Dope Tech Episode 2

<<@veritasium says : Get all sides of every story at https://groundnews.com/Ve and read the news with a data-driven approach. Subscribe through my link for 50% off unlimited access –their biggest discount of the year.>> <<@bruzote says : As someone whose positive aspects of identity are wrapped up in my higher IQ, and given my fear of my high-IQ family and friends jumping on any mistake I make, I am quite worried about screwing up on camera. Maybe people with above-average intellect and below-average know their abilities, and are more concerned about invalidating high-IQ perceptions or validating low-IQ perceptions.>> <<@Stiertje1977 says : So it is a bit the same as a math question where 2x + 3y = z becomes harder when you swap the x, y and z for a, b and c, or even harder when you swap them out for actual things. And for some people it might explain how for some reason Trump was involved in this question :P>> <<@alexweschler9470 says : 7:00 I think there’s actually something meaningful to be gleaned from these results. It looks like one side is much more susceptible to motivated reasoning than the other 🤔>> <<@alexweschler9470 says : I would need to know 1) what’s the cream 2) what’s the rash>> <<@RavenLuni says : I would have used a chi squared test to determine the answer>> <<@user-dv1jx1xz4b says : Maybe math savvy people understand that politics isn't about truth or what's right, but about more important things – for example, "will our team win?" and acting according to our interests/opinions, but not like solving abstract problems? There are so many lies about such arms-related "studies", so it is quite reasonable that smarter/wiser people (due often spotted misinformation of media on politicized topics) do NOT believe in the correctness of the data presented or in the representativeness of the sample or whatever similar. They know what their position is, they know that showed data is often incorrect, so they just DEFEND their OPINION or their TEAM. They do NOT trying to solve "abstract" exercises, because they know that most often it is NOT AN ABSTRACT EXERCISE! And the better they deal with numbers – the better they (or the more of them) try to defend their opinion/political position, but they do NOT solve abstract tasks (or solve but not agree/believe)? So, "Smarter people do worse than they are expected to" is NOT correct deduction. And so it often happens when "researchers" are flatter than the examined ones.>> <<@theredditbrew says : The most dangerous people are rarely the irrational ones.>> <<@SamanthaTollstam says : Ir seemed more like a passive way to push a subtle suggestion about gun control while disguising it as a test. Most people already know the actual stats and thus are having a conflict with the false ones presented. Thus looking for an explation to describe an anomaly rather than actuality viewing the test objectively.>> <<@Asodd9642 says : What about people who reject any tribe?>> <<@LogicalKip says : Republicans will drown in the sea level rise while gargling that the rise isn't real. And if somehow you can get some to accept it, they will make sure it happens, because at least it will harm a lot of the "right kind of people">> <<@jcortese3300 says : With something controversial like gun control (or any other hot button topic), I would simply not trust the numbers or the definitions. And I don't mean I wouldn't trust my interpretation of the numbers; I mean I wouldn't trust the numbers themselves nor the process of how they were arrived at. I would seriously want to know EXACTLY what the definition was of "rate worsened" and "rate improved." People will cook the definition of the word "the" if it's ideologically important to them. I've seen figures entirely cooked by "researchers" surreptitiously including or excluding whole categories from totals where it's obvious that they are assumed to be excluded or included to ensure that the figures supported their preconceived notions. Personally, I think people are entirely right to treat data on controversial topics very differently than on more straightforward ones. No one has a real reason to lie about skin cream, but gun control (or any of a dozen other things)? I don't want to hear "studies show." I want to see the damned studies myself, multiple ones, and I want to know all the fine details on how they arrived at their numbers. And I'll get back to you in six months.>> <<@pylonile8527 says : bruh i love math and i hate politics so i honestly for a moment thought this was ragebait. and it worked>> <<@jgladwig says : ‘Climate change’ is a trigger now, eh? That ain’t a rational place to be.>> <<@Niche_IT_Solutions says : Oo, oo, do another similar experiment, except replace the rash cream and gun control with numeracy lessons.