Your words may predict your future mental health | Mariano Sigman

Your words may predict your future mental health | Mariano Sigman

We have historical records that allow us
to know how the ancient Greeks dressed, how they lived, how they fought … but how did they think? One natural idea is that the deepest
aspects of human thought — our ability to imagine, to be conscious, to dream — have always been the same. Another possibility is that the social transformations
that have shaped our culture may have also changed
the structural columns of human thought. We may all have different
opinions about this. Actually, it’s a long-standing
philosophical debate. But is this question
even amenable to science? Here I’d like to propose that in the same way we can reconstruct
how the ancient Greek cities looked just based on a few bricks, that the writings of a culture
are the archaeological records, the fossils, of human thought. And in fact, doing some form of psychological analysis of some of the most ancient
books of human culture, Julian Jaynes came up in the ’70s
with a very wild and radical hypothesis: that only 3,000 years ago, humans were what today
we would call schizophrenics. And he made this claim based on the fact that the first
humans described in these books behaved consistently, in different traditions
and in different places of the world, as if they were hearing and obeying voices that they perceived
as coming from the Gods, or from the muses … what today we would call hallucinations. And only then, as time went on, they began to recognize
that they were the creators, the owners of these inner voices. And with this, they gained introspection: the ability to think
about their own thoughts. So Jaynes’s theory is that consciousness, at least in the way we perceive it today, where we feel that we are the pilots
of our own existence — is a quite recent cultural development. And this theory is quite spectacular, but it has an obvious problem which is that it’s built on just a few
and very specific examples. So the question is whether the theory that introspection built up in human
history only about 3,000 years ago can be examined in a quantitative
and objective manner. And the problem of how
to go about this is quite obvious. It’s not like Plato woke up one day
and then he wrote, “Hello, I’m Plato, and as of today, I have
a fully introspective consciousness.” (Laughter) And this tells us actually
what is the essence of the problem. We need to find the emergence
of a concept that’s never said. The word introspection
does not appear a single time in the books we want to analyze. So our way to solve this
is to build the space of words. This is a huge space
that contains all words in such a way that the distance
between any two of them is indicative of how
closely related they are. So for instance, you want the words “dog” and “cat”
to be very close together, but the words “grapefruit” and “logarithm”
to be very far away. And this has to be true
for any two words within the space. And there are different ways
that we can construct the space of words. One is just asking the experts, a bit like we do with dictionaries. Another possibility is following the simple assumption
that when two words are related, they tend to appear in the same sentences, in the same paragraphs, in the same documents, more often than would be expected
just by pure chance. And this simple hypothesis, this simple method, with some computational tricks that have to do with the fact that this is a very complex
and high-dimensional space, turns out to be quite effective. And just to give you a flavor
of how well this works, this is the result we get when
we analyze this for some familiar words. And you can see first that words automatically organize
into semantic neighborhoods. So you get the fruits, the body parts, the computer parts,
the scientific terms and so on. The algorithm also identifies
that we organize concepts in a hierarchy. So for instance, you can see that the scientific terms
break down into two subcategories of the astronomic and the physics terms. And then there are very fine things. For instance, the word astronomy, which seems a bit bizarre where it is, is actually exactly where it should be, between what it is, an actual science, and between what it describes, the astronomical terms. And we could go on and on with this. Actually, if you stare
at this for a while, and you just build random trajectories, you will see that it actually feels
a bit like doing poetry. And this is because, in a way, walking in this space
is like walking in the mind. And the last thing is that this algorithm also identifies
what are our intuitions, of which words should lead
in the neighborhood of introspection. So for instance, words such as “self,” “guilt,”
“reason,” “emotion,” are very close to “introspection,” but other words, such as “red,” “football,”
“candle,” “banana,” are just very far away. And so once we’ve built the space, the question of the history
of introspection, or of the history of any concept which before could seem abstract
and somehow vague, becomes concrete — becomes amenable to quantitative science. All that we have to do is take the books, we digitize them, and we take this stream
of words as a trajectory and project them into the space, and then we ask whether this trajectory
spends significant time circling closely to the concept
of introspection. And with this, we could analyze
the history of introspection in the ancient Greek tradition, for which we have the best
