hate it when people give their own money trying to improve the world.

  • WeirdWorld
    WeirdWorld Год назад +2

    you know whats been hit big by the research stigma cigs yea cigs why exploit an extreme example and not people who try to smoke responsibly

    • jahvada
      jahvada 7 месяцев назад +1

      "Smoke responsibly?" Bahahaha! It doesn't take huge research studies to figure out that smoking is, to put it very simply, bad. Well, I'm going to go bathe in acid... responsibly.