@Sean I understand why someone might feel that way, but that's like the entire point of this video. He's saying that people trust personal perspectives more than statistical evidence, and that very fact leads to folks becoming grossly misinformed. Statistics can definitely be twisted and abused, but they're still the best tool we know of to pursue truth. It is good to always be skeptical about things people tell you, but all that means is you should look into the stats yourself if someone makes a claim about them. Cuz here's the thing, anecdotes/personal stories are basically just statistics with a sample size of 1 that haven't been analyzed for bias/extra factors/misjudgments. So they're basically just an incredibly weak and unreliable statistic. Yet people are still tempted to trust the anecdote more, because we are biologically wired that way. In order to seek truth, one must acknowledge the shortcomings of their own mind and consciously work around them. What you are doing is you are failing to acknowledge the brain's shortcomings and vastly over estimating the reliability of a person's judgment. I know stats can be twisted, but *so can anecdotes!* Except anecdotes can be twisted far, far, far more.
@Sean I am truly confused as to how you interpreted my comment to mean that. I am saying that your trust in anecdotes is misplaced. They are the wrong things to trust. That said, if someone throws a random statistic at you, you should definitely be skeptical of it. I assume you trust your self right? Science and statistics are great because you can personally look up and analyze every step of a study so that you can see for yourself how they got the data and calculated the statistics. If someone throws a suspicious statistic at you, it's always a good idea to investigate how they got it. You should look at the raw data and determine for yourself whether that statistic is intentionally misleading, or if it's even accurate. You should also assess the means by which the researchers collected the data. The "materials and methods" section of a study should be robust, reliable, and reproducible. In science, you don't have to blindly trust what anyone says. You can see for yourself by reading the publication
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.
Right on. A prime example is professor emeritus Brian Morris, whos work is NSFA (Not Safe For Anything). I still hear his works cited regularly in the US due to the popularity of what he advocated for, despite a closer look reveals extreme bias and lack of actual data. Then there's his criminal record [shudder], which reveals his motive.
And that's the rub, isn't it? It is not one cold winter that has people suspicious of climate change, it is cooked data, it is non-falsifiable data, it is dubiously sourced data, the squelching of one side of the debate, the insistence that the science is settled, the supporters reliance on narrative, and so on that casts doubts on global cooling... I mean global warming... I mean AGW... I mean climate change... I mean really, really Bad THINGS that are all our fault!!! Even the claim that people doubt on the basis of "one cold, snowy winter" is sufficient to arouse suspicions because it is the SUPPORTERS that like to rely on the "one hot summer" in Europe while ignoring the cool summer in America or the extra busy or very quiet hurricane season to make their case.
Always looking for a chance to get propaganda into the video. I wonder if because Al Gore came up with a cool story about how climate change happens or will happen that then changes the minds of so call scientists in the face of data that we are going through normal cycles of climate on earth. Of course things change but that doesn't mean they will spiral out of control.
+1smallstep +Matthew Bell Good god, do I always have to see people muscling in the same tired, one-sided agendas into a problem that is endemic from all sides of the political spectrum? No wonder nobody can ever get anything done anymore. So many people would rather push blame everywhere else.
Great video, Derek. Simply beating people with the knowledge stick does not work. We are a storytelling species, and we always have been. Those who abuse science aren't going to stop using stories to meet their ends any time soon, and neither should we. Luckily, our stories are much better.
+It's Okay To Be Smart additionally data is often misportrayed or outright manufactured and thus often not trustworthy. If you have claims like for example the gender wage gap of 77 cents on the dollar for the exact same job and yet when searching for an example and you can't find a single one.... then you realize that this number is a misrepresentation of a statistic that's not relevant for discrimination. (you get the 77 cents on the dollar not for the same work, but when you take all earnings of women devided by all ernings of men, different amount of people in the workforce, different occupations, different working hours, etc).... see, I just gave a concrete example of my data claim... wait, did I make a data claim? Oh, I forgot, here you go: 32% of all statistics uttered in a comment section are made up on the spot.
+It's Okay To Be Smart . I believe Malcolm Gladwell had a section in one of his books on this . Stories are usually easier to remember and more interesting than raw data .
That's what I was thinking. Mythbusters was more about "is there any chance that this could happen?" from my previous experience of the show (admittedly it has been a very long time since I've watched the show!), and at least to me it was quite clear that the show was mostly entertainment with a bit of science, rather than a detailed study you would use in a news report or something.
If you agree that this is not a viable study then why make a video that makes the false assumption that anecdotal evidence is more reliable than actual data. It has been proven that no matter what, eye witnesses are almost never reliable.
+Daniel Larini I'm not sure if that was a joke, but that was clearly not the point being made. The point being made was that whilst data is more reliable, in terms of convincing people of already established facts, anecdotes are better. People simply don't grasp numbers well.
It's basically how you need to explain science to non-scientific people, or as a way to condense data. Stories and anecdotes are a better way to describe what happened. You just need the data to back it up.
+Atheists Are Actually Theists. Proof? "A Theist". I Rest My Case. Well considering a theist and an atheist are the complete opposite, your quite wrong
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.
***** Irrelevant? My point was that I try to prevent myself from succumbing to the pressure from others and being trans requires that trait just to survive. It absolutely IS relevant and you're welcome to piss off now.
+Rinyotsu They are trolls obviously. Don't feed them. And if they aren't and really don't see the connection, don't talk to them altogether : their mind is just not wired to see it. You'd speak in the void.
I have the Trumpweb plugin. It inserts a quote from Donald Trump after his name, each time a different one. This time I had: "Somebody's doing the raping"
Pierre Stöber I like this. This is a good plugin, isn't this a good plugin? Let me tell you something, if it was me we'd have the best plugin. The BEST plugin.
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
+Austin Pinheiro It's kind of worth noting that Mythbusters isn't really a show about the conducting of science, but rather of the use of science to test ideas. People moaning about it not being scientific are, frankly, missing the point, and likely just band-antiwagoning on a rebellion against the show's popularity.
+Austin Pinheiro That's why they have "plausible" as a common conclusion, as opposed to myth busted or myth confirmed. Because they understand that their methods aren't 100% certain sometimes.
+Austin Pinheiro I'm a scientist, and I love Mythbusters, it is really about as scientific as you can get on mainstream TV. Do people really expect them to keep exploding cars until they reach a 3-sigma uncertainty level?
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 :-)
I think, that if it's something that has already been proven multiple times, and is "well known" as we say in academia, then you only need to do it once.
I would counter that to say that they have absolutely no responsibility to do so. Why does Veritasium have to appease to people whose knee-jerk reaction is to discredit them? Trust me, I understand the scientific process. But all they should have to do is have one video somewhere (like this one) saying "Hey, we actually do use the scientific process, we just don't always show you."
I was waiting for you to drop the punch with those last 5 seconds and say something to the effect of "this path used to be a glacier". You left me hangin.
+icedragon769 can some explain the Drumf thing? from what Wikipedia tells me his father also had that surname so this would seem to tell me that it was those stuff parodied in the simpson where people where force to change their last name to seem more american. why is making fun of that a thing sorry not from the usa
My grandma told me about the bystander effect and told me never assume someone else is going to help. Always be the one to jump in. It's better to have tried to help and not be able to do anything than to be a bystander.
