Home
Creators
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

[Unpaid post] NEW VIDEO: Post-truth (Patreon)

Published:
2016-12-20 17:11:53
Imported:
2026-06
Tags:

Content

This video is an unpaid post because it's a bit of an experiment. I filmed this at a meetup in Stockholm, Sweden and it's normally the sort of thing I would post on my second channel, http://youtube.com/2veritasium

But because this is a topic that's been on my mind a lot lately, and because I thought main channel viewers might like to watch something more off-the-cuff I decided to release it on the main Veritasium channel. I'd be interested to know your feedback. What did you think of the video?

Files

Post-Truth: Why Facts Don't Matter Anymore

Why we can't seem to agree on what's true when it's easier than ever to check. Videos like this are usually on 2Veritasium: http://bit.ly/2Veritasium Support Veritasium on Patreon: http://bit.ly/VePatreon This video was filmed at a meetup in Stockholm, Sweden on Dec. 9, 2016. Huge thanks to everyone who attended - I had a great time.

Comments

Steve Ruis

As in the case of religious communities who have put the validity of their religion on the line by opposing well-accepted science, if the facts do not support you, then the facts must be wrong. People used to argue, backed up by their memories alone and in those times, most intellectual disputes came up with something like a draw. Each disputant could walk away feeling that they at least held their own. But if a Young Earth Creationist were to be in a dispute today and say "well, then where are all the transitional fossils, tell me that!" his opponent could call up the Wikipedia list of transitional fossils and say, "Well, there is this one, and this one, and this one, and ..."

Dre

It's easy to accept these stories as truth. Our brains are setup to find patterns and methods to expend the least amount of energy possible to live our lives. We find various shortcuts in life mentally. And if we are taught to accept our information from a certain source, then our brains are wired to accept that source as truth above all others. So if information is continually pushed to us then it is easier to accept this as truth, especially if from a seemingly respectable source: a friend's email or feed on Facebook. I recently saw an interview of someone that created fake news. He readily admits that stories targeted to intellectuals (those willing to expend energy to verify facts on the Internet) did not go viral and make him money. He specifically targets an audience that will not verify facts, that takes the stories at face value and elevates them through their social network (sometimes making its way to mass media outlets). He targets this audience and these types of stories because they are successful at making him money via online ads.

Peter Hansen

I liked the video, but I think the stile suits the second channel best. You will get a low of view... like you dit on Why Anecdotes Trump Data, (which I also liked). But still I think you should keep the "production quality" high on you first channel, and keep discessions and more free-form formats on the second channel... And then you could add some promotion of the second channel by referering to it when things like anecdotes trump data comes up. This will allow the audience to manage there subscriptions more precisely. keep up the good work...

Benjamin Degenhart

Thanks for this. It could really be worth creating infographic-style animation imagery for the dynamics you describe! Groups finding each other globally, sharing info, tweaking it until buttons are pressed, feed-composing algorithms etc. Maybe with example-snippets of actual sentiments or alternatively kept generic without real content. „Kurzgesagt - In a Nutshell“, „MinutePhysics“ or „Stated Clearly“ as potential collaborators come to mind… It could also be very interesting to simulate these communication dynamics (which shape opinion landscapes and groups in societies) computationally. I can’t quite comprehend the required complexity of a realistic model though. I wonder how much simulation takes place in those places where „signals of truth“ are searched for as you put it. Regarding the „changing the paper“ analogy. I was wondering if provocation and exaggeration could be instruments of a „big data activist“? If I get confronted with the precise opinion-profile algorithms computed for me, shouldn’t that be provocative to some? In a sense of: wow, am I so easily predictable, I better outgrow this naive version of myself. If this effect would indeed be scalable, it could be a grand experiment to apply the maximum of predictive algorithmic power to voluntary subjects. The website could have the tagline „Ok big data, try me, bring it on“. Oh and how on earth do you manage to keep talking while steering the camera focus between the audience and yourself? Such multi task, much wow :)

Dan & Jen Baizel

For the question on which channel this should go on, I feel this video would be more in line with your second channel. One reason is just general themes, I have an expectation of anecdotal thought provoking videos (i.e. your comments on Youtube changes or 360 cameras). I think this topic could be interesting on the main channel if it took a more data driven touch (perhaps referencing some of your earlier work on how learning - where being told the right answer only made people more confident in their own incorrect views of physics).

Jonathan Labin

I enjoyed this video. The style was refreshing and made me feel like I was back in college/university exploring unsolved problems as a group. I think it could be interesting to establish a recurring series of videos that explore this Socratic method of attacking big problems. You could experiment with different ways that technology enables this experience for more people. Of course conferences and other events often have panels with Q&A sessions but it would be interesting to see what kind of discussions and possibly even hints at solutions could emerge from very large diverse groups people who are able to discuss topics difficult topics face-to-face-to-face.... In an ultimate best case, popular public discord of this style where people actually look at each other in a discussion could be a way that the internet becomes more of a force for good that you expected it to be. Edit: I always forget that in Patreon 'enter' is submit.

A4i

Hi man,

A4i

Respect, I just pledge $1, so you can continue making videos for us. That last one was a bummer, please do you own research on the subject. I am not a slave ,a t least I wish I am still in control, but yours bolshevik propaganda turns me in disregard. I hope you just in a need for money , doing that BS.

Kristy

Hi Derek, this video belongs in Ve2, which you already know. I would caution against posting these on Veritasium, because first-time or early-on viewers will likely be turned off. Your educational videos are well-prepared, thought-out, researched. This topic has been on a lot of minds lately; you spoke for 9 minutes to introduce a problem that required a concise paragraph, maybe two. This feels like we are sitting in on a session where you are spitballing ideas -- you see a problem, you don't see a solution, you're thinking out loud. I think you risk losing subscribers; this was extremely low-quality, unfinished & unprocessed. If I am going to spend 19 minutes on something, it needs to be worthwhile. (Full disclosure: I had to speed it up to 1.5 to get through it. Time's a-wastin'.)

Tracy Williamson

Hi Derek, been a fan of your channel for years now sorry it took me so long to include Ve in my list of creators I support. I liked the last video but agree with your decision to make it an unpaid post. You make a lot of good points but I don't know if changing algorithms governing what we see on social media will help with the larger picture. I think you're closer to the mark when you talk about how hard it is to change opinions (even with the piece of paper analogy). Include assumption along with opinions in that analogy, and then take a long look at how culture informs our assumptions, and then consider further the links between culture and biology some studies in epigenetics and microbiology are suggesting. How easy is it really to treat a cultural assumption, even if proven wrong or dangerous by rationalists, like a piece of paper when social networks, family relationships, and even moral obligations are built on them?

Joshua Davis

Derek, You seem to suggest that people need to post a surety bond in order to publish something and that this bond can be lost shortly after publishing if someone posts a larger bond requesting that an oracle validate these claims. You want a platform that makes cheap talk expensive. These platforms are called prediction markets and they require people to put their money where their mouth is. If a reputable source (aka oracle, trusted news source, etc.) with an adequate reputation places their reputation on the line to say "this is true" or "this is false" then the surety bond is lost and the larger bond is returned to its owner. We are solving these problems right now. We are building prediction markets right now. In a decade where everyone has the freedom to publish, prediction markets allow you to find the signal in the noise.

Ola Forsslund

You state that "half of the emissions of any vehicle come from the production of the vehicle", what is you basis for this? Really surprising, I would say, and when I do a quick googling on the subjects I get very different figures (25% to 20%). Fake news?