I tried to cover this information in a series on missinformation, but I must say you did SO much better. Equating the art of the pause to a superpower is something I’ll be using. I like your concept of keeping the pause detector running quietly in the background. Thanks Henry.
The almighty YT algorythm suggested this video to me in the feed and I thought about watching it, but i _paused_ until I read _your tweet_ about it. Thanks, Destin and Henry.
CGP Grey's adventure into searching for the origin of the name Tiffany is a real illustration in the way wrong or poor information can persist, be copied, and become "truth" if left unchallenged long enough.
It's also an important lesson in how the internet works. If you lie, someone will devote an embarrassing portion of their life to calling you out. No exceptions.
When the Fed says "it's contained to subprime" or "inflation is transitory" or "we have the ability to raise interest rates without destroying our bubble economy" ...pause
@@Joettcrow I'm sure you feel very tall on your high horse. How about you tone down your sense of superiority as you defend the generic nonsense that was the top comment?
@@Abzan92 hmm? I'm not really interested in defending any of the comments on here, just got triggered by a weird trumper and odd fed bashing as a response to an innocuous comment.
When I first saw that video last year, I enjoyed the artistry involved in the simulation, but I suspected immediately that it was just a simulation based on the colors.
My first intuition was because they seemed too perfectly synchronized. Though being trained in inorganic chemistry maybe i should have noticed the unusual colors first.
the weird halos gave it away for me, it looks like an absolutely basic blur glow that a lot people learn when doing digital art or, like me, real-time rendering for video games.
I was confused at first, because I didn't think the video he was showing could be the video he was talking about. It was so obviously fake, my brain didn't even consider someone could think it's true.
The worst part is when you tell someone it's fake, they usually come back with "Aw, it's no big deal, it's just for fun" or "Just enjoy things for once without analyzing them to death."
I've found it's important depending on the person saying something false to first mention the feeling of the "fact" and then offer a similar feeling with the truth as you're adjusting their foundation for how they see the world. Like: "It does sound wild that we use only 10% of the brain, but I've learned it's closer to 100% since we now have fMRI data which makes you wonder what it's all doing"
@@RileyBanksWho Not specially a sociopath. Many people of all kinds prefer, by far, the "authenticity" of their own feelings, to the actual truth of external reality. It's much more comfortable. We all have to deal with it, as it's human nature.
Excellent! As a life-long skeptic I've noticed that "skeptic" has taken on a negative feel. This is so much softer and more inviting! This is definitely getting forwarded to all my friends... Oh, wait....
Unfortunately if we make a community of 'pausers', it might work for a little while, but eventually toxic pseudointellectualism would likely build up again. :P The problem isn't so much the word, but the way the word is attached to our identities and emotions. Eventually the word gets detached for its meaning and comes to be associated with the group that uses it, rather than what the word is supposed to mean.
Pause, and ask yourself _why_ "skeptic" has been assigned negative connotations in some circles. _Cui bono?_ Who benefits from authority, garbed in the guise of Science!, not being questioned?
Some people have definitely misappropriated "skeptic" to mean "persistently and repeatedly debunking topics I personally don't like for views" which is not only bad in the sense that focusing only on negatives creates toxic communities, but is bad because it allows actors with agendas or axes to grind to easily infiltrate and rise up quickly in those communities. After all, the lie of omission can't be debunked, ergo it can be used to manipulate otherwise smart people.
It's important to remember that skepticism does have applications that can be thought of as negative. There was a Greek school that thought of it as a way to stop judgement altogether. To avoid coming to any conclusion and thus "never be wrong". Feel free to pause and check if it's true too.
Unfortunately misinformation is information too. The age of information probably started with Gutenberg, the current challenge we face is perhaps "just" that our good ol' pause detector v1.0, that was "Is it printed or just a rumor?", has become seriously unreliable and upgrade to v2.0, as proposed by minutephysics, can not (should not) be postponed any longer.
From what I can tell, Shakespeare came up with eye of newt. There's no references to it from any contemporaries, even using alternative spellings such as neuft or nefet. Where as all the other items in that wich's brew are animal too, no banes, florals or any other botanical nicknames; just animal parts. You'd think if Billy S. was making a vegan potion he'd have used at least one other known herb.
Yeah. I was looking up that scene in Macbeth there are a couple that are parts of plants (root of hemlock, and slips of yew), but the list of ingredients of the potion is otherwise overwhelmingly animal body parts. A few are even body parts of humans (nose of Turk and Tartar's lip). So Shakespeare was probably trying to list ingredients of a potion that sounded weird and creepy but also had to fit his meter and rhyme. He also might have picked animals that had reputations as common familiars for witches.
@@9sven6 It is not a bad conclusion based on the concept that Shakespeare if famous for "inventing" words and phrases. Not necessarily that these words and phrases weren't in use prior to Shakespeare, but that the words and phrases first appear in his writing. So "eye of newt". I'm sure hundreds of years from now people will be wondering where Lewis Carol or Dr. Seuss came up with all of their words and think they will have to be "real" words and phrases based on something and not just funny word play.
@@9sven6 Google books mostly. A bit of dictionary cross referencing, and trying to read the context for a bunch of sources. It's interesting how often "newe" got confused with "newt" by google's OCR. It's impossible to know for sure who invented words, and this gets us to the phrase "first attested in"
This pause, for me, usually happens when I make a claim and then try to find a source to cite it. That is when I'll discover that something I believed was bullshit. While I'd rather not continue to believe bullshit, I guess I can settle for not _spreading_ bullshit. As long as you remember to cite your claims, you'll always pause before you make an asshole of yourself.