I totally agree. Communicating and educating the average person on science requires simplification and drama. I feel its best to educate with simplification and drama, but to include links to the original information so that people CAN learn all the details if they'd like. Its hard to catch a person's attention with a lot of data. Its easier to get the average person passionate about science by not going over their heads and instead relating it to them with a story. Personal story: I was raised in a very conservative household and taught 'creationist science'. So after school, I really had no knowledge of ACTUAL science. Its channels like this one that got my excited and interested in the scientific method. Now I'm much more knowledgeable on what constitutes good data and studies and information, whereas before I was raised to 'take things on faith'. This new way of thinking is exciting and invigorating for me, I always love learning new things. But it would never have happened if not for entertaining educators like Veritasium. It gave me a taste of science, which in turn lead me down a rabbit hole to so much more. So yes, maybe its problematic in some respects, but I strongly feel that this entertaining way of science education will do more good in the long run. I'm very grateful for it, in any case.
As a scientist, I really hate anecdotal evidence sometimes. You need no evidence to make it work. It's been almost the sole cause of every wrongful imprisonment in history. It makes, as he said, interesting rumors easy to spread. It can also be a powerful tool, but it's so easy to lie, and even easier for our brains to think it knows the truth when really it rarely does, and in fact makes up nearly everything it thought it did know about an event. The Dilbert cartoon tv series showed anecdotal evidence off really well and hilariously, but unfortunately I can't find the episode or clip online. It's worth a watch, and in fact the whole series is because, as with Dilbert comics, it's incredibly intelligent, witty, and hilarious.
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.
Emotion will override logic and reason. I have heard of scientific studies to that effect. That is why politicians don't talk about facts much, but rather make an appeal to emotion. Everyone has biases. The trick is to learn what your biases are, then make a strong conscious effort to think against the grain. This is very difficult, only a tiny percentage of people can actually pull it off. Most people will not even admit their biases are, in fact, biases. I have biases, you have biases, everyone has biases. Some biases are so widespread that people start to take them as fact. Anyone that says they don't have biases is not going to make rational arguments. The conclusion is only going to be as good as the inputs. Many people will use their own bias as an input without thinking about it.
NecroLord Exactly, usually to convince the audience to something you have to play on their emotions, and everyone can be susceptible to that if you are not careful.
recently I lernt this philosofical thing about logic, the etymology is "the art of think", but has the same root of "logos" wich means "talk" or discus, so you can say that logic is the "art of talk"... but here come the weird part, in the "logic of talk" (kinda of same thing) "good is difined by what is not bad" so you can proove what is not bad, but not what is true, because "the true is. point head". that's why ther's a verb for saying false but no verb for saying the truth (is interesting also that true comes from tríewe wich means "faith"... and not fact).... is frustrating.... at the end "truth" is about people belives, and not everybody believe in big data (or bigger than the everage people understandings) we should create an algorithm wich translate any data to "how much money will be soon enough less in your pocket"... that's something the everage people undestand
Paolino Bassi That is interesting but I think many words have origins you wouldn't expect, "logic" doesn't quite fall into the definition of the art of talk, the word itself may come from the word "to talk" but it may mean an entirely different thing. Well i am not exactly sure what do you mean, If you mean in greek language I do not know much about it. Hah, that depends on your definition of truth. Not everybody believes in big data because they do not care about the facts, that is sad but I guess if most people cant be easily convinced by just pouring facts on them there has to be some good evolutional reason for it.
+Paolino Bassi I don't think as many people understand money as you think. Not many people understand the concepts of sunk cost, marginal benefit, opportunity cost, or the fact that seller tax and buyer tax is equivalent, and those are very basic economic concepts that you learn in an introductory economics class.
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.
Robert Allen It wouldn't be good scientific practice to test on myself and have only a sample size of one. We should get a thousand volunteers to get a reliable sample size.
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.
+Breakfast221 I grew up in SoCal. This video looks like is was filmed there, as the trais, plants, and hills are very similar to trails that i have been on while there
Anecdotes, which medical people call "Aunt Tilly stories," have no value at all in the realm of science or medicine. You can find them online to support any belief you wish to support. And just because something DID happen, doesn't mean it always WILL.
What he is doing is giving anecdotes why he thinks anecdotes trump data. This was covered under the "can find online to support any belief" already. ;-)
He's using anecdotes to convey it because anecdotes convey it better. Anyone with any psychology, political, or marketing background either already knows this to be true or can easily find the data.
I needed to find examples of how storytelling and human science correlates and thought "Veritasium probably has something." This dude saw me starving and fed me the answer sheet!
Nice examples. This was explained well in the "Thinking Fast and Slow" book. In my company (we are consultants) we always try to tell a story (based on the data) in our presentations to clients. It is so much more powerful that just the stats. It is also why customer personas are used by companies - keep it personal and relateable
This is also true for teaching math. Students find it easier to learn from specific examples rather than "general" theorems. This is why many struggle with learning algebra, but arithmetic feels easy. It's easier for us to learn from 3^2 = 3*3 to see that 4^2 = 4*4 than it is to look at a^2 = a*a and then apply that to a specific case where a=4.
Starting from 7 minutes on, the short but precise explination you gave about the explicit comparisons between someone with a scientific thought track struggling to explain subject matter to someone lacking a natural "scientific method" like process. I have struggled with this divide of communication with everyone from my family, to my friends, to co-worker's, etc. With an admittedly lacking presence in a social community, even in my mid twenties I find a constant struggle attempting to articulate my thought to others. This video really hit home for me ^ _ ^ Thank you
***** Oh Pardon me, but how exactly am I "bashing religion"? This whole video is about how people find it easier to connect with a story than with the facts, that exactly describes religion. I never said that was the only reason religion persists. What I "don't get" is this recent disrespect for free expression "on platforms like these" by clueless p.c. do-gooders who are afraid of even having a discussion. And as far as "laissez faire" goes, why don't you tell that to the thugs in Bangladesh and elsewhere that murder atheist bloggers and other people with the courage to speak their own minds.
I'm very impressed that you recited this whole video outside without reading a script. I know you practiced and knew what you wanted to say but still impressive none the least.
sitrilko It's simple. Religion is based on stories that have an emotional impact on people. And people would much rather believe something that's in their face, that appeals to their emotions, rather than trust some ethereal data they can't exactly comprehend or relate to. People would much rather believe there is this magic being that listens to them and takes care of them, someone who created the universe, rather than listen to boring data and facts that show that is not the case.
Dee G While it applies to christianity, and other religions as well, this video has nothing to do with religion. So i wouldn't say it's screaming it. Also, one thing to note is that those stories don't actually need to be true for people to believe them.
Telling stories is great and all for communicating ideas. But for making decisions that affect people's lives, like in politics, I wish we could get away from all the stories and take a closer look at the facts. I hate that what gets attention and motivates action in the world in general are things based on emotion, because that gives the advantage to those who are the best at framing stories, not those that are best at presenting the statistics. Also, would love to go hike with you wherever that is.
