[Youtube Review][Veritasium] Why Anecdotes Trump Data

(Recommended)Popular Videos : [Veritasium] Why Anecdotes Trump Data

 

This time, I will review the popular YouTube videos.

These days, even if it's good to watch on YouTube, sometimes people skip it or don't watch it if it's too long.

When you watch Youtube, do you scroll and read the comments first?

To save your busy time, why don't you check out the fun contents, summary, and empathy comments of popular YouTube videos first and watch YouTube?

(Recommended)Popular Videos : [Veritasium] Why Anecdotes Trump Data

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7MTM4BKZ_E

 

---

 

Playtime Comments : [Veritasium] Why Anecdotes Trump Data

ul****:

6:49 I don't think you can drink a thousand litter of water a day, you would die in no time.

 

---

 

Top Comments : [Veritasium] Why Anecdotes Trump Data

Is***:

I read about these studies in the book "Thinking Fast and Slow"

X:

Am I the only one who glanced at the title and thought it was a video about Donald Trump?

Gr**********:

you dont have to actually show all the times you did the experiment, but you should definitely at the very least mention it. Maybe show a sped-up montage of the repeated experiments

Mr********:

Who is Anecdotes Trump? Donald's cousin?

Ra********:

So statistics have shown that statistics are not convincing? And so you presented it in a anecdotal way. I see what you did here....

St*****:

It's fairly simple: people do stories, the universe does math.

ny*******:

So basically, Veritasium and Mythbusters need to tell better stories. Stories that include, or at least acknowledge, the multiple experiments either done, or needed to be done in order to come to a conclusion.

Jo********:

Cool minute physics shirt, by the way

Ke***********:

I think that you could just briefly mention that you repeated the experiment several times, and then (again, briefly) summarize the findings. This would provide the "good story" that gets people interested in the science, without misrepresenting the fact that work and repetition are involved.

I think the current approach stems from the assumption that most (or atleast, many) people have short attention spans (especially those interested this type of media), and if you bore them for even a few moments, you'll lose them. This may have some truth to it, but I think a balance can be reached where you don't make the statistical analysis too long, but it is atleast mentioned. (Heck, you could even show the repetition part in a quick, high-speed montage).

I think it is important to atleast mention or briefly show the scientific method, so that a) those that are familiar with science take the findings a bit more seriously, and b) so that the general public isn't confused about what constitutes a science experiment (i.e. so that folks understand in future that their own anecdotal experience does not equal scientific proof, it's at most just a data point). And in a broad sense, I think that that approach would show respect for the intelligence of the audience...they can handle it :-)

ja***:

the lie or misinformation can go around the world before the truth gets its shoes on.

il*********:

#MakeDataGreatAgain

Te*******:

where are you? lol

Is*****:

Please don't go on a hike without any water...

ic**********:

The "Make Donald Drumpf Again" chrome extension made this video so much more enjoyable to see in my subscriptions

Da********:

I can sum this video up in 5 words. Facts tell and stories sell.

Ri******:

When it comes to the bystander effect, it caused me great pain when I first learned about it. Honestly, I learned around the time I talked a stranger out of killing themself by jumping off a bridge in front of a moving train.
I drove by him and thought it was weird and contemplating whether I should return and several times I thought he was just resting or someone else would get to him. However, at least 5 miles down the road I finally decide to turn around to go check.
After that day, I vowed I would never succumb to the bystander effect again if I could help it. Since then I've helped a few people stranded on the road and talked 2 others out of suicide. I'm also an out transgender person so I've learned how to deal with standing out against other people.

At***********************************************:

Yes kids, the word "trump" has a meaning outside of Donald Trump.

we**********:

Dammit, so showing more data won't really convince most people? Eh, now I understand why when sometimes I tried to convince some people to something and just showed them more data it still wouldn't convince them. I thought it would convince me so why not them.

Wi******:

You are nearing 3333333 subscribers :P

St******:

After 8 minutes of him talking: "Where the hell is he? Where is he going?"

ma******:

Why not have the dramatic anecdotal experiment, then add a section like "we did this experiment 144 times, and here are the results on a graph. Our conclusion is X=42"
Then you have the best of both worlds.

Ke*************:

I have to believe the word "trump" has been used cleverly as clickbait

Ju****************:

you need a fluffy thing on your mic

Cy********:

'Drink a thousand liters a day and not have adverse effects' I think that drinking a thousand liters of anything would be fatal.

Ta*******:

Oh, I'm early, let me think of a joke




This joke.

De************:

To be fair, a decent chunk of the myths that the Mythbusters tested were proof of concept, so they only needed to do it once

Au************:

in the time i did watch myth busters
i did notice repetition and other scientificness
but it was minor, they make it simple and easy to understand for us while having decent data
they do do rep. to certain myths

He********************:

it's kind of hard to repeat a massive explosion 20 times when your budget doesn't allow for it.

Th****:

He speaks freely without notes! That's pretty incredible

Al*******:

Where is this place you are walking?

in*********:

The answer is to carry on doing it how you are doing but STATE in the video or the info that you performed x tests etc.

Se****************:

The Drumpfinator by Last Week Tonight changed the title of this video to :"Why Anecdotes Drumpf Data."

na*****:

"Why Anecdotes Drumpf Data" - Thanks John Oliver.

S4***:

Man, that walk looks fantastic and so relaxing.

Mr********:

I'll bet a small ammount of cash that putting the word "Trump" in the video title at this time increases viewer count by a noticable percentage.

Li*******:

Just in case anyone was about to try it, even with no larvacide in it you don't want to drink 1000 liters of water a day

Cp********:

As a strongly scientific individual I do trust data. The problem with data these days is the source and motives behind the data. We all know that data can be skewed to offer a narrative other than the real truth or science... politicians do it all the time with "data" or "statistics" that "prove" their position. So, to trust data I must know the source, the method, and verification used to provide it. Otherwise... my first thought is, "Okay, who is trying to scam what?" The old adage, "follow the money," applies even to the scientific community in today's society.

Ta***********:

You're spot on about the power of anecdotes. But about the aims of your channel vs that of Mythbusters. To the extent that your aim is to educate the public about scientific facts, I agree that reliance on anecdotal evidence is well suited. But I think the criticism of Mythbusters is that, to a certain extent, they're trying to educate the public about the scientific method. The conclusions they make aren't supported by a background of "good" science (scare quotes because I don't want to say that MB science is "bad," per se, just that it doesn't do the boring, repetitive stuff that characterizes our best science) so they can't claim to be educating people about established facts. Indeed, the reason they're doing the experiments is because they're novel and interesting, because they're untested. So relying on anecdotes there may give a false impression of what good science is.

And... I'm kind of ok with that. I grew up with MB, and it's one of the things that fostered my love of science today. Sure, it gives a misleading impression of what science is, but many of the things that inspire us aren't good representations of the work they represent. A budding musician may be inspired by the apparently glamorous lifestyle of a rock star, not realizing the hard work and difficulties that go into making music, but that dramatic impression still motivates them to start a band with their friends and study instruments. I see MB like that. They inspire people to love science as a concept, which is important for making actual scientists, or at least science-enthusiasts.

Br**********:

The bystander effect is something that I''m fascinated by. Something that has been on my mind a lot lately is that we present what we represtent. When you mentioned that "ordinary, nice people" that didn't help, it makes me think that there is some kind of unconscious support for your ideals. If you present yourself as sometone who is likely to help, maybe people pick up on that. It speaks volumes to me, because I feel that I am one of those people, but given the opportunities I have to help (because, seriously, they are infinite), I don't as many as I can. Interesting video as always, and I suppose that's the main thing that stuck out to me... Any thoughts?

 

---

 

[Veritasium] We gathered comments about popular videos and looked at them in summary, including play time, and order of popularity.

It's a good video or channel, but if you're sad because it's too long, please leave a YouTube channel or video link and I'll post it on this blog.

 

---

 

[Veritasium] Channel Posting

[Veritasium] 10 Facts About Great White Sharks

[Veritasium] 13 Misconceptions About Global Warming

[Veritasium] 4가지 혁명적 수수께끼

[Veritasium] An Affordable 3D-Printed Arm

[Veritasium] Anti-Gravity Wheel Explained

[Veritasium] Anti-Gravity Wheel?

[Veritasium] Backspin Basketball Flies Off Dam

[Veritasium] Can Silence Actually Drive You Crazy?

[Veritasium] Can You Swim in Shade Balls?

[Veritasium] Does Planet 9 Exist?

[Veritasium] Drinking in ZERO-G! (and other challenges of a trip to Mars)

[Veritasium] First Flight on Another Planet!

[Veritasium] First Image of a Black Hole!

[Veritasium] How Does a Quantum Computer Work?

[Veritasium] How Special Relativity Makes Magnets Work

[Veritasium] How Were the Pyramids Built?

[Veritasium] I Waterproofed Myself With Aerogel!

[Veritasium] Is This What Quantum Mechanics Looks Like?

[Veritasium] Making Liquid Nitrogen From Scratch!

[Veritasium] Making SOLID Nitrogen!

[Veritasium] Quantum Entanglement & Spooky Action at a Distance

[Veritasium] Slinky Drop Answer

[Veritasium] Spinning Black Holes

[Veritasium] Supercooled Water - Explained!

[Veritasium] The Bayesian Trap

[Veritasium] The Illusion of Truth

[Veritasium] The Northernmost Town on Earth (Svalbard in 4K)

[Veritasium] The World in UV

[Veritasium] What's In A Candle Flame?

[Veritasium] Why Gravity is NOT a Force

[Veritasium] Why Machines That Bend Are Better

[Veritasium] Would You Take This Bet?

[Veritasium] Your Mass is NOT From the Higgs Boson

[Veritasium] 그림자의 가장 밝은 부분은 가운데입니다.

[Veritasium] 도대체 화씨란?

[Veritasium] 생각의 과학

[Veritasium] 온도에 대한 오해

[Veritasium] 왜 맹독성 동물들은 온대 기후에 살까?

[Veritasium] 외계인은 존재할까?

[Veritasium] 이중 슬릿 실험

[Veritasium] 임의적이지 않다는게 뭘까요?

[Veritasium] 카멜레온은 어떻게 색을 바꿀까?

[Veritasium] 파괴 불가능한 코팅!?

[Veritasium] 핵 미사일은 어떻게 발사하는가

 

---