available written record. So what we did is we took all the books — we just ordered them by time — for each book we take the words and we project them to the space, and then we ask for each word
how close it is to introspection, and we just average that. And then we ask whether,
as time goes on and on, these books get closer,
and closer and closer to the concept of introspection. And this is exactly what happens
in the ancient Greek tradition. So you can see that for the oldest books
in the Homeric tradition, there is a small increase with books
getting closer to introspection. But about four centuries before Christ, this starts ramping up very rapidly
to an almost five-fold increase of books getting closer,
and closer and closer to the concept of introspection. And one of the nice things about this is that now we can ask whether this is also true
in a different, independent tradition. So we just ran this same analysis
on the Judeo-Christian tradition, and we got virtually the same pattern. Again, you see a small increase
for the oldest books in the Old Testament, and then it increases much more rapidly in the new books of the New Testament. And then we get the peak of introspection in “The Confessions of Saint Augustine,” about four centuries after Christ. And this was very important, because Saint Augustine
had been recognized by scholars, philologists, historians, as one of the founders of introspection. Actually, some believe him to be
the father of modern psychology. So our algorithm, which has the virtue
of being quantitative, of being objective, and of course of being extremely fast — it just runs in a fraction of a second — can capture some of the most
important conclusions of this long tradition of investigation. And this is in a way
one of the beauties of science, which is that now this idea
can be translated and generalized to a whole lot
of different domains. So in the same way that we asked
about the past of human consciousness, maybe the most challenging question
we can pose to ourselves is whether this can tell us something
about the future of our own consciousness. To put it more precisely, whether the words we say today can tell us something
of where our minds will be in a few days, in a few months or a few years from now. And in the same way many of us
are now wearing sensors that detect our heart rate, our respiration, our genes, on the hopes that this may
help us prevent diseases, we can ask whether monitoring
and analyzing the words we speak, we tweet, we email, we write, can tell us ahead of time whether
something may go wrong with our minds. And with Guillermo Cecchi, who has been my brother in this adventure, we took on this task. And we did so by analyzing
the recorded speech of 34 young people who were at a high risk
of developing schizophrenia. And so what we did is,
we measured speech at day one, and then we asked whether the properties
of the speech could predict, within a window of almost three years, the future development of psychosis. But despite our hopes, we got failure after failure. There was just not enough
information in semantics to predict the future
organization of the mind. It was good enough to distinguish between a group
of schizophrenics and a control group, a bit like we had done
for the ancient texts, but not to predict the future
onset of psychosis. But then we realized that maybe the most important thing
was not so much what they were saying, but how they were saying it. More specifically, it was not in which semantic
neighborhoods the words were, but how far and fast they jumped from one semantic neighborhood
to the other one. And so we came up with this measure, which we termed semantic coherence, which essentially measures the persistence
of speech within one semantic topic, within one semantic category. And it turned out to be
that for this group of 34 people, the algorithm based on semantic
coherence could predict, with 100 percent accuracy, who developed psychosis and who will not. And this was something
that could not be achieved — not even close — with all the other
existing clinical measures. And I remember vividly,
while I was working on this, I was sitting at my computer and I saw a bunch of tweets by Polo — Polo had been my first student
back in Buenos Aires, and at the time
he was living in New York. And there was something in this tweets — I could not tell exactly what
because nothing was said explicitly — but I got this strong hunch, this strong intuition,
that something was going wrong. So I picked up the phone,
and I called Polo, and in fact he was not feeling well. And this simple fact, that reading in between the lines, I could sense,
through words, his feelings, was a simple, but very
effective way to help. What I tell you today is that we’re getting
close to understanding how we can convert this intuition
that we all have, that we all share, into an algorithm. And in doing so, we may be seeing in the future
a very different form of mental health, based on objective, quantitative
and automated analysis of the words we write, of the words we say. Gracias. (Applause)

Daniel Yohans

100 thoughts on “Your words may predict your future mental health | Mariano Sigman

  1. Sarujan Maneeswaran says:


  2. Raven Godwin says:

    Hermetic, Gnostic, and Buddhist practitioners also believe that the voices all stem from you, but not like this fella is stipulating. Also I must ask, does this mean that every religious experience where one hears voices or gets a vision is just an onset of schizophrenia?