@Veritasium, I hope you find this comment. Besides science related videos (which I thoroughly enjoy!), I greatly appreciate your videos that talk about our society and problems in it. Or just why the things are the way they are?! I hope that you keep making these videos. Keep up the good work!
+Kevin Yeoh Why in the world would you want to stop the climate change? All hail the climate change, I can't wait to go to Greenland's beaches in the winter and have a swim in the warm arctic ocean.
+Kevin Yeoh "If you want to convince people, you've got to tell a story." That is a stupid unfalsifiable unquantifiable untestable generalization of all people. Most people just either want to get something done or not.
agreed. i know from experience from where i am from (too many froms), that depending on the situation either most people would jumps all at once to help or almost none would help. i think it depends on cultural views of what is urgent or not. just a guess
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.
+nyak63RUS yes - I think the point is we are not generally establishing new scientific fact, we are communicating what has already been established. Therefore the rigour of our investigations can be reduced in order to make a good story
+Veritasium but the problem is that mythbuster represents itself as 'proving' or 'disproving' a point with experiment. Not that it is communicating what has been established.
Geoffrey Ritchey The audience has to take some responsibility though. It's a TV show meant to inform, not to educate. There's a big difference there, and I think it's up to the audience to see that.
+Veritasium well, you're not discovering anything new here on this channel. You just use the already aknowledged, well-studied facts and make it into a fun experiment to show people something they don't really get to observe in day to day life. Felt like a no-brainer, that you do it once and that's kinda it. But you actually surprised me a lot with the need for this video xD.
2:48 That experiment is completely stupid, most people, me included, don't know what to do or how to help, even if any help is needed at all, when someone has a seizure inside of a boot. I wouldn't know what to do, so I'd be paralyzed, dreading to do more harm than help. They should have chosen something convincing that virtually everyone understands how to be of help, that experiment is WORTHLESS. And to invoke the bystander effect when you don't know how the participants would have acted if they were alone, is unjustified.
But the whole point is precisely that people DON'T act the same when they are part of a group witnessing someone in distress, as opposed to when they are alone, regardless of what the nature of the emergency is. This is what the bystander effect describes. Besides, even if you don't personally know what to do, it should be fairly clear to everyone that this person might need help, so you check on him, call 911 or whatever is appropriate.
And my whole point is the experiment doesn't show that AT ALL. To say that people "DON'T act the same when they are part of a group witnessing someone in distress, as opposed to when they are alone" the experiment should compare those things that are supposed to differ. The experiment didn't, It just showed people not helping when they are part of a group and ASSUMING what they would do on their own. At least the way this guy summarized it.
I would agree that it isn't the best example of the bystander effect, however, you have to keep in mind that it's pretty much impossible to test the same people in both situations without them knowing about it. You have to test different groups of people and conduct enough tests so that your numbers are statistically significant. No experiment stands completely alone, this particular experiment merely confirms something that is well documented and tested. I would say the reason he says it confirms the bystander effect, is because the bystander effect is already well understood.
well the experiment as I understand it doesn't prove the bystander effect(that is a real thing proven in other better designed experiments with more groups of people )but I think the point of it is how the students reacted to the data. or maybe the experiment was better but the video wasn't about the bystander effect so he didn't want to explain the experiment in detail . Also as claus thomsen says you cant determine what those people would do alone because then they will be biased so you cant check the decisions of the same people in both situations but you can check how munch people helps when alone and how munch in a group and do it to enough people so you know your results are fiable .
actually, if you gave it a quick search you would have found out that the experiment had 3 groups of people, each in a different setting: G1 had just 1 person and 1 actor, G2 was 2 people and 1 actor and G3 was 5 people and 1 actor ( the actor was in fact a recorded voice ). Veritasium just summarised the experiment to make a quick point.
I am late to this party. But as someone in 2021, having witnessed the confusing spread of information about the pandemic.... The idea that stories are better at spreading "knowledge" makes so much sense. Humans originally didn't learn with the scientific method or numbers. They did it sitting around campfires and telling stories. Stories were how the older generation passed on knowledge- and still do. Stories only require understanding the language spoken. Statistics, as much as I appreciate them, require at least a basic understanding of mathematics, and then also an accurate knowledge base to understand their significance and application. Considering this: "4.55 million people on planet Earth have died of COVID19." That sounds incredible. Some person sitting behind a computer in the US reading this might be like, "Nah. Definitely bull, they're just being dramatic." From that, is it so hard to leap to, "Definitely a scam to restrict my rights"? As crazy as that is, maybe the story of the pandemic was told wrong (not pointing fingers at who) and that's why the US is sitting in the sociopolitical turmoil it is in now.
@Edwin Thomas I will admit that I did throw together the example quickly, and will agree it’s a bad one. However, my point was attempting to show the escalation of how opinions can emerge, I was not commenting on the statistic’s significance throughout history. Sorry for any miscommunication.
There is a simple answer to this dichotomy of presentation vs statistics: the montage. You and Dustin, for example, could have thrown in a 20-second montage of film clips from the repetitions with a dry-humor narration: "...and then we did it again... and again... and it just... kept... happening!" It would have been representative of previous work on that particular principle, and it would have been a funny/appreciative moment for the viewers as they realized how much you labored to give them that quickie video on the subject. This montage technique can turn rigorous exploration into the power of an anecdote, multiplying the two aspects.
+Aaron Reichert That's what I thought too. I think it would have been perfectly fine to just say "and to make sure this didn't happen by pure luck we repeated the experiment another 4 times and always got the result we showed you".
Yeah, the fact that the sentence made no sense if it was about him made it seem more likely that it was about him. Republican candidate supports federal control of health care and education, Republican candidate supports assault weapon ban, Republican candidate thought that Hillary would be a great candidate, Republican candidate gets applauded for supporting amnesty, the Republican candidate supports using eminent domain to enrich one person at the expense of another, etc., etc., etc. makes no sense - yet here we are!
very smartly done! critisise Donald trump without mentioning him, yet hinting everyone you're talking about him, just by using a specific word -that happens to also be his surname- in the title. chapeau to you, sir
Sadly, this also means that a large portion of the scientific community is easily deceived. By that I mean, most scientists hear about these studies once, and they hear about the supposed results, but they rarely take a look at the data to verify that the method of testing was correct or that the data wasn't manipulated or even that the data isn't being misinterpreted. Why? Because "there's lots of data", and because "this data clearly means . . . ". This is a problem particularly in the medical community where studies tend to be carried out (and worse, "peer reviewed") by financially interested parties rather than unbiased third parties. This easily results in medical science being warped or outright falsified for the sake of financial gains, but the scientific and medical community as a whole accept the claims because "there's a lot of data". Biased studies are one of the main reasons that people trust anecdotal evidence more than statistical evidence, so that is something that should not be ignored, especially in the medical field.
+DaneGraphics Oh yes. I can't recall specifics, but I have read stories about a particular field using what was effectively an old wives' tale. Heck, some of it is GPs (family doctors) continuing to apply knowledge that had since been superseded.
+DaneGraphics But those studies aren't for scientist they are for investors and public or marketing. So what use would scientist have to even look at that? Anyone who isn't familiar with this stuff is unlikely to know or look up ways of confirming or deconfirming this stuff. I would assume that the scientist have a check-list for filtering these false claims. It would only be natural.
