शैडोइंग अभ्यास: This game theory problem will change the way you see the world - वीडियो के साथ अंग्रेजी बोलना सीखें

अभ्यास मोड चुनें

हर मोड पूरी स्क्रीन का अभ्यास कक्ष खोलता है।

311 वाक्य

यदि वाक्य बहुत छोटे या लंबे हों, तो समायोजित करने के लिए Edit पर क्लिक करें।

This is a video about the most famous problem in game theory.

Problems of this sort pop up everywhere, from nations locked in conflict to roommates doing the dishes.

Even game shows have been based around this concept.

Figuring out the best strategy can mean the difference between life and death, war and peace, flourishing and the destruction of the planet.

And in the mechanics of this game, we may find the very source of one of the most first, unexpected phenomena in nature, cooperation.

On the 3rd of September 1949, an American weather monitoring plane collected air samples over Japan.

In those samples, they found traces of radioactive material.

The Navy quickly collected and tested rainwater samples from their ships and bases all over the world.

They also detected small amounts of cerium -141 and yttrium -91.

But these isotopes have half -lives of one or two months, so they must have been produced recently.

And the only place they could have come from was a nuclear explosion.

But the U .S hadn't performed any tests that year,

so the only possible conclusion was that the Soviet Union had figured out how to make a nuclear bomb.

This was the news the Americans had been dreading.

Their military supremacy, achieved through the Manhattan Project, was quickly fading.

This makes the problem of Western Europe and the United States far more serious than it was before, and perhaps makes the imminence of war greater.

Some thought their best course of action was to launch an unprovoked nuclear strike against the Soviets while they were still ahead.

In the words of Navy Secretary Matthews, to become aggressors for peace.

John von Neumann, the founder of Game Theory, said, If you say, why not bomb them tomorrow, I say, why not bomb them today?

If you say today at five o 'clock, I say, why not at one o 'clock?

Something needed to be done about nuclear weapons and fast. But what?

In 1950, the Rand Corporation, a US -based think tank, was studying this question, and as part of this research, they turned to game theory.

That same year, two mathematicians at RAND had invented a new game, one which, unbeknownst to them at the time, closely resembled the U .S.-Soviet conflict.

This game is now known as the Prisoner's Dilemma, so let's play a game.

A banker with a chest full of gold coins invites you

and another player to play against each other you each get two choices.

You can cooperate, or you can defect.

If you both cooperate, you each get three coins.

If one of you cooperates, but the other defects, then the one who defected gets five coins, and the other gets nothing.

And if you both defect, then you each get a coin.

The goal of the game is simple, to get as many coins as you can.

So, what would you do?

Suppose your opponent cooperates, then you could also cooperate and get 3 coins.

Or you could defect and get 5 coins instead, so you are better off defecting.

But what if your opponent defects instead?

Well, you could cooperate and get no coins, or you could defect and at least get 1 coin.

So no matter what your opponent does, your best option is always to defect.

Now if your opponent is also rational, they will reach the same conclusion and therefore also defect.

As a result, when you both act rationally, you both end up in the suboptimal situation getting one coin each, when you could have gotten three instead.

In the case of the US and Soviet Union, this led both countries to develop huge nuclear arsenals of tens of thousands of nuclear weapons each,

more than enough to destroy each other many times over.

But since both countries had nukes, neither could use them.

And both countries spent around 10 trillion dollars developing these weapons.

Both would have been better off if they had cooperated and agreed not to develop this technology further.

But since they both acted in their own best interest, they ended up in a situation where everyone was worse off.

The Prisoner's Dilemma is one of the most famous games in game theory.

Thousands and thousands of papers have been published on versions of this game.

In part, that's because it pops up everywhere.

Impalas living in between African woodlands and savannas are prone to catching ticks, which can lead to infectious diseases, paralysis, even death.

So it's important for impalas to remove ticks, and they do this by grooming.

But they can't reach all the spots on their bodies, and therefore they need another impala to groom them.

Now, grooming someone else comes at a cost.

It costs saliva, electrolytes, time and attention, all vital resources under the hot African sun, where a predator could strike at any moment.

So for the other impala, it would be best not to pay this cost.

But then again, it too will need help grooming.

So all Impalas face a choice.

Should they groom each other or not?

In other words, should they cooperate or defect?