    Good luck with that interpretation. You're very wrong.

  3. Raven Godwin says:

    Meditation is 9,000 yrs old. Which means that introspection is considerably ancient, and most likely predates civilization. Meditation is such a powerful tool for introspection that, of course, his contemporaries are only beginning to acknowledge as a valid and potent tool for healing and therapy. We're so ahead of the times that we're 9,000 years behind, XD

    In other words, it's all woo-woo until their colleagues are raving about it.

  4. Raven Godwin says:

    I wonder if you'd consider the Buddha an introspective and wise man?

  5. patrick bateman says:

    this is how future zombies will be created

  6. vasudha says:

    i think such an algorithm can be used on youtube commenters!

  7. Matias Puzio says:

    The problem is… This guy is trying to analyze the works by Homer, Plato, Aristotle . But using the ENGLISH version of their books? Our friends philologysts would have a lot to argüe against this

  8. Matias Puzio says:

    YYou can see in 7:17 that most of the shape of the ascending curve of instrospection is due to the steep slope formed by the New Testament. If you read the New Testament, you will agree with me that there is no posible way in which this steep slope could form.

  9. Max Czapski says:

    ¡Un capo!

  10. Different says:

    this word map based on correlation is pretty cool way to map out your ideas, research, arguments about those things

    and also it's scary how close this guy's accent sounds like a greek speaking english O.o

  11. Mohammad Aamin says:

    why he look like Jimmy Fallon

  12. Ana Paula Da Silva Lima says:


  13. YTS Chan says:

    Am I the only one to think of Psycho-pass when listening to this talk?

  14. Jan Tomić says:

    Be careful what you write here 😀

  15. François Salamé says:

    Merci pour les sous-titres fr (:

  16. Socioshadow says:

    so… Psychopass?

  17. Alex Ossipee says:

    This video will change the world. Believe me, in 20 years everyone will say that New Era started the day this video was uploaded

  18. Alexander MacNeil says:

    I think some people fail to see the real-world positive applications of this technology/algorithm. Being able to successfully predict mental disorders is an amazing pro-active way to ensure people get the proper health and treatment they need. Ultimately this could prevent a lot of deadly attacks and prevent youth from being radicalized. This technology could prevent people from hurting themselves and others.

  19. Dr Peter jones says:

    Is this the correct way to look at it ? The inference is that if we can change your vocabulary you can change the mental outcomes ? This we have known for sometime… perhaps this may only be a Fraud observation rather than a biological outcome. How do words change our mental processes on the latest high resolution MRI ? This could be possible to demonstrate?

  20. Aaron Brunner says:

    sorely, if you take a group of people with Schizophrenic tendency you can predict with certainty that they will all develop Schizophrenia unless they change doctor. For such is the power of subjective illness that repetition from somebody perceived by patient as an authority is a likely cause. Listen to Mariano's talk again and make your own decision as to Mariano's own mental purgatory – who is he to judge others, why are his 'scientific' methods scientific and is anybody here willing to vouch for his good character.

  21. Connor atCanada says:

    Ted Mosby went deep after his wife died

  22. Kaleb Mussa says:

    I have an exam essay due in 3 hours that requires us to analyze this video. and write a 4-page essay. I have watched this over 8 times and I fall asleep every time.