+DaneGraphics Have you heard of the habit of "peer review" in science? Most decent fields of study work based on peer review and will only be published if the peers agree upon the correctness of the data. Generally speaking, if the study is about something that can be easily repeated, such as an apple falling towards the ground, then the data is easily believable. However, if you were to do a study, biased as it is, to "prove" that vaccines have a link to autism (spoiler: there is no link) then you can pay your way to publication. These practices are usually counteracted via multiple studies disproving this one claim, or via consideration of who would benefit from these results, though admittedly, the last option is only in case there are very few studies at all on the topic. You might think of a specific case study, but generally, anecdotal "evidence" is completely negligible
+DaneGraphics I'm glad somebody brought this up because it is a huge problem. I've read of cases where researchers have had their research blocked from being published and their reputations tarnished if their data gets out when their data contradicts what the financial backers were looking for.
+DarthViper3k - That is definitely true. We have a case where if someone has a lot of money and a few scientist interested in that money, those paid scientist can play themselves off as "peers" that review the work and can sometimes even be payed to testify in court against medical practitioners that attempt to publish contradictory data or put into practice the lessons they've learned from the studies they've performed.
People's minds can be so hard to change. We really love to get inside our comfort zones, in physical, emotional, and mental ways. When you provide evidence to refute the ways of thinking of people, that takes them out of that comfort zone and they will often do whatever they can to justify their own wrongfulness. Not many people are comfortable with the idea that they might be wrong. It takes a lot to view the world from a scientific point of view.
No. What you have is an experiment about _one single issue_. In generalizing it, you're ironically committing the same error you say people tend to commit.
I hope this makes front page. Trump supporters are going to be very confused.
ayy
Hey, you like this channel too? :D
+ParkerGames I thought the fact that they're Trump supporters proves they're already confused...
+Trepur349 ooo
Hi!!!
So statistics have shown that statistics are not convincing? And so you presented it in a anecdotal way. I see what you did here....
what
Rachel Kate I see the paradox here
Lol 😂
@Sean I understand why someone might feel that way, but that's like the entire point of this video. He's saying that people trust personal perspectives more than statistical evidence, and that very fact leads to folks becoming grossly misinformed. Statistics can definitely be twisted and abused, but they're still the best tool we know of to pursue truth. It is good to always be skeptical about things people tell you, but all that means is you should look into the stats yourself if someone makes a claim about them. Cuz here's the thing, anecdotes/personal stories are basically just statistics with a sample size of 1 that haven't been analyzed for bias/extra factors/misjudgments. So they're basically just an incredibly weak and unreliable statistic. Yet people are still tempted to trust the anecdote more, because we are biologically wired that way. In order to seek truth, one must acknowledge the shortcomings of their own mind and consciously work around them. What you are doing is you are failing to acknowledge the brain's shortcomings and vastly over estimating the reliability of a person's judgment. I know stats can be twisted, but *so can anecdotes!* Except anecdotes can be twisted far, far, far more.
@Sean I am truly confused as to how you interpreted my comment to mean that. I am saying that your trust in anecdotes is misplaced. They are the wrong things to trust. That said, if someone throws a random statistic at you, you should definitely be skeptical of it.
I assume you trust your self right? Science and statistics are great because you can personally look up and analyze every step of a study so that you can see for yourself how they got the data and calculated the statistics.
If someone throws a suspicious statistic at you, it's always a good idea to investigate how they got it. You should look at the raw data and determine for yourself whether that statistic is intentionally misleading, or if it's even accurate.
You should also assess the means by which the researchers collected the data. The "materials and methods" section of a study should be robust, reliable, and reproducible.
In science, you don't have to blindly trust what anyone says. You can see for yourself by reading the publication
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.
Right on. A prime example is professor emeritus Brian Morris, whos work is NSFA (Not Safe For Anything). I still hear his works cited regularly in the US due to the popularity of what he advocated for, despite a closer look reveals extreme bias and lack of actual data. Then there's his criminal record [shudder], which reveals his motive.
like the gender pay gap myth
And that's the rub, isn't it? It is not one cold winter that has people suspicious of climate change, it is cooked data, it is non-falsifiable data, it is dubiously sourced data, the squelching of one side of the debate, the insistence that the science is settled, the supporters reliance on narrative, and so on that casts doubts on global cooling... I mean global warming... I mean AGW... I mean climate change... I mean really, really Bad THINGS that are all our fault!!! Even the claim that people doubt on the basis of "one cold, snowy winter" is sufficient to arouse suspicions because it is the SUPPORTERS that like to rely on the "one hot summer" in Europe while ignoring the cool summer in America or the extra busy or very quiet hurricane season to make their case.
Always looking for a chance to get propaganda into the video. I wonder if because Al Gore came up with a cool story about how climate change happens or will happen that then changes the minds of so call scientists in the face of data that we are going through normal cycles of climate on earth. Of course things change but that doesn't mean they will spiral out of control.
+1smallstep
+Matthew Bell
Good god, do I always have to see people muscling in the same tired, one-sided agendas into a problem that is endemic from all sides of the political spectrum? No wonder nobody can ever get anything done anymore. So many people would rather push blame everywhere else.
Great video, Derek. Simply beating people with the knowledge stick does not work. We are a storytelling species, and we always have been. Those who abuse science aren't going to stop using stories to meet their ends any time soon, and neither should we. Luckily, our stories are much better.
+It's Okay To Be Smart
additionally data is often misportrayed or outright manufactured and thus often not trustworthy. If you have claims like for example the gender wage gap of 77 cents on the dollar for the exact same job and yet when searching for an example and you can't find a single one.... then you realize that this number is a misrepresentation of a statistic that's not relevant for discrimination. (you get the 77 cents on the dollar not for the same work, but when you take all earnings of women devided by all ernings of men, different amount of people in the workforce, different occupations, different working hours, etc)....
see, I just gave a concrete example of my data claim... wait, did I make a data claim? Oh, I forgot, here you go: 32% of all statistics uttered in a comment section are made up on the spot.
+It's Okay And the story is?
+It's Okay To Be Smart thanks man! I'm enjoying the stories you're telling
+It's Okay To Be Smart . I believe Malcolm Gladwell had a section in one of his books on this . Stories are usually easier to remember and more interesting than raw data .
.
I can sum this video up in 5 words. Facts tell and stories sell.
+Darrinjasz
I prefer his story
=D
Brilliant!
Remove the 'and' to make it even more concise.
Replace the 'and' with a 'but'.
Remove and. Use semicolon
Man, that walk looks fantastic and so relaxing.
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
+Deathnotefan97
You mean like the "pointless" lead balloon?
+Deathnotefan97
It's the non-proof-of-concept myths that I sometimes dislike the way they try.
That's what I was thinking. Mythbusters was more about "is there any chance that this could happen?" from my previous experience of the show (admittedly it has been a very long time since I've watched the show!), and at least to me it was quite clear that the show was mostly entertainment with a bit of science, rather than a detailed study you would use in a news report or something.
@@fetchstixRHD Detailed studies? News reports? I can't believe you used those in the same sentence without bursting out laughing.