Well, if they only interact once, then the rational solution is always to defect.

That other Impala is never going to help you, so why bother?

But the thing about a lot of problems is that they're not a single prisoner's dilemma.

Impalas see each other day after day, and the same situation keeps happening over and over again.

So that changes the problem.

Because instead of playing the Prisoner's Dilemma just once, you're now playing it many, many times.

And if I defect now, then my opponent will know that I defected, and they can use that against me in the future.

So, what is the best strategy in this repeated game?

That is what Robert Axelrod, a political scientist, wanted to find out.

So in 1980, he decided to hold a computer tournament.

He invited some of the world's leading game theorists from many different subjects to submit computer programs that would play each other.

Axelrod called these programs strategies strategies.

Each strategy would face off against every other strategy and against a copy of itself.

And each matchup would go for 200 rounds.

That's important, and we'll come back to it.

Now Axelrod used points instead of coins, but the payoffs were the same.

The goal of the tournament was to win as many points as possible.

And in the end, the whole tournament was repeated five times over to ensure the success was robust

and not just a fluke.

Axelrod gave an example of a simple strategy.

It would start each game by cooperating, and only defect after its opponent had defected twice in a row.

In total, Axelrod received 14 strategies, and he added a 15th called Random, which just randomly cooperates or defects 50 % of the time.

All strategies were loaded onto a single computer, where they faced off against each other.

One of the strategies was called Freedmen.

It starts off by cooperating, but if its opponent defects just once, it will keep defecting for the remainder of the game.

Another strategy was called Joss.

It also starts by cooperating, but then it just copies what the other player did on the last move.

Then around 10 % of the time, Joss gets sneaky and defects.

There was also a rather elaborate strategy called Grass Camp.

This strategy works the same as Joss, but instead of defecting probabilistically, grass -camped effects in the 50th round to try

and probe the strategy of its opponent and see if it can take advantage of any weaknesses.

The most elaborate strategy was name withheld with 77 lines of code.

After all the games were played, the results were tallied up and the leaderboard established.

The crazy thing was that the simplest program ended up winning, a program that came to be called tit -for -tat.

Tit -for -tat starts by cooperating, and then it copies exactly what its opponent did in the last move.

So it would follow cooperation with cooperation, and defection with defection.

But only once, if its opponent goes back to cooperating, so does tit -for -tat.

When tit -for -tat played against Friedman, both started by cooperating, and they kept cooperating, both ending up with perfect scores for complete cooperation.

When tit -for -tat played against Joss, they too started by cooperating, but then on the sixth move, Joss defected.

This sparked a series of back and forth defections, a sort of echo effect.

Okay, so now you've got this alternating thing, which will remind you of some of the politics of the world today, where we have to do something to you because of what you did to us.

100

And then when this weird program throws in a second unprovoked defection,

101

now it's really bad because now both programs are going to defect on each other for the rest of the game.

102

And that's also like some of the things that we're seeing in politics today and in international relations.

103

As a result of these mutual retaliations, both Tit for Tat and Joss did poorly.

104

But because Tit for Tat managed to cooperate with enough other strategies, it still won the tournament.

105

Hey my god, there's Professor Axelrod!

106

Hey!

107

There's Stephen Stewart!

108

What a treat this is.

109

And I imagined initially it'd be sort of like computer chess

110

where you'd need a pretty complicated program to play a sophisticated game, but in fact it was not like that at all.

111

It was the simplest strategy that did the best.

112

So I analyzed how that happened.

113

Axelrod found that all the best performing strategies, including tit -for -tat, shared four qualities.

114

First, they were all nice, which just means they are not the first to defect.

115

So tit -for -tat is a nice strategy.

116

It can defect, but only in retaliation.

117

The opposite of nice is nasty.

118

That's a strategy that defects first.

119

So Joss is nasty.

120

Out of the 15 strategies in the tournament, 8 were nice and 7 nasty.

121

The top 8 strategies were all nice.

122

And even the worst -performing nice strategy still far outscored the best -performing nasty one.

123

The second important quality was being forgiving.

124

A forgiving strategy is one that can retaliate, but it doesn't hold a grudge.

125

So tit -for -tat is a forgiving strategy.

126

It retaliates when its opponent defects, but it doesn't let defections from before the last round influence its current decisions.