  23. stirtheimagination88 says:

    Sadly the ones who will benefit the most from this science will not be the mentally ill. It will be the power elite who can afford to seize and exploit it for profit first, and their cronies who sit in governmental seats of power. I'm not being cynical. Ask yourself: What science/discovery/technology has ever been devised that was not ultimately weaponized or made artificially scarce for profit? The answer is nothing, nada, zip, zero. And this will be no different.

  24. Nicholas Tesoriero says:

    hello ezio how are u? its been a long time, few hundred yrs

  25. Dj Pelu says:

    he looks like sexy jimmy fallon

  26. iwantwatermelon says:

    This is interesting but I'm a bit wary about it. Firstly, we need more information on how the algorithm works, and secondly it will probably work best in conjunction with human expertise and intuition. Otherwise it sounds like a lead up to some dystopian world where everyone is judged by their words (even those made in jest), and some are monitored or even captured under the guise of preventative treatment. We're obviously very far away from that now, but this does seem a bit scary.

  27. Monika Marais says:

    Well keep in mind human minds are unique. It is why there are no laws of psychology. For every theory there will be those that dont fit it at all. For instance my mind has always been a choatic place and others find it really hard to follow my thought patterns if I just let my mind go. Can equate it to a young child jumping from one story to the next with no obvious logical connection (though generally there is a connection). This method will probably test me as positive for developing psychosis if not being psychotic already. The problem here is that the general public thinks too linear to comprehend me, that is if I dont put my usual amount of effort in it to guide their thinking. It does not mean I am psychotic, though if I am then hey sanity is for the weak and it might be time to let the warp overtake me and imprace its pain (now I know why I get migrains, it is the warp :D)

  28. Alex Grig says:

    could this system help with developing AI? or is it just his words at the end of the video that made me think so?

  29. U Shine says:

    I will never forget. God brought me out of Egypt. So I must never think like an Egyptian.

  30. marcuskiller02 says:

    It makes me think of the whole
    deal about consciousness in Westworld.
    The showrunners did their research


    The androids need a voice, that is not their own, telling them what to do at first. The show says it is the way to 'bootstrap consciousness.'
    With time, the voice of their Creator becomes their own inner voice.

    The parallels are quite neat.

  31. Iasso says:

    This is both fascinating and scary. I just purchased the Google Home device, and people I know use the Amazon Echo. And those listen to you passively as they wait for the signal word, so they hear everything. What if this is the future of mental health diagnostic devices? and thought police? .. what will we give up if this can predict a future rapist, pedophile, terrorist, or president?

  32. Jet Peltier says:

    what a great TED talk, people could get help faster

  33. Lacey Brown says:

    I would love to see what Palo said in his Tweets. Or some examples of the written speech of people on the studies and have him break it down for us. That would have been so interesting to see.

  34. Maria Norma Mendes says:

    Mariano Sigman, please read the Vedas – go back to India and you will be aware that introspection is not as new as you say.

  35. nezha nazih says:

    We would say he's is a lying detector expert!!! what's the point of this lecture? All he needs is to say that man has created himself by himself and that God is just a hallucination!!! His story about Polo and how he detected that something was wrong with him through his inexplicit words and reading between the lines..everybody can do this!!! Come on!!!

  36. Zoe M says:


  37. katanalover21 says:

    The impact that this research can have on identifying and creating preventive measures for mental illness is amazing!
    not to mention that the vast other applications, like mapping the code for AI emotional intelligence, is insane.. all from the power of a few words strung together and consistently used… that's epic on levels I can't even begin to describe!!!

    and for the haters… cool things are cool, even if they kill us. #justsayin

  38. Genaline Simbajon says:

    Well, I should say that it was a very scientific and quantitative approach. Both psychology and endeavors on algorithm are basically founded on traditional religious practices. The term 'mind power' is just another term for 'will power' for which we all are capable of. Reason, will, intellect and the like are faculties innate in man for him to utilize and for him to manage & direct his affairs. Thus, man must learn to discern well on how to wisely use this 'power'.

