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.
@user-io5ef3fh1b Says:
Not statistically significant enough, even with proportions factored in. You need a huge amount of placebo vs non placebo data, from a wide variety of geographic regions, taxonomized into age groups, activity levels, dietary habits, sleep, etc. Within those geographic regions, you need to rule out those who are tourists to the area, as tourist behaviour, diet, and sleep patterns differ from those who are acclimated and settled into a region, and differences in behaviour can incur differences in outcome; it's best to filter noise out of any measure where feasible.
Only when you have data that delineates by several categories can you make any assertions on the efficacy of the cream and who is likely to benefit vs who does not or worsens from it. The sample size and question was contrived. I'm disappointed only a few minutes in, and have promptly stopped watching after rolling my eyes at this "example." This is terrible data. Terrible fielding. To hell with finding causal links with this type of data, you can't even make effective correlative claims because you've NOT controlled for enough external factors that could change symptom response.
Do better.
@Reecenolan111 Says:
Amazing
@bgffGLUZ Says:
223 to 75 proportion -> in total 298 round to 300 so 75 is one fourth of 300, so roughly 25% worse. 107 to 21 proportion -> in total 128 round to 120 and round 21 to 20 so roughly one sixth so around 16% worse. yeah less worse rashes is better. And all this to say ppl have political biases even if they are smart? Well, really smart people would not try to reject concrete mathematical facts, instead maybe try to discredit the study and methods of data gathering calling it inaccurate or distorted or affected by other variables etc. also we assumed rashes would either get worse or better and wont stay the same, otherwise unchanged rashes proportion is not shown. when it comes to gun control, I think most perpetrators that go out and commit gun related crimes like mass $#*$ go out knowing they wont be back unscathed, so I think gun control would reduce the crimes, if the assumption of guns usage is that when everyone has guns everyone would be scared of each other and wont start a conflict. one of the counter arguments would be many people that couldnt have defended themselves without guns against bigger stronger attackers would get hurt because of gun control. also guns for defense? then why wont we use less lethal ways? teasers, sprays or other methods of temporary immobilization? in any case there are many countries where guns are illegal and they have lower crime rates than the usa.
@stopdoingthat.hereletmedoi7320 Says:
Any turd would know that placing the numbers over each other like is intended to trick a person that is just looking at it quickly on the street. This research measures a trick.
@zebrakki668 Says:
i got it right..... i guess i m not smart hoorayyy🎉
@harryg7678 Says:
10.32 wow. Truthful.
@carlpeterson8182 Says:
As others have said the problem is that there is an assumption that people should trust the numbers. But history has shown that statistics and arguments can be presented in ways that lie. In the skin cream example everyone knows it is just a theoretical problem. But in the gun control example there is more reason to not trust the numbers. Also it is easier to think that the numbers only show correlation and not causation. Thus gun control could play no factor at all or not cause a higher rate of crime or access to guns does not either.
@cl34nsweep Says:
Oh please, you have to change the phrases for "gun control" and "climate change" because they've been programmed to hate it and they'll never change their minds? So we have to trick them with different words. How pathetic.
@FgGg-z4u Says:
you're straight up wrong
guns and cream questions are not the same. Crime rate changes depend on priors.
If two cities are pisitioned as starting from the same place, crime-increased-dominated case implies the total blowing up.
@DennisSullivan-om3oo Says:
First example. I think smart people would be more likely to get that right.
@nickcat1 Says:
"Less likely the get the right answer if that answer is threatening to their ideology." 7:23
@NoBody-qm3vy Says:
Percentages is part of math.
@martinmartinmartin2996 Says:
Veritasium has left out INTERNET propaganda as a decisive factor in shaping human reaction to ACTUAL events:
EXAMPLE: When country "A" kills 1200 women, children, old men in their homes THEN country " I " retaliates: eliminating the killers of country " A " ! ! !
@prestonjervey3509 Says:
First of all what if your ability to heal a condition is self limiting
@chris2818 Says:
Pragmatically.. I haven't laughed that hard in a long time! Thank you. Pulls out a five syllable word but couldn't do basic math. 😂
@S-we2gp Says:
This video is literally just “republicans are stupid anti science people” they tried very hard to pretend they werent suggesting that. However even in the face of this theyll still just say “well i mean thats what the evidence shows” which is 100% the problem with all this nonsense.
The reality is republicans are 100% right that citizens need guns. Anyone opposed is merely wrong and completely ignorant of human nature as well as history.
For “climate change” the data has been so politicized it’s not even clear to me who is exactly right. However when one side relentlessly claims things are going to be apocalyptic in 10 years and every 10 years they are wrong so they push it back another decade then i dont trust them lol.
@Mathguy-d7g Says:
About the 1st question: more ppl had rashes if they used the cream so either the control group just were too good at washing their faces or the cream is too oily
@Mike-11235 Says:
Selection bias. You picked people at political rallies. People at political rallies are more emotional about politics. Also, if they could properly gauge the likelihood of their making a difference, they probably wouldn't be there.
@richiknair9036 Says:
Interesting how Liberal Democrats consistently show more polarization and also don't converge (in the science curiosity scale), unlike Republicans
@rjhartu9 Says:
The issue I have with this set is the treatment of "what people 'believe' about gun control".
You stated a false dichotomy and the question people actually answered was no longer based on the "data", but something entirely different. So, this didn't answer a question about numeracy at all, each group supplied a completely different question and premise and answered it instead.
So, did they actually answer the question asked? They didn't, not really in any measure in regards to numeracy.
They simply side stepped the numeracy test entirely.
I haven't read the research paper yet on this, but I suspect you left out very important details out in your presentation.
If anything your experiment demonstrated how individuals engage in political beliefs when presented with counter factuals or data against their political beliefs, how they circumvent the data and make a completely different argument and answer a different question entirely.
I could go further, but I'm not sure people are getting it "wrong", rather they ignore the question entirely and choose to answer a different question of their own making or engage in the argument more broadly than the skin cream example.
@spatula-z6r Says:
Guys none of u noticed change in him devenn
@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
LATEST COMMENTS