127

Friedman, on the other hand, is maximally unforgiving.

128

After the first defection, just from the opponent would defect for the rest of the game.

129

Okay, that's it.

130

No mercy.

131

And that might feel good to do, but it doesn't end up working out well in the long run.

132

This conclusion, that it pays to be nice and forgiving, came as a shock to the experts.

133

Many had tried to be tricky and create subtle, nasty strategies to beat their opponent and eke out an advantage.

134

But they all failed.

135

Instead, in this tournament, nice guys finished first.

136

Now, tit for tat is quite forgiving, but it's possible to be even more forgiving.

137

Axelrod's sample strategy only defects after its opponent defected twice in a row.

138

It was tit for two tats.

139

Now, that might sound overly generous, but when Axelrod ran the numbers, he found that if anyone had submitted the sample strategy, they would have won the tournament.

140

I mean, it's so clever.

141

There's so many layers to this story.

142

After Axelrod published his analysis of what happened, or circulated it among these game theorists,

143

he said, now that we all know what worked well, let's try again.

144

So he announced a second tournament where everything would be the same except for one change, the number of rounds per game.

145

See, in the first tournament, each game lasted precisely 200 rounds and that is important because

146

if you know when the last round is then there's no reason to cooperate in

147

that round so you're better off defecting of course your opponent should reason the same

148

and so they should also defect in the last round but

149

if you both anticipate defection in the last round then there's

150

no reason for you to cooperate in the second to last round

151

or the round before that or before that and

152

so on all the way to the very first round and so in In Axelrod's tournament, it was a very important thing that the players didn't know exactly how long they were going to be playing.

153

They knew on average it would be 200 rounds, but there was a random number generator that prevented them from knowing with certainty.

154

Yeah, if you're not sure when it ends, then you have to kind of keep cooperating because it might keep going and you might need them on your side.

155

For this second tournament, Axelrod received 62 entries and again added random.

156

The contestants had gotten the results and analysis from the first tournament and could use this information to their advantage.

157

This created two camps.

158

Some thought that clearly being nice and forgiving were winning qualities, so they submitted nice and forgiving strategies.

159

One even submitted tit for two tats.

160

The second camp anticipated that others would be nice and extra forgiving.

161

Therefore, they submitted nasty strategies to try to take advantage of those that were extra forgiving.

162

One such strategy was called Tester.

163

It would defect on the first move to see how its opponent reacted.

164

If it retaliated, Tester would apologize and play tit for tat for the remainder of the game.

165

If it didn't retaliate, Tester would defect every other move after that.

166

But again, being nasty didn't pay.

167

And once again, tit for tat was the most effective.

168

Nice strategies again did much better.

169

In the top 15, only one was not nice.

170

Similarly, in the bottom 15, only one was not nasty.

171

After the second tournament, Axelrod identified the other qualities that distinguished the better performing strategies.

172

The third is being retaliatory, which means if your opponent defects, strike back immediately.

173

Don't be a pushover.

174

Always cooperate is a total pushover, and so it's very easy to take advantage of.

175

Tit for tat, on the other hand, is very hard to take advantage of.

176

The last quality that Axelrod identified is being clear.

177

Programs that were too opaque, that were too similar to a random program, you couldn't figure them out because they were so complicated.

178

It was very hard to establish any pattern of trust with a program like

179

that because you couldn't figure out what it was doing.

180

I mean, the other programs it was playing couldn't figure them out.

181

And so they would end up more or less defaulting to thinking, saying, every turn is like the last time I'm going to see you, so I might as well defect.

182

What to me is mind -blowing about this is that these four principles,

183

being nice, forgiving, provocable, and clear,

184

is a lot like the morality that has evolved around the world that is often summarized as an eye for an eye.

185

It's not Christianity, by the way.

186

It's not turn the other cheek philosophy.

187

It's some older philosophy.

188

What's interesting is that while tit for two tats would have won the first tournament, it only came 24th in the second tournament.

189

This highlights an important fact.

190

In the repeated prisoner's dilemma, there is no single best strategy.

191

The strategy that performs best always depends on the other strategies it's interacting with.

192

For example, if you put tit for tat in an environment with only the ultimate bullies of always defect, then tit -for -tat comes in last.