  39. eli white says:

    It reminds me of the westworld

  40. amanda navarrete gallegos says:


  41. Heimen van Beek says:

    Not a very convincing speech… Seems like he's abusing scientific methods to sell his story, or at least, if his theory turns out to be correct, he's making it more important than it is.The high risk group has already been examined and categorized as being high risk. Probably, as in Polo's example, identifying this group by a 'professionals' intuition might also work. But then it would not have been 'objective and quantitative'. First he's trying to make everybody believe this is better than all other current predictors (by mentioning the 100% succesrate, which is totally inappropriate, because it implies the wrong thing, to the audience), then maybe as an alternative to a 'professionals' 'intuition?' He's not very consistent. By the way, "very high risk" is also not objective and quantitative, so what does that mean, in percentages?

  42. Rose Agakhanyan says:

    the human race is getting sicker and dieing younger because hundred of years of research on the human mind and BEHAVIORAL. "health" was founded by the biggest psychopath in the world who ran tests on his daughter and groups to perfect the art of control that this fake science refuses to acknowledge because they can't understand empathy

  43. bharat path says:

    Study is limited to Greek thought and Bible ,Introspection existed long ago in Buddhist and Hindu tradition where most of the tradition were verbal- over simplification of a complex problem of consciousness

  44. Jump says:

    Wtf why would we want an algorithm to identify that people have mental illness?

  45. miTTTir says:

    The 100% accuracy raised some suspicion in my mind. What if they fell into the memorization fallacy of computer models where the data with which the model is designed/trained fits perfectly with the predictions/classification schema but fails terribly in novel test cases. Did they run a tets set to see if that is the case?

  46. Natalia Oliveira says:

    So I'm fucked LOL

  47. Phuong P says:

    wow it is italian jimmy fallon!

  48. Cerbyo says:

    lolol this guy has a giant bulge going on and he's just like leaning inwards into it, showing it off. I'm impressed.

  49. Vilena Antonova says:

    I tried to listen through to the end but my mind couldn't concentrate on deciphering his words through the accent

  50. Daisy Dukes says:

    This makes me want to become a neurologist

  51. Tony James Gilpin says:

    Hmm… I think it's time to give up poetry! 😀

  52. Mau Martuscelli says:

    turn it into an algorithm and kill our capacity to interpret and be intuitive? why would that be progress? I wonder if he's ever read Lacan.

  53. Ignacio Cortorreal says:

    "How lovely it is that there are words and tones: are words and tones not rainbows and seeming-bridges between what is eternally separated?" — Thus Spoke Zarathustra

  54. Nathan Darval says:

    Another silly person taking the bible too seriously.

  55. Fernando Vazquez says:

    Wait- They did a linguistic Corpus search on one single discursive tradition, usually governed exclusively by one single type of gender , age and literary level, and they claim that they discovered the evolution of introspective thinking of an entire civilization?? Mmmm…I suspect that Philologists and other Humanists were not involved in this research.

  56. Matija Balić says:

    So, this (distance being indicative of relatedness) "has to be true for ANY two words within this space" – says the guy. Call me old-fashioned but I was not so easily convinced (in this algorithmic representation of relatedness of words) once I saw that 'banana' is a word more closely related to 'nose' than to 'apple'. And 'nose', of course, is more closely related to 'banana' than to 'head' – examples are abundant. Or 'finger' being more related to 'neck' than to 'arm' and/or 'hand'. Or maybe I'm just not getting it right. Rest of the research is sketchy at best. Personal opinion. Peace.

  57. Mark Webb says:

    For 9 whole minutes he talks utter nonsense!!.. pseudoscience mixed with statements of complete bollocks!! just like the graphs!.. why is this not banned??

  58. EyeInTheSky says:

    How do they allow for wrong words being used and out of context speech due to lack of education and knowledge? It will get a lot of false positives. If this ever comes to fruition it will be used for some really insidious purposes. Hopefully, the benefits will far outweigh the negatives coming from abuse of such a powerful predictor.