@@sbyrstall No, news reports reference detailed studies all the time. Just as long as those studies happen to confirm what they were already saying.
You'd better have more than 13 subjects before you make sweeping conclusions in a social science study.
+Overonator haha - absolutely agreed!
+Overonator haha - absolutely agreed!
If you agree that this is not a viable study then why make a video that makes the false assumption that anecdotal evidence is more reliable than actual data. It has been proven that no matter what, eye witnesses are almost never reliable.
+Daniel Larini I'm not sure if that was a joke, but that was clearly not the point being made. The point being made was that whilst data is more reliable, in terms of convincing people of already established facts, anecdotes are better. People simply don't grasp numbers well.
+jacob robertson exactly. people believe what they can feel not actual data!!!!
It's basically how you need to explain science to non-scientific people, or as a way to condense data. Stories and anecdotes are a better way to describe what happened. You just need the data to back it up.
But only for non-scientific folks
this video went down hill
I see what you did there
+ben3847
I appreciate this.
+ben3847 It was fairly obvious what would happen once you saw where he was going ;-)
Badumm tsss
So in short: No, people are not Rational, and if we want to influence them, we have to stop treating them that way. Finally someone said it!
Yes kids, the word "trump" has a meaning outside of Donald Trump.
Wtf is that name supposed to mean
+Xx1M L3G1TxX 77 Donald Trump's name was altered gradually. His grandfather had a different form of the word Trump, I can't remember what.
Xx1M L3G1TxX 77 It means Atheists are Theists. Duh.
+Atheists Are Actually Theists. Proof? "A Theist". I Rest My Case. Well considering a theist and an atheist are the complete opposite, your quite wrong
Xx1M L3G1TxX 77 No...
"As scientists, we love Dada" - Dirk from Veristablium
+Dixavd Don't you mean Deminick from Geratalism?
the lie or misinformation can go around the world before the truth gets its shoes on.
does ironically-like the slow nature of our representative democrazy protect us against misinformation's quick strides throughout the populaces?
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.
You should mind your own business..
+Brittany Brassart why?
***** Irrelevant? My point was that I try to prevent myself from succumbing to the pressure from others and being trans requires that trait just to survive. It absolutely IS relevant and you're welcome to piss off now.
+Luis Gutierrez it fits the point I was making, explain how it's irrelevant.
+Rinyotsu They are trolls obviously. Don't feed them. And if they aren't and really don't see the connection, don't talk to them altogether : their mind is just not wired to see it. You'd speak in the void.
You are nearing 3333333 subscribers :P
3333333*
You both put down the same number
I like that number alot!
Replication shows 3333333 is the accurate number.
+sirati97 Nope, only 234 left.
I read about these studies in the book "Thinking Fast and Slow"
+Westis96 as did I!
I'm an Engineer that has been working in the industry for 3 years now, I still enjoy watching and learning from your videos. Keep at it Ve.
#MakeDataGreatAgain
+ilker yoldas x'D nice1
Big Data
Bigot.
I have John Oliver's plugin installed on Chrome, so I see this video as "Why Anecdotes Drumpf Data." I regret nothing.
Who's your main? I play best with Cloud, and Corrin
+Preston Garvey I play best at helping settlements marked on my map.
Preston Garvey Corrin for days, although I recently picked up Mewtwo after the last patch and have been having a blast with him!
I have the Trumpweb plugin. It inserts a quote from Donald Trump after his name, each time a different one. This time I had: "Somebody's doing the raping"
Pierre Stöber I like this. This is a good plugin, isn't this a good plugin? Let me tell you something, if it was me we'd have the best plugin. The BEST plugin.
Loved this. Beautiful scenery, too!
Vasquez rocks
Wow
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
+Austin Pinheiro It's kind of worth noting that Mythbusters isn't really a show about the conducting of science, but rather of the use of science to test ideas.
People moaning about it not being scientific are, frankly, missing the point, and likely just band-antiwagoning on a rebellion against the show's popularity.
+Austin Pinheiro That's why they have "plausible" as a common conclusion, as opposed to myth busted or myth confirmed. Because they understand that their methods aren't 100% certain sometimes.
+Austin Pinheiro I'm a scientist, and I love Mythbusters, it is really about as scientific as you can get on mainstream TV.
Do people really expect them to keep exploding cars until they reach a 3-sigma uncertainty level?
HA! You said "do do" lol
Also, you only did the coriolis experiment on one planet. :)
ikr what a phony
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 :-)
Mythbusters did that sometimes, I believe.
You literally have stolen the words from my mouth :) Or should I say the characters from my keyboard :P
I 100% agree! :)
This.
I think, that if it's something that has already been proven multiple times, and is "well known" as we say in academia, then you only need to do it once.
I would counter that to say that they have absolutely no responsibility to do so. Why does Veritasium have to appease to people whose knee-jerk reaction is to discredit them? Trust me, I understand the scientific process. But all they should have to do is have one video somewhere (like this one) saying "Hey, we actually do use the scientific process, we just don't always show you."
where are you? lol
+Tenebrous | Zєαℓσυѕ Topanga Canyon, California
Veritasium That's awesome!
+Veritasium just by me!
+Tenebrous | Zєαℓσυѕ Get no potted!
+Veritasium Right in my backyard! Great topic. I actually just did a video on The Bystander Effect.
He speaks freely without notes! That's pretty incredible
like Trump
+Thytos This whole channel is a passion of his. When you're passionate about something, you don't need notes.
Long story short: *_Sound bites work better than facts_* . Sadly.
nope, that has always veen known. He just said :lets give in and avoid science for catchy stories
+Observ45er You just made a sound bite in order to more effectively criticise sound bites.
Bytes*
Thought this video was about Donald trump...
Same
+Henrix98 #MakeMexicoPayForTheData
+nerdexproject yes
+Saurabh K Self-centered Americans
☝ • Yea, might of done that on purpose.
Who is Anecdotes Trump? Donald's cousin?
No, I think it's Donald's great uncle
Who know...
drumpf*
+MrGbere777 Have you watched the video? You should interpret the title like this: Why an anecdote can trump data. Do you understand it now?
+Lucas Lucas it is lol
I was waiting for you to drop the punch with those last 5 seconds and say something to the effect of "this path used to be a glacier". You left me hangin.
The "Make Donald Drumpf Again" chrome extension made this video so much more enjoyable to see in my subscriptions
+icedragon769 can some explain the Drumf thing? from what Wikipedia tells me his father also had that surname so this would seem to tell me that it was those stuff parodied in the simpson where people where force to change their last name to seem more american. why is making fun of that a thing sorry not from the usa
Now you should do "Why Trump Anecdotes Data".
+kiefac has dank maymays Next up: Why Data Anecdotes Trump
Followed by: Anecdotes Why Trump Data
Later: Anecdotes Data Trump Why
Trump anecdotes; why data?
I don't need to see 100 identical toilet flushes
+Luke Andrews So this elementary example somehow proves that anecdotes are better than data?
+Luke Andrews What if they split the screen in 100 so you could see 100 toilet flushed at the same time?
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.
exactly what I think.
+MrRolnicek hopefully it attracts new people from all the knowledge this channel has to offer.