193

I wanted to see whether, for example, the tit -for -tat did well

194

because it did well with really stupid rules that didn't do well at all themselves, that basically it took advantage of people.

195

So he ran a simulation where successful strategies in one generation would see their numbers grow

196

and unsuccessful ones would see their numbers drop.

197

In this simulation, the worst performing strategies quickly shrink and go extinct, while the top -performing strategies become more common.

198

Harrington, the only nasty strategy in the top 15, first grew quickly.

199

But then as the strategies it was preying on went extinct, Harrington's numbers also quickly dropped.

200

This shows a main benefit of this simulation because it tests how well a strategy does with other successful strategies.

201

After a thousand generations, the proportions are mostly stable and only nice strategies survive.

202

Again, tit for tat comes out on top, representing 14 .5 % of the total population.

203

Now, this process may sound similar to evolution, but there is a subtle difference, which is that in this case, there are no mutations.

204

So it's actually an ecological simulation.

205

But what if the world you started in was different?

206

Imagine a world that is a really nasty place to live, more or less populated with players

207

that always defect except there's a little cluster of tit -for -tat players

208

that live in some kind of nucleus

209

and they get to play with each other a lot

210

because they're geographically sequestered they will start building up a lot of points

211

and also because that translates into offspring they'll start to take over the population

212

so in fact Axelrod showed that a little island of cooperation can emerge

213

and spread and eventually will take over the world which is fantastic

214

How can cooperation emerge in a population of players who are self -interested,

215

who are not trying to be good because they're good -hearted?

216

You don't have to be altruistic.

217

You could be looking out for number one for yourself and your own interests, and yet cooperation can still emerge.

218

Some argue that this could explain how we went from a world full of completely selfish organisms, where every organism only cared about themselves,

219

to one where cooperation emerged and flourished, from impalas grooming each other to fish cleaning sharks.

220

Many lifeforms experience conflicts similar to the prisoner's dilemma, but because they don't interact just once,

221

both can be better off by cooperating.

222

And this doesn't require trust or conscious thought either, because the strategy could be encoded in DNA.

223

As long as it performs better than the other strategies, it can take over a population.

224

Axelrod's insights were applied to areas like evolutionary biology and international But there was one aspect that his original tournaments didn't cover.

225

What happens if there is a little bit of random error in the game?

226

Some noise in the system?

227

For example, one player tries to cooperate, but it comes across as a defection.

228

Little errors like this happen in the real world all the time.

229

Like in 1983, the Soviet satellite -based early warning system detected the launch of an intercontinental ballistic missile from the U .S.

230

But the U .S hadn't launched anything.

231

The Soviet system had confused sunlight reflecting off high -altitude clouds with a ballistic missile.

232

Thankfully, Stanislav Petrov, the Soviet officer on duty, dismissed the alarm.

233

But this example shows the potential costs of a signal error

234

and the importance of studying the effects of noise on those strategies.

235

The word game sounds like it's a children's game or, you know, there's something, a misnomer maybe in calling it game theory,

236

because these are life and death matters, obviously.

237

And as you mentioned that this came up in the Cold War, I mean, it could actually be life and death of the whole planet.

238

We could annihilate human civilization.

239

So these are not games in any kind of trivial sense.

240

It's just the term that is used by mathematicians and theorists.

241

When tit -for -tat plays against itself in a noisy environment, both start off by cooperating.

242

But if a single cooperation is perceived as a defection, then the other tit -for -tat retaliates, and it sets off a chain of alternating retaliations.

243

And if another cooperation is perceived as a defection, then the rest of the game is constant mutual defection.

244

Therefore, in the long run, both would only get a third of the points they would get in a perfect environment.

245

Tit for tat goes from performing very well to performing poorly.

246

So how do you solve this?

247

Well, you need a reliable way to break out of these echo effects.

248

And one way to do this is by playing tit for tat, but with around 10 % more forgiveness.

249

So instead of retaliating after every defection, you only retaliate around 9 out of every 10 times.

250

This helps you break out of those echoes while still being retaliatory enough to not be taken advantage of.

251

And so we also ran the tournament with noise and generosity.

252

And that did quite well.

253

My favorite example is Tit for Tat does really well, but it could never do better than the player it's playing with.

254

I mean, think about it.

255

By design, all they can do is lose or draw.