  59. Jeffery Jefferyson says:

    I that Jimmy Fallons brother bruu

  60. Ben Calibri says:

    So 'how' were they saying there words that determined future mental illness?

  61. salvatore mannino says:

    Pseudo science is the scariest of them all. I hope this does not get us in troubles…This tool in the wrong hand and then so many put on medications for "their good". I think the guy that did the talk is a bit of a lunatic himself. Look at his eyes and the way he talks…yeah really scary

  62. Abraham Castanedo Music says:

    Jimmy Fallon… Right?

  63. Frank Ramirez says:

    Highly recommend his book called the "secret life of the mind" by Mariano sigman

  64. mel saint says:

    His accent is hard to understand

  65. Brandon Case says:

    Please analyze Trump’s speeches

  66. Interpreter says:

    Electricity is halfway between geology and banana. Right where it should be.

  67. sanyogita tomar says:

    When you're a Schizophrenic and having a psychosis , it's not introspection but medicines which cure you ( just thought would let you know 😀)

  68. José Carlos Ramírez Pérez says:

    "Tus palabras pueden predecir tu salud mental futura." Creo que tiene sentido, de hecho nuestra comunicación dice mucho de nuestro presente y de nuestro pasado, entonces bien podrían construirse escenarios futuros, lo que impresiona es que asegura que pueden predecir con una exactitud del 100% si alguien se convertirá en esquizofrénico. Se ve que se tomaron muy en serio este estudio y toman en cuenta algunos factores que son muy relevantes, por ejemplo: "No es lo que dices, sino cómo lo dices."; o la frecuencia con que se usan ciertas palabras. Surgen muchas preguntas, por ejemplo: ¿Cómo se utilizaría esta herramienta (si se le puede llamar así) para diagnosticar e intervenir en su caso? ¿Qué papel juega la educación en cuanto a la información que procesa nuestro cerebro y que finalmente es el material con el cual construimos nuestros discursos?

  69. Charles Geckler says:


  70. All The Things I do All The Things You do says:

    00:17 "how they fucked"?

  71. Nik says:

    I see a lot of people talking about how this could be used to carry out evil, but my gut says that this process is too holistic to make such usage successful without including the data points that serve to undermine malicious intent in the first place.

  72. Nathan ONeill says:

    Chain thinking is real. The brain creates its own reality. How often have you been thinking about something specific, then you begin to see it everywhere. It was there all along, the only difference is now you see it were before you didn't. "Change the way you look at things, and things you look at change." "The eyes are a lying sense." "Do you really think thats air your breathing? Welcome to the matrix.

  73. Fábio Arruda says:

    Your idea is much more powerful than Steve Job's announce of the iPhone. This is how I see it.

    Greatest idea on predicting mental illnesses so far.

  74. Lucia says:


  75. Robert Mwangi Mathenge says:

    This is simply AMAZING!!

  76. FranzmusAusus Puffgrinker says:

    What do these people know about psychological health?  They got their tips from the Roman church.  An army of Swedish specialists couldn't diagnose this mess in The USA, but I have a pretty good idea about where to start.  You don't get to vote on psychological health.  You either have it or you don't.  This country is full of esoteric brain damage.  It's living with carnival freaks that feed me.  Marijuana and other drugs widen the short-term memory instead of narrowing it as doctors believe.  They say drug revovery happens over a few months or a year, but the damage is permanent and the brain recovers only after decades of rest.  You're like overgrown teenagers taking in school and trauma at 100 miles an hour.  Then they end up in the workplaces with abnormal drives lifting abnormal amounts and racing around.  Drugs are better than reality.  When you quit addiction is hard because reality is much worse and painful.  They lose their edge.  Add it that time in church and Hollywood information warfare tactics and you've got one sick monster.

  77. Dominic Thompson says:

    I'm curious: Did they translate the original texts before or after they measured the semantic distance between words?
    Because words can have very different meanings depending on their context. Consider Bible translations, there are many, each with different purposes and accuracies.

  78. Money Buddy Music says:

    My mind is blown

  79. barry weber says:

    Great talk.