+MrRolnicek I would bet a large amount of cash that putting "Trump" in the title was a pretty deliberate move.
After 8 minutes of him talking: "Where the hell is he? Where is he going?"
The age old question
My grandma told me about the bystander effect and told me never assume someone else is going to help. Always be the one to jump in. It's better to have tried to help and not be able to do anything than to be a bystander.
I totally agree. Communicating and educating the average person on science requires simplification and drama. I feel its best to educate with simplification and drama, but to include links to the original information so that people CAN learn all the details if they'd like. Its hard to catch a person's attention with a lot of data. Its easier to get the average person passionate about science by not going over their heads and instead relating it to them with a story.
Personal story: I was raised in a very conservative household and taught 'creationist science'. So after school, I really had no knowledge of ACTUAL science. Its channels like this one that got my excited and interested in the scientific method. Now I'm much more knowledgeable on what constitutes good data and studies and information, whereas before I was raised to 'take things on faith'. This new way of thinking is exciting and invigorating for me, I always love learning new things. But it would never have happened if not for entertaining educators like Veritasium. It gave me a taste of science, which in turn lead me down a rabbit hole to so much more.
So yes, maybe its problematic in some respects, but I strongly feel that this entertaining way of science education will do more good in the long run. I'm very grateful for it, in any case.
As a scientist, I really hate anecdotal evidence sometimes. You need no evidence to make it work. It's been almost the sole cause of every wrongful imprisonment in history. It makes, as he said, interesting rumors easy to spread. It can also be a powerful tool, but it's so easy to lie, and even easier for our brains to think it knows the truth when really it rarely does, and in fact makes up nearly everything it thought it did know about an event.
The Dilbert cartoon tv series showed anecdotal evidence off really well and hilariously, but unfortunately I can't find the episode or clip online. It's worth a watch, and in fact the whole series is because, as with Dilbert comics, it's incredibly intelligent, witty, and hilarious.
+Micah Philson smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=2159
Deathnotefan97 ...
OW! Why did you do this to me?!?!
I bet he just changed the thumbnail and title, the hard-working bastard. You da goat man, I remember when this video came out
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.
Emotion will override logic and reason. I have heard of scientific studies to that effect. That is why politicians don't talk about facts much, but rather make an appeal to emotion. Everyone has biases. The trick is to learn what your biases are, then make a strong conscious effort to think against the grain. This is very difficult, only a tiny percentage of people can actually pull it off. Most people will not even admit their biases are, in fact, biases. I have biases, you have biases, everyone has biases. Some biases are so widespread that people start to take them as fact. Anyone that says they don't have biases is not going to make rational arguments. The conclusion is only going to be as good as the inputs. Many people will use their own bias as an input without thinking about it.
NecroLord
Exactly, usually to convince the audience to something you have to play on their emotions, and everyone can be susceptible to that if you are not careful.
recently I lernt this philosofical thing about logic, the etymology is "the art of think", but has the same root of "logos" wich means "talk" or discus, so you can say that logic is the "art of talk"... but here come the weird part, in the "logic of talk" (kinda of same thing) "good is difined by what is not bad" so you can proove what is not bad, but not what is true, because "the true is. point head". that's why ther's a verb for saying false but no verb for saying the truth (is interesting also that true comes from tríewe wich means "faith"... and not fact)....
is frustrating.... at the end "truth" is about people belives, and not everybody believe in big data (or bigger than the everage people understandings)
we should create an algorithm wich translate any data to "how much money will be soon enough less in your pocket"... that's something the everage people undestand
Paolino Bassi
That is interesting but I think many words have origins you wouldn't expect, "logic" doesn't quite fall into the definition of the art of talk, the word itself may come from the word "to talk" but it may mean an entirely different thing.
Well i am not exactly sure what do you mean, If you mean in greek language I do not know much about it.
Hah, that depends on your definition of truth. Not everybody believes in big data because they do not care about the facts, that is sad but I guess if most people cant be easily convinced by just pouring facts on them there has to be some good evolutional reason for it.
+Paolino Bassi I don't think as many people understand money as you think. Not many people understand the concepts of sunk cost, marginal benefit, opportunity cost, or the fact that seller tax and buyer tax is equivalent, and those are very basic economic concepts that you learn in an introductory economics class.
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.
Haha, funny ending. The irony of having "statistical certainty " demonstrating that "stories work much better".
It's fairly simple: people do stories, the universe does math.
Best conclusion. Is it a quote or did you come up with this?
Andirator I made it up, but that doesn't mean its not just some paraphrased quote that I am failing to remember.
+Andirator I said it in 1969 at the Universal Genius Lectures of America.
Great quote!
It amazing to think you can intelligently and simply convey such interesting ideas/phenomena in just a casual walk, Amazing content, keep it up Derek
You have no idea how much I love your videos. Thanks for your work!
'Drink a thousand liters a day and not have adverse effects' I think that drinking a thousand liters of anything would be fatal.
You "think"? that's not very scientific. go drink 1000ltr's then come back and tell me if it does.
Robert Allen It wouldn't be good scientific practice to test on myself and have only a sample size of one. We should get a thousand volunteers to get a reliable sample size.
And then he said "Climate Change"...
what?
+Trav2016 Climate change is fact. It IS happening. If these changes are because of us, the humans, or something else is another discussion.
+Trav2016 perfectly illustrating his point.
Apparently, there will be drastic changes within the next few decades. Climate change is very real and very scary.
+Trav2016 u damn americans x,D
I subbed to you over two years ago and had no idea you had a second channel. Thank you so much.
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.
Where are you in this video? SoCal somewhere? Central coast? Or some other Mediterranean climate that looks similar to California?
+Breakfast221 I also want to know.
+Breakfast221 Unless he's on a trip, its somewhere in SoCal. As an LA resident, I'd also like to know the trail. Looks like a beautiful area.
+Breakfast221 I grew up in SoCal. This video looks like is was filmed there, as the trais, plants, and hills are very similar to trails that i have been on while there
+Breakfast221 This is in Topanga Canyon, so yes just outside LA in the Santa Monica Mountains
Awesome thanks for replying Veritasium
Was reading Thinking, fast and slow, and I couldn't understand chapter 16 until I watched this video. Thank you!
Guys let's get him 3,333,333 subscribers!
+Jared Brooks it's happened! thank you!
it's kind of hard to repeat a massive explosion 20 times when your budget doesn't allow for it.
Thanks for the story about how stories convince people of information better than data.
"Why Anecdotes Drumpf Data" - Thanks John Oliver.
Anecdotes, which medical people call "Aunt Tilly stories," have no value at all in the realm of science or medicine. You can find them online to support any belief you wish to support. And just because something DID happen, doesn't mean it always WILL.
That's not what he's saying. He's saying that IN OUR MINDS, anecdotes trump data. And why.
he's also saying that anecdotes help to convey a truth backed by data better than the data itself does by itself.
What he is doing is giving anecdotes why he thinks anecdotes trump data. This was covered under the "can find online to support any belief" already. ;-)
He's using anecdotes to convey it because anecdotes convey it better. Anyone with any psychology, political, or marketing background either already knows this to be true or can easily find the data.
I needed to find examples of how storytelling and human science correlates and thought "Veritasium probably has something."
This dude saw me starving and fed me the answer sheet!
I have to believe the word "trump" has been used cleverly as clickbait
Please don't go on a hike without any water...
Nice examples. This was explained well in the "Thinking Fast and Slow" book. In my company (we are consultants) we always try to tell a story (based on the data) in our presentations to clients. It is so much more powerful that just the stats. It is also why customer personas are used by companies - keep it personal and relateable
My Chrome plugin turned the title into "Why anecdotes drumpf data" XD
ha ha..nice one
+XyX YxY What plugin was it :P
moradierethamster Hehehe :'D Lovely...
The Drumpfinator by Last Week Tonight changed the title of this video to :"Why Anecdotes Drumpf Data."
This is also true for teaching math. Students find it easier to learn from specific examples rather than "general" theorems. This is why many struggle with learning algebra, but arithmetic feels easy. It's easier for us to learn from 3^2 = 3*3 to see that 4^2 = 4*4 than it is to look at a^2 = a*a and then apply that to a specific case where a=4.
This title gave me a confuse.
"Gave me a confuse"
+nathan mcdonald "that's the joke"
"anecdotes" and "Trump" in the title - well played
Starting from 7 minutes on, the short but precise explination you gave about the explicit comparisons between someone with a scientific thought track struggling to explain subject matter to someone lacking a natural "scientific method" like process. I have struggled with this divide of communication with everyone from my family, to my friends, to co-worker's, etc. With an admittedly lacking presence in a social community, even in my mid twenties I find a constant struggle attempting to articulate my thought to others. This video really hit home for me
^ _ ^
Thank you
This video is META
+Giaco Whatever No it is not.
@@ABaumstumpf yes it is
This also explains the continued prevalence of religion, despite already knowing so much more about the world we live in.
Stfu
+Your Average Grammar Nazi Why?
Shut up you atheistic nut bag
+Aethgeir I guess it's one of the many reasons
***** Oh Pardon me, but how exactly am I "bashing religion"? This whole video is about how people find it easier to connect with a story than with the facts, that exactly describes religion. I never said that was the only reason religion persists.
What I "don't get" is this recent disrespect for free expression "on platforms like these" by clueless p.c. do-gooders who are afraid of even having a discussion.
And as far as "laissez faire" goes, why don't you tell that to the thugs in Bangladesh and elsewhere that murder atheist bloggers and other people with the courage to speak their own minds.
He doesn't have to show every experiment but he could explain in each episode that he has done more than one experiment and why that's important.
Cool minute physics shirt, by the way
The title seemed strange. Apparently my Drumpfinator kicked in.
I'm very impressed that you recited this whole video outside without reading a script. I know you practiced and knew what you wanted to say but still impressive none the least.
The ultimate example of "stories win over data" is religion.
+Cristi Neagu Touché
+Cristi Neagu How so?
This video screams pro Christianity! Stories > Data
sitrilko It's simple. Religion is based on stories that have an emotional impact on people. And people would much rather believe something that's in their face, that appeals to their emotions, rather than trust some ethereal data they can't exactly comprehend or relate to.
People would much rather believe there is this magic being that listens to them and takes care of them, someone who created the universe, rather than listen to boring data and facts that show that is not the case.
Dee G While it applies to christianity, and other religions as well, this video has nothing to do with religion. So i wouldn't say it's screaming it.
Also, one thing to note is that those stories don't actually need to be true for people to believe them.
"Why Anecdotes Drumpf Data" is what I read.
+Gbill Pap I too have the Drumpfinator plugin xD
you are right... i didn't know 2Veratasium existed... so i just went over there and subscribed
Anyone else came here for Trump?
Telling stories is great and all for communicating ideas. But for making decisions that affect people's lives, like in politics, I wish we could get away from all the stories and take a closer look at the facts. I hate that what gets attention and motivates action in the world in general are things based on emotion, because that gives the advantage to those who are the best at framing stories, not those that are best at presenting the statistics.
Also, would love to go hike with you wherever that is.
@Veritasium, I hope you find this comment. Besides science related videos (which I thoroughly enjoy!), I greatly appreciate your videos that talk about our society and problems in it. Or just why the things are the way they are?! I hope that you keep making these videos. Keep up the good work!
That shirt he's wearing is pretty nice.
If you want to convince people, you've got to tell a story. This is why businesses should work with scientists if we were to solve climate change.
+Kevin Yeoh Why in the world would you want to stop the climate change? All hail the climate change, I can't wait to go to Greenland's beaches in the winter and have a swim in the warm arctic ocean.
We are already burning in the equator over here~~~
it isn't in business' best interest to solve climate change
+Kevin Yeoh "If you want to convince people, you've got to tell a story."
That is a stupid unfalsifiable unquantifiable untestable generalization of all people.
Most people just either want to get something done or not.
Im glad i got to go on this walk with you today! :)
13 people? Seems like a very small sample space
+John Quiñones I misunderstood. I mistook the number as the number of times the experiment was performed.
Doesn't matter
Makes a nice story, though. ;)
13 per run is fine. the number of runs is the important parameter.
agreed. i know from experience from where i am from (too many froms), that depending on the situation either most people would jumps all at once to help or almost none would help. i think it depends on cultural views of what is urgent or not. just a guess
6:49 I don't think you can drink a thousand litter of water a day, you would die in no time.
This is, hands down, one of the best videos I ever saw. Wondeful job!
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.
+nyak63RUS yes - I think the point is we are not generally establishing new scientific fact, we are communicating what has already been established. Therefore the rigour of our investigations can be reduced in order to make a good story
Veritasium I can dig it. Another great video!
+Veritasium but the problem is that mythbuster represents itself as 'proving' or 'disproving' a point with experiment. Not that it is communicating what has been established.
Geoffrey Ritchey The audience has to take some responsibility though. It's a TV show meant to inform, not to educate. There's a big difference there, and I think it's up to the audience to see that.
+Veritasium well, you're not discovering anything new here on this channel. You just use the already aknowledged, well-studied facts and make it into a fun experiment to show people something they don't really get to observe in day to day life. Felt like a no-brainer, that you do it once and that's kinda it. But you actually surprised me a lot with the need for this video xD.
2:48 That experiment is completely stupid, most people, me included, don't know what to do or how to help, even if any help is needed at all, when someone has a seizure inside of a boot. I wouldn't know what to do, so I'd be paralyzed, dreading to do more harm than help.
They should have chosen something convincing that virtually everyone understands how to be of help, that experiment is WORTHLESS. And to invoke the bystander effect when you don't know how the participants would have acted if they were alone, is unjustified.
But the whole point is precisely that people DON'T act the same when they are part of a group witnessing someone in distress, as opposed to when they are alone, regardless of what the nature of the emergency is. This is what the bystander effect describes. Besides, even if you don't personally know what to do, it should be fairly clear to everyone that this person might need help, so you check on him, call 911 or whatever is appropriate.
And my whole point is the experiment doesn't show that AT ALL. To say that people "DON'T act the same when they are part of a group witnessing someone in distress, as opposed to when they are alone" the experiment should compare those things that are supposed to differ. The experiment didn't, It just showed people not helping when they are part of a group and ASSUMING what they would do on their own. At least the way this guy summarized it.
I would agree that it isn't the best example of the bystander effect, however, you have to keep in mind that it's pretty much impossible to test the same people in both situations without them knowing about it. You have to test different groups of people and conduct enough tests so that your numbers are statistically significant. No experiment stands completely alone, this particular experiment merely confirms something that is well documented and tested. I would say the reason he says it confirms the bystander effect, is because the bystander effect is already well understood.
well the experiment as I understand it doesn't prove the bystander effect(that is a real thing proven in other better designed experiments with more groups of people )but I think the point of it is how the students reacted to the data.
or maybe the experiment was better but the video wasn't about the bystander effect so he didn't want to explain the experiment in detail .
Also as claus thomsen says you cant determine what those people would do alone because then they will be biased so you cant check the decisions of the same people in both situations but you can check how munch people helps when alone and how munch in a group and do it to enough people so you know your results are fiable .
actually, if you gave it a quick search you would have found out that the experiment had 3 groups of people, each in a different setting: G1 had just 1 person and 1 actor, G2 was 2 people and 1 actor and G3 was 5 people and 1 actor ( the actor was in fact a recorded voice ). Veritasium just summarised the experiment to make a quick point.
I am late to this party. But as someone in 2021, having witnessed the confusing spread of information about the pandemic.... The idea that stories are better at spreading "knowledge" makes so much sense. Humans originally didn't learn with the scientific method or numbers. They did it sitting around campfires and telling stories. Stories were how the older generation passed on knowledge- and still do. Stories only require understanding the language spoken. Statistics, as much as I appreciate them, require at least a basic understanding of mathematics, and then also an accurate knowledge base to understand their significance and application. Considering this: "4.55 million people on planet Earth have died of COVID19." That sounds incredible. Some person sitting behind a computer in the US reading this might be like, "Nah. Definitely bull, they're just being dramatic." From that, is it so hard to leap to, "Definitely a scam to restrict my rights"? As crazy as that is, maybe the story of the pandemic was told wrong (not pointing fingers at who) and that's why the US is sitting in the sociopolitical turmoil it is in now.
@Edwin Thomas I will admit that I did throw together the example quickly, and will agree it’s a bad one. However, my point was attempting to show the escalation of how opinions can emerge, I was not commenting on the statistic’s significance throughout history. Sorry for any miscommunication.
Can't wait for 3,333,333 subs
+TKWeckroth just happened!
+Veritasium congratulations! You deserve loads more!
Veritasium Congratulations! Amazing work, keep it up! I love your content and I can't wait for more.
wait but you never got to why Trumps anecdotes are actually data.
/s
There is a simple answer to this dichotomy of presentation vs statistics: the montage. You and Dustin, for example, could have thrown in a 20-second montage of film clips from the repetitions with a dry-humor narration: "...and then we did it again... and again... and it just... kept... happening!" It would have been representative of previous work on that particular principle, and it would have been a funny/appreciative moment for the viewers as they realized how much you labored to give them that quickie video on the subject.
This montage technique can turn rigorous exploration into the power of an anecdote, multiplying the two aspects.
It took me two days to get the title
Hi Derek, here's one for you: "Stories are data with a soul" -Brené Brown
divided screen at a rapid pace - "and we did it 25 times"
Why not do both?
Do your video in the style of anecdotes then in a short blip at the end show you did your science correctly.
+Aaron Reichert
That's what I thought too. I think it would have been perfectly fine to just say "and to make sure this didn't happen by pure luck we repeated the experiment another 4 times and always got the result we showed you".
came here for Trump
same
This time I was curios even more.
Anecdotes trump data.
Trump trumps Clinton.
Yeah, the fact that the sentence made no sense if it was about him made it seem more likely that it was about him. Republican candidate supports federal control of health care and education, Republican candidate supports assault weapon ban, Republican candidate thought that Hillary would be a great candidate, Republican candidate gets applauded for supporting amnesty, the Republican candidate supports using eminent domain to enrich one person at the expense of another, etc., etc., etc. makes no sense - yet here we are!
very smartly done! critisise Donald trump without mentioning him, yet hinting everyone you're talking about him, just by using a specific word -that happens to also be his surname- in the title. chapeau to you, sir
Haha, all the recommended videos are about Donald Trump.
Sadly, this also means that a large portion of the scientific community is easily deceived. By that I mean, most scientists hear about these studies once, and they hear about the supposed results, but they rarely take a look at the data to verify that the method of testing was correct or that the data wasn't manipulated or even that the data isn't being misinterpreted. Why? Because "there's lots of data", and because "this data clearly means . . . ".
This is a problem particularly in the medical community where studies tend to be carried out (and worse, "peer reviewed") by financially interested parties rather than unbiased third parties. This easily results in medical science being warped or outright falsified for the sake of financial gains, but the scientific and medical community as a whole accept the claims because "there's a lot of data".
Biased studies are one of the main reasons that people trust anecdotal evidence more than statistical evidence, so that is something that should not be ignored, especially in the medical field.
+DaneGraphics Oh yes. I can't recall specifics, but I have read stories about a particular field using what was effectively an old wives' tale. Heck, some of it is GPs (family doctors) continuing to apply knowledge that had since been superseded.
+DaneGraphics But those studies aren't for scientist they are for investors and public or marketing. So what use would scientist have to even look at that?
Anyone who isn't familiar with this stuff is unlikely to know or look up ways of confirming or deconfirming this stuff.
I would assume that the scientist have a check-list for filtering these false claims. It would only be natural.
+DaneGraphics Have you heard of the habit of "peer review" in science? Most decent fields of study work based on peer review and will only be published if the peers agree upon the correctness of the data.
Generally speaking, if the study is about something that can be easily repeated, such as an apple falling towards the ground, then the data is easily believable. However, if you were to do a study, biased as it is, to "prove" that vaccines have a link to autism (spoiler: there is no link) then you can pay your way to publication. These practices are usually counteracted via multiple studies disproving this one claim, or via consideration of who would benefit from these results, though admittedly, the last option is only in case there are very few studies at all on the topic.
You might think of a specific case study, but generally, anecdotal "evidence" is completely negligible
+DaneGraphics I'm glad somebody brought this up because it is a huge problem. I've read of cases where researchers have had their research blocked from being published and their reputations tarnished if their data gets out when their data contradicts what the financial backers were looking for.
+DarthViper3k - That is definitely true. We have a case where if someone has a lot of money and a few scientist interested in that money, those paid scientist can play themselves off as "peers" that review the work and can sometimes even be payed to testify in court against medical practitioners that attempt to publish contradictory data or put into practice the lessons they've learned from the studies they've performed.
People's minds can be so hard to change. We really love to get inside our comfort zones, in physical, emotional, and mental ways. When you provide evidence to refute the ways of thinking of people, that takes them out of that comfort zone and they will often do whatever they can to justify their own wrongfulness. Not many people are comfortable with the idea that they might be wrong. It takes a lot to view the world from a scientific point of view.
No. What you have is an experiment about _one single issue_. In generalizing it, you're ironically committing the same error you say people tend to commit.