256

And yet, when the results of all interactions are tallied up, they come out ahead of all other strategies.

257

Similarly, always defect can never lose a game.

258

It can only draw or win.

259

But overall, it performs extremely poorly.

260

This highlights a common misconception.

261

Because for many people, when they think about winning, they think they need to beat the other person.

262

In games like chess or poker, this is true, since one person's gain is necessarily another person's loss, so these games are zero -sum.

263

But most of life is not zero -sum.

264

To win you don't need to get your reward from the other player, instead you can get it from the banker.

265

Only in real life the banker is the world, it is literally everything around you.

266

It is just up to us to find those win -win situations and then work together to unlock those rewards.

267

Cooperation pays, even among rivals.

268

From 1950 to 1986, the US and Soviet Union had trouble cooperating, and both kept developing nukes.

269

But then, from the late 80s onwards, they started reducing their nuclear stockpiles.

270

They too had learned how to resolve conflict.

271

Rather than making an agreement to abolish all nuclear arms at once and essentially turning it into a single prisoner's dilemma,

272

they would disarm slowly a small number of nukes each year, and then they'd check each other to see that they had both cooperated, and then repeat the year after,

273

and the year after that, all along checking to ensure mutual cooperation.

274

In the more than 40 years since Axelrod's tournaments, researchers have continued to study which strategies perform best in a variety of environments.

275

In doing so, they varied everything from payoff structures to strategies to errors and more.

276

Some even allowed the strategies to mutate.

277

While tit for tat or generous tit for tat doesn't always come out on top, Axelrod's main takeaways still hold.

278

Be nice, forgiving, but don't be a pushover.

279

Can I ask you, why did Anatole Rappaport submit tit for tat?

280

well the reason was because I asked him to

281

and he he wrote saying yeah I'm going to do that

282

but I just want to be clear that I'm not sure

283

that this is really such a good idea I don't he was a peace researcher

284

and I think his own inclinations were to be much more forgiving and maybe and not be so provokable.

285

What I find fascinating is that one of the main things

286

that sets life apart from non -living things is that life gets to make decisions.

287

We get to make choices, choices that don't only change our future, but also the future of those we interact with.

288

See, in the short term, it is often the environment that shapes the player, that determines who does well.

289

But in the long run, it is the players that shape the environment

290

so let's play a game the game of life

291

and make your choices wisely

292

because their impact may reach further than you think using the right strategy matters

293

but figuring out the best strategy isn't easy it requires critical thinking and innovative solutions like Axelrod's tournaments.

294

If you're looking for an easy way to build your problem solving skills then check out this video's sponsor Brilliant.

295

Brilliant will help make you a better thinker in everything from math and data science to programming, technology, you name it.

296

You can start right now for free straight from your device, the device you're watching this on.

297

All you need to do is set your learning goal and Brilliant will design the perfect path for you, equipping you with all the tools you need to reach it.

298

Did you like today's insights from game theory?

299

Then Brilliant's brand new course, Intro to Probability, is the perfect next step.

300

Introduction to probability is your gateway to mastering the tools of chance, risk, and prediction.

301

You will learn how to construct and analyze models of real -world situations, from electrons and business decisions all the way to the 2023 Women's World Cup.

302

Whether you're a budding statistician or you just want to learn about randomness and chance.

303

This course will equip you with the skills you need to make decisions in uncertain situations.

304

You'll even take a page out of Axelrod's playbook

305

and learn how to build computer simulations to put your strategies to the test.

306

Beyond probability, Brilliant has a massive library of content covering everything from math to data science and programming to technology.

307

What I love about Brilliant is that each lesson is hands -on so so you'll build real intuition.

308

And the best part is that you can learn with Brilliant on the go.

309

To try everything Brilliant has to offer for free for a full 30 days, visit brilliant .org slash Veritasium.

310

And the first 200 of you to sign up will get 20 % off Brilliant's annual premium subscription.

311

So I wanna thank Brilliant for sponsoring this video, and I wanna thank you for watching.

ऐप डाउनलोड करें

धाराप्रवाह बोलने के लिए ज़रूरी सब कुछ

AI उच्चारण स्कोरहर वाक्य का स्कोर

IPA अभ्यासहर ध्वनि में महारत

शब्दावलीअपना शब्द भंडार बनाएँ

शब्द गेमखेलते हुए सीखें

QR स्कैन करें

Download on theApp Store Get it onGoogle Play

उसी चैनल से

FOR YOU

अनुशंसित वीडियो

291 वाक्य

Why did white men conquer the world?

Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults

195 वाक्य

How Solar Is Beating Nuclear's Best Idea

Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults

182 वाक्य

The Uncertainty Principle: What Does It Mean, How Does It Work?

Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults

76 वाक्य

Make AI Believe in God to Keep Humans Safe, Scientist Argues

Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults

79 वाक्य

3 game theory tactics, explained

Business EnglishUniversity StudentsWorking Adults

238 वाक्य

Cosmic Insignificance Theory: A Simple Idea That Will Change Your Life Forever

Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults

150 वाक्य

The only good nuclear accident

Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults

552 वाक्य

The Professor Who Taught People How To Think (1962)

Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults

21 वाक्य

Solve at MIT: Her Majesty Queen Rania on "Youth, Skills, and the Workforce" Challenge

Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults

514 वाक्य

Why Ukraine Is Doomed | Episode 6

Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults

इस पाठ की शब्दावली और बोलने के सुझाव

इस वीडियो में शैडोइंग के लिए 311 वाक्य और 4323 शब्द हैं। बोला गया हिस्सा 27:16 लंबा है। वक्ता लगभग 159 शब्द प्रति मिनट की स्वाभाविक गति से बोलता है, जो रोज़मर्रा की बातचीत के करीब है। केवल 81% शब्द अंग्रेज़ी के 3,000 सबसे आम शब्दों में से हैं, इसलिए शब्दावली कठिन है।

इस वीडियो की मुख्य शब्दावली

वीडियो के 15 सीखने लायक शब्द, उच्चारण और अर्थ के साथ:

शब्द	उच्चारण	अर्थ
defect संज्ञा	/ˈdiːfɛkt/	दोष, खोट
opponent संज्ञा	/əˈpəʊ.nənt/	प्रतियोगी, विरोधी
cooperation संज्ञा	/koʊˌɑ.pəˈɹeɪ.ʃən/	सहयोग, सहकार
coin संज्ञा	/ˈkoɪ̯n/	सिक्का, मुद्रा
cooperate क्रिया	/kəʊˈɒp.ə.ɹeɪt/	सहयोग करना
dilemma संज्ञा	/daɪˈlɛmə/	दुविधा, संशय
conclusion संज्ञा	/kənˈkluːʒən/	अंतिम
probability संज्ञा	/ˌpɹɑ.bəˈbɪl.ə.ti/	प्रायिकता, संभावना
banker संज्ञा	/ˈbæŋkəː/	बैंकर
complicated विशेषण	/ˈkɑm.plɪˌkeɪ.tɪd/	जटिल, पेचीदा
solve क्रिया	/sɒlv/	सुलझाना, हल करना
grass संज्ञा	/ɡɹɑːs/	घास
reward संज्ञा	/ɹɪˈwɔɹd/	इनाम, पुरस्कार
generous विशेषण	/ˈd͡ʒɛn(ə)ɹəs/	दिलदार, उदार
mathematics संज्ञा	/mæθ(.ə)ˈmæt.ɪks/	गणित, गणित-विधा

इस वीडियो का व्याकरण

वक्ता जिन संरचनाओं का सबसे अधिक प्रयोग करता है, वीडियो के असली शब्दों के साथ:

संरचना	वीडियो में
शर्त वाले वाक्य if + उपवाक्य, will/would + क्रिया — शर्त और उसका नतीजा	If it retaliated, Tester would apologize · If it didn't retaliate, Tester would defect
Passive voice be + past participle — ज़ोर इस पर कि क्या होता है, न कि कौन करता है	have been based · have been produced · be done
Relative clauses who / which + उपवाक्य — व्यक्ति या वस्तु के बारे में अतिरिक्त जानकारी	one who defected · ticks, which can · thing, which will
Present perfect have/has + past participle — बीता हुआ काम जिसका असर अभी भी है	have been based · have been published · has evolved

ध्यान देने योग्य उच्चारण

वक्ता 47 बार संक्षिप्त रूपों का प्रयोग करता है, जैसे don't, you're, didn't। इन्हें वैसे ही छोटा बोलें जैसा आप सुनते हैं।

“th” की ध्वनियाँ: mathematics /mæθ(.ə)ˈmæt.ɪks/, bother /ˈbɑðɚ/, sixth /sɪksθ/
“sh” और “zh” की ध्वनियाँ: cooperation /koʊˌɑ.pəˈɹeɪ.ʃən/, simulation /ˌsɪm.jəˈleɪ.ʃn̩/, conclusion /kənˈkluːʒən/, rational /ˈɹæʃ(ə)nəl/, establish /ɪˈstæb.lɪʃ/
लंबे शब्द — बलाघात सही रखें: cooperation /koʊˌɑ.pəˈɹeɪ.ʃən/, cooperate /kəʊˈɒp.ə.ɹeɪt/, probability /ˌpɹɑ.bəˈbɪl.ə.ti/, complicated /ˈkɑm.plɪˌkeɪ.tɪd/, similarly /ˈsɪm.ə.lə.li/

इस वीडियो से अभ्यास कैसे करें

पहले बिना बोले पूरा वीडियो एक बार सुनें और जो शब्द नहीं आते उन्हें लिख लें।
0.75× गति से शुरू करें, एक-एक वाक्य की शैडोइंग करें, और सहज लगने पर सामान्य गति पर लौटें।
अपनी आवाज़ रिकॉर्ड करें और मूल से तुलना करें, ख़ासकर defect, opponent, cooperation जैसे शब्दों पर ध्यान दें।

शैडोइंग तकनीक क्या है?

शैडोइंग (Shadowing) एक विज्ञान-समर्थित भाषा सीखने की तकनीक है जो मूल रूप से पेशेवर दुभाषिया प्रशिक्षण के लिए विकसित की गई थी। विधि सरल लेकिन शक्तिशाली है: आप मूल अंग्रेज़ी ऑडियो सुनते हैं और तुरंत इसे ज़ोर से दोहराते हैं — जैसे वक्ता की छाया 1-2 सेकंड की देरी से। शोध से पता चलता है कि यह उच्चारण सटीकता, स्वर, लय, जुड़ी हुई ध्वनियाँ, सुनने की समझ और बोलने की प्रवाहशीलता में काफ़ी सुधार करता है।

शैडोइंग तकनीक: पूरी चरण-दर-चरण गाइड पढ़ें →

शैडोइंग अभ्यास: This game theory problem will change the way you see the world - वीडियो के साथ अंग्रेजी बोलना सीखें

अभ्यास मोड चुनें

ऐप डाउनलोड करें

Something is jamming GPS over Europe. Here's what we found

The Absurd Engineering Behind the Internet

Why It Was Almost Impossible to Make the Blue LED

You've (Likely) Been Playing The Game Of Life Wrong

We're trying something new...

How does light 'know' the shortest path?

The CIA's new tech doesn't make sense

Why does every mammal get 1 billion heartbeats in their life?

Why Cold Drinks Were Deadly Before 1914

Exposing The Flaw In Our Phone System

Our Greatest Delusion

The Most Controversial Problem in Philosophy

Why Are 96,000,000 Black Balls on This Reservoir?

We've Been Using The Wrong Science In Court For 50 years

Explaining Pi With Pizza

5 Fun Physics Phenomena

The Most Misunderstood Concept in Physics

Falling ladders - why does this happen?

How a slinky falls in slow motion #shorts

We're 99.9% sure this pattern is true, but no one can prove it

Why did white men conquer the world?

How Solar Is Beating Nuclear's Best Idea

The Uncertainty Principle: What Does It Mean, How Does It Work?

Make AI Believe in God to Keep Humans Safe, Scientist Argues

3 game theory tactics, explained

Cosmic Insignificance Theory: A Simple Idea That Will Change Your Life Forever

The only good nuclear accident

The Professor Who Taught People How To Think (1962)

Solve at MIT: Her Majesty Queen Rania on "Youth, Skills, and the Workforce" Challenge

Why Ukraine Is Doomed | Episode 6

इस पाठ की शब्दावली और बोलने के सुझाव

इस वीडियो की मुख्य शब्दावली

इस वीडियो का व्याकरण

ध्यान देने योग्य उच्चारण

इस वीडियो से अभ्यास कैसे करें

शैडोइंग तकनीक क्या है?