  80. Sapa Holliday says:

    I don't think that understanding the psychology of the ancients in this way can be solid because of firstly the destruction of libraries/ selective preservation, and secondly the method of transmission of information, e.g. symbolism, images, sculpture, geometry. Can we really dismiss everything that our ancestors left for us as worthless ramblings of sick minds? Also, there is the possibility that there were actual voices speaking discarnately to some of the ancients, either locally or remotely. After all we listen to voices every day with our phones, tv's and computers. We have all heard radio. There are too many variables, too much of our history is lost, too much cataclysm, to make this an accurate method. I think we are in denial about all things metaphysical, be it spiritual or whatever and it can't be contained in the definition of a sickness of the mind. I am not religious but a 'god', or 'elf' could quite easily be something that really did walk our planet in times now forgotten. In the future we will probably be remembered as illiterate, all our communication is electronic and who can say who or what will find what we leave behind.

  81. Jordan Porter says:

    Mind fucking blown

  82. wu wei says:

    If one is looking, the subconscious mind gives away the basis of our habits and beliefs/attitudes and much more.
    Links would be nice. I am not looking to be sold, but to be informed.
    Maybe TED Talks could make that part of their criteria for giving a talk.
    I am given to understand that speakers spend massive hours preparing for a talk.
    As a regular viewer of these talks I would really love spending time reviewing links to further enhance the delightful time I spent listening to said Talks.
    Please introduce him to Marissa Peer. He is on the verge of seeing of what she is already seeing. Good on Mariano!

  83. Germano Gomes says:

    Ok, nice, but I hate how arrogant science is after researching some bullshit. You took a theory that we were schizoprenic, analysed TWO literatures of ocidental societies and say that's a fact. And then says this is the future of mental health. holy mother. it could be of psycodiagnosis but not mental health. Ok, let's say you predict schizophrenia, but what about after it? We still need the theories, psychoterapies, researchs and stuff to help those people who are suffering, this is mental care and i'm sure this is not done by an algorithm.

  84. Laura Baker says:


  85. private personal concierge says:

    Very Informative!

  86. Audrey Greene says:

    Thank you! Thank you! I read Julian Jaynes' "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" 40 years ago, and it changed my life. Essentially, it freed me from religious belief. Since then, I've tried to find either definitive support or refutation of Jaynes' assertions. Today I happened upon this wonderful talk, which not only supports his work but moves on to open the possibilities of diagnosing mental illness including perhaps, some forms of dementia which is a key focus of my work life. Thank you again, for the illumination!

  87. Mr MEMé says:

    He's trying the Steve Jobs look
    to Appear More Intelligencia

  88. Ahmed M says:

    this guy kind looks like Comedian Jimmy Fallon in tonights show

  89. Ali Mohammond says:

    the Bible says this 2000 years ago, it says, u live by every word that comes out of your mouth!

  90. Sapphiregriffin says:

    hmmmmmm pretty interesting

  91. Marco Terranova says:

    very bad

  92. Ariel Dubenion says:

    Didn't the Greeks steal most of their knowledge from the Egyptians?

  93. Wild Zero says:

    gracias, mariano sigman

  94. Nicole says:

    can someone please explain to me what he’s trying to say? i really would like to understand 🙁

  95. Francesca Faulin says:

    This is so fascinating and absolutely scary when thinking about the possible developments of this algorithm … especially if we consider where control and privacy are moving towards

  96. Tsvetlin Marinov says:

    I'm really surprised because this seems to mean that lateral thinking, divergent thinking and thus the trait openness itself should be great predictors of future mental illness.


    Then "I am the walrus" (Beatles) and "Gates of Eden" (Dylan) are more introspective and less schizophrenic than "Treasure Island" (Stenenson) and "Ivanhoe" (Scott)?

  98. Sarah jayne Wilkes says:

    Absence of vs awareness through Introspection is absolutely what draws the line between of a lack of/being ruled by Schizophrenia.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *