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.>> <<@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.>> <<@a9328 says : I can only hope that my reaction to this would be "is this data real?!??">> <<@supergertrude-bq4io says : In conclusion : think logically, dont let pple persuade you, but let them convince u>> <<@itjustforfun6687 says : Question, did this study take different numbers for each group or was it out of an equal population and the "unaffected" isnt being counted?>> <<@JXQCoding says : Me, a 5th grader: Got all them right, so? 😅>> <<@temualbasu2559 says : So this video basically just shows that intelligent people are dickheads😂😂😂>> <<@Kelsier says : Congratulations! You discovered people can be biased :)))>> <<@jessethompson1174 says : Guns are about the human right to self defenzs and determination. Saying republicans believe guns, by themselves, reduce crime is the dumbest thing I have heard the host say.>> <<@doctor_no_ says : No the cream example was so easy to figure out that the cream made it worst using percentages. Am I stupid then? :(>> <<@abhisheksrivastava7474 says : What if this video is my way of fitting into a tribe>> <<@curtiswalker8457 says : people are trying to make the numbers fit their narrative, rather than reading the data for what it is. they are deriving meaning from the data, then looking at the data… gotta read and understand the data before making conclusions>> <<@MeanJoe07 says : So skin cream reduced gun crime?>> <<@sarthakgirdhar2833 says : Sorry if I am being stupid but doesn’t the data indicate that the rash gets better in general irrespective of whether or not you use the cream?>>