>> <<@matthewmathis62 says : You guys say that you listen to evidence and are rational, and want to know the truth. Well why not know the truth of the Gospel? You have the evidence of the Shroud of Turin, which is a Scientific mystery (a 3D image of a man created by beams of light shining out from Him onto a cloth). And the evidence of the Universe, for how could beauty have been made if there was no reason for it to be beautiful? Do you understand what I am saying? God's focus is not whether you are a Democrat or Republican (which are parties constructed by men who did not perfectly represent you or me, and never will). God cares whether we know His Son. For how could you live in a man's house unless you know Him? We must know the Creator to live in His Kingdom for eternity. And it starts by calling out to the name above all names: Jesus Christ.>> <<@matthewmathis62 says : I don't know what you said to the people about the "gun control study", but it looks like you were lying to the people. So, that invalidates your video to me.>> <<@billhill897 says : Well, it all makes sense. Most people, regardless of their numeracy skills, are too stupid to overcome their preconceptions.>> <<@AsraelSchwartzsteiner says : The only problem is that: in order to take that first step you mention at the end of the video—to achieve this perfect "political Lagrange point," it really ought to be 50%🐘 and 50%🐴; yet the video is slightly (very slightly—almost imperceptibly... but it is!) inclined and favoring 51%🦄 and 49%🐘. And the way to calibrate it is by accepting it, to adjust it impartially.>> <<@myang5168 says : As someone who worked in analytics and works in research data i never trust when people just present me a graph or table with numbers. my first reaction is always i want to know more about the context of what exactly was measured and how etc because tiny shifts in methodology can make huge differences in how data should be interpreted. Also that cream example killed me because my first reaction was they didn't use a placebo so the data is skewed already x.x>> <<@trombone7 says : Anything that helps less than doing nothing helps, is hurting. ( took me a sec to see the cream as actually hurting, and not just helping less )>> <<@Jedidiah-zx1hp says : Emotional layering deters slow complex creativity>> <<@niki2669 says : Am I the only one who just analysed the skin cream? It depends on how chemical it is and depends on the ingredients, and without rash cream, it makes the skin healing harder without looking at numbers, and then I realised I had to answer, and I instantly answered the rash cream makes your skin better, while the correct answer was actually no rash cream based on statistics.>> <<@tonybodlovic5825 says : Based on your logic, I must be more stupid than I thought; because my instinct was to look at the proportions and presumed (based on the premise of the video) that it must be wrong.>> <<@mexatroll9000 says : 3:01 average American who voted for Trump>> <<@BrOckSams0n says : I think a major flaw with this kind of study, or at least in drawing any real conclusions from it, is that an intelligent person with a strongly held view point has significantly more data than is presented in your little quiz. If you walked up to me with that kind of story I'd have probably accepted it if it aligned with my own research on the topic, but would question your sources if you didn't align with what i believe to be correct. In the video it looked like that's what you were getting in the study, people weren't necessarily getting the "math" wrong but instead were questioning the data they were presented with. They pushed back on complex issues when presented with data they didn't believe.>> <<@quantum_immortal69 says : A combination of midwits, and people who don't understand per capita>> <<@josiahtasich6073 says : Me laughing as a centrist>> <<@BugtoBugs says : You can shovel if you dump: yes Smart: no Too smart: yes 2/3 chance Read title: yes>> <<@justRecoil says : wtf has this channel become>> <<@pokefuranku says : Man, I love this video>> <<@Clark-MC-m1p says : Wait a minute, this is different data! 7:51>> <<@missilemagnet16 says : I think it got a little more confusing because you would expect a rash to maybe improve with no change over time, but a city experiencing decreased crime because nothing changed doesn't make much sense.>> <<@TheLan-g6j says : Measuring credulity and political loyalty Ideological laziness The most intelligent people always get it right. Because they arent credulous and they arent loyal to a label.>> <<@reaver1414 says : Even if it prevented crime I'm not giving up my guns>> <<@apwill4765 says : 1:20 but... tell me that isn’t the "intelligent" answer? Intuition? I looked at it for 3 seconds and correctly said worse. . .>> <<@4concussionscounting says : them: "would you change your political beliefs given opposing data?" me: "which one of my beliefs? a lot of them are not about data at all but rather axiomatic statements about human rights and dignities, and obviously those wont and can't change, but like idk give me an example" Also retrospectively, you have to question your sources of data, like are you gonna turn your opinion that has been supported by scientific consensus off of 1 study which could have methedelogical flaws? it's like hearing someone say that something beaks the laws the physics in a sensational article, like ok sure it did. Big if true but I don't think it's true.>> <<@ChristianOrtner-r7m says : Am I wrong or did you switch the gun rows compared to the sign in the street interview?>> <<@SlipperyShadow says : 7;10 i think that too many people were thinking about it as an opinion-based question instead of number analyzing question>> <<@SlipperyShadow says : 5:06 wow this is getting interesting>> <<@SlipperyShadow says : 3:20 i did that first. i dont know why that isn't everyone's instinct. I at least realized it after seeing that the worsened people is also higher in the cream users which means different sample sizes>> <<@SlipperyShadow says : 0:49 the skin cream. because the percent of people that got worse from it is higher in the usage group. right?>> <<@darrylilg says : I think these charts point out one particular problem. Is that the Democrats and Republicans both have biases that give them the wrong conclusion on average, but it is the democrats that are overwhelmingly more likely to do so.>> <<@thundersfavourite says : When I first encountered the question, I paused the video and calculated the natural course of the disease for patients with this skin condition who received no treatment at all. For simplicity, I rounded the numbers so that out of 125 untreated patients, 20 got worse and 105 improved. This gives roughly 84% improvement — meaning that, on average, a patient’s condition progresses according to this standard without any treatment. Then I looked at the table for patients who received cream treatment: out of 300 patients, 225 improved and 75 got worse. Here, the average improvement rate dropped to 75%, which suggested that the cream treatment actually made the patients worse. However, if we reverse the numbers for the untreated group — saying that out of 125 untreated patients, 105 got worse and only 20 improved — then the natural course of the disease shows only a 16% improvement rate. In the cream group, if 225 out of 300 got worse and 75 improved, the improvement rate becomes 25%. In this case, we could conclude that the cream treatment actually helped the patients. You could say this question is a good test for whether someone can stop and think carefully enough to perform the correct statistical calculation. But in my opinion, it is not very successful at measuring “irrational intelligence.”>> <<@jacoba4230 says : Democrat midwits btfo>> <<@jefftravilla says : I don’t agree with the “correct” answer to the cream question. It’s rational to assume that the experimental group and the control group had the same number of participants — that’s just good experiment design — but the results don’t have the same count of data, which means there are missing data points from people for whom the rash stayed the same. The control group has more of this missing data. If you factor in “stayed the same” and assume equivalent participant counts, the cream is more efficacious, albeit with side effects whose causes should be determined so the cream wouldn’t be prescribed in those cases. Cream 223/298 = 74.8% improved 75/298 = 25.2% worsened (223-75)/298 = 49.7% net improvement Control 107/298 = 35.9% improved 21/298 = 7.05% worsened (107-21)/298 = 28.9% net improvement So if you want a chance at better odds for improvement, you also must take the risk at increased odds of worsening. This is true of many medications.>> <<@WilsonSnyder says : One of my favorite videos of all time. Super fascinating.>> <<@Grim-Truthspeaker383 says : It is almost as if any system to measure "intelligence" doesn't actually measure intelligence. Which is almost as if intelligence is a general term for aspects or traits of a human.>> <<@fragglegoth says : Very misleading title.>> <<@niko5514 says : Well alert the media… smart people going to use selective arguments for their favour. This is like asking why is wallmart successful and start an investigation where at the end the price is one of the most important contributions.>>