Can't emphasize enough how good of a habit this is. Story time - when I was probably 8 I was arguing with my big bro and I said some shit, told him "knowledge is power". He corrected me and said "if knowledge is power, your batteries are low". It still cuts deep. That aside, it's very intellectually honest for yourself, to have this habit of punching your claim into Google before you hit post. Even the inconsequential stuff. Not only does it train you to have productive interactions, trolls won't stand a chance against you. And a happy consequence, sometimes going down the rabbit hole of your own claim can be more valuable than the post itself.
A good way to think about sharing questionable info is to pretend you're the one being shared the info, you're suspicious of it, and you want to confirm it or prove it wrong. It's a pain in the butt to think that way, but it may save you from the embarrassment of someone outing you as someone who spread bullshit.
I really liked this video, which reminded me to "stop to think for yourself." Then I saw the sponsor, which reminded me "it's perfect not to have to stop and think about what charities are best to donate" and then I had to stop and think about that...
I have what I call my "automatic someone-is-trying-to-manipulate-me detector", which is basically pauses like this when something seems like an appeal to emotion etc.
Repent sinner, for the end is nigh! The seas shall rise and swallow the world lest you tithe to the government a carbon tax, and stop using plastic straws.
@@ShankarSivarajan Exactly the sort of association that is an example of what the video talks about pausing over. We're used to "repent sinner..." style speeches coming from a "don't question me" rhetoric - by then going on to talk about carbon tax or reduction in plastic use it pairs those issues with the same reaction. No actual mention of arguments for or against or dive into a *why*, only an emotional association. Great example of something we should read, pause and dismiss.
@@HamHamHampster it’s all about perception. Like the stock broker from the movie “The Incredibles”. “You didn’t save my life! You ruined my death!” Do you think the news would be the same if they just listed facts? It’s incredibly difficult to not let your biases influence how you relay information. Good journalist do their best to not let their biases tell the story. There are not that many good journalists compared to the how many bad ones there are.
It's funny you posted this today. Just this weekend I was talking with a friend about how sometime last week I got this horrible feeling that I was a "know it all", but realized that I just actually USE the internet. This is how my brain has handled stuff for many years now, and I've always had that "I have the entirety of human knowledge in my pocket" mentality since the first iphone came along, and before that it was "at my fingertips", so I've always been that person who looks things up when I don't know. It seems like a lot of people have either forgotten, or maybe never even realized just how easy it is to take a moment to look something up now that we have such ready access to information. I realized that I'm the opposite of a know-it-all, because I recognize when I don't know, and make the conscious effort to find out, rather than just moving along with the status quo.
That sounds reminisces of Socrates. I know I am not wise which therefore make me wisest kinda mentality. Being humble enough to ask questions and prudent enough to look into things is a gift we should all have nowadays but a lot don't for some reason. Thanks for bringing that up.
I think it's sometimes reasonable to say "don't let the truth get in the way of a good story", as long as all parties involved are treating it as just a story and not some sort of factual account. That said, I'm the same in terms of looking things up. Easy access to so much information; of *course* I'm going to use it!
There's that, but there's also the hitch that there are disinfo campaigns/psyops and astroturfing to sway people who look things up. Sometimes I've pulled on a thread and found two or three different disinfo campaigns all trying to inject some BS to make the truth impossible to discern on the matter, and that is especially true if it is tangentially related to politics, e.g. statistics.
you are a know it all, but that may or may not be a bad thing. correcting someone that has made a factual error has consequences, for better or worse. you may be 100% correct 100% of the time you correct someone, and they may despise you for never letting them even be slightly wrong. even if someone is ready and willing to admit they are wrong, it can still cause extreme social friction to constantly correct that person. i'm not saying you should or shouldn't correct people. what i'm saying is that there are social consequences to correcting people, regardless of who is correct and what is being corrected.
3:08 Interesting fact: A factoid is a piece of incorrect information that is repeated very often and widely accepted as fact. So in this case you have just demonstrated that the soap opera thing is, in fact, not a factoid.
@@sumitrana2420 well then someone that is claiming to spread true information either intentionally said “factoid” because they knew they were lying, or they aren’t very well informed in etymology and shouldn’t be trusted to spread information, if they don’t even know the meaning of the words that they’re choosing to use. Because even if factoid is used and understood a certain way by the majority of people, it still has a specific original meaning which is important, and every word we choose to speak and release into the atmosphere carries a specific frequency and energy and therefore effects and shapes our reality. Everyone should be considering the impact of their words way more than they are, ESPECIALLY public speakers/content creators and the like. It may seem like a minor inconvenient detail, but like I said; if you have such a large platform like this and are claiming to spread truth to a wide audience, you need to be well informed and aware of what it is that you choose to say and put out to the public. I didn’t know that factoid meant what it does, but as soon as I heard it in the video, I (ironically) got an automatic gut feeling and chose to pause because it sounded skeptical that he chose that exact word and I had a slight assumption that “factoid” didn’t actually mean “fact.” It’s kind of like “-ish” which essentially means “similar to” or “kind of.” That opens a whole different can of worms so I won’t go into detail but it struck me one day when thinking about how that suffix is attached to different groups of people.. anyways, I digress.
This was delivered so well, I love it doesn’t dive too deep into how deep this rabbit hole really goes, it’s a good thing to share with those who might be sensitive to anything that can shake up their views I’ve reached a point where everything going on is giving me pause and I’ve got no idea what to think or who to trust. Genuinely mean that. When I feel like this I usually go with my gut, unfortunately my gut is saying everything is really off. In all honesty, i hate this but I even got pause when I saw the ad for the charity at the end of this video, I’m aware this is more a reflection of me, it made me a little sad, not the advertisement itself, I’m sure it’s nothing but the fact I even react that way is what I find sad. I’ve legit lost all faith and trust in the media so the smallest thing, even if it’s for good , when there’s money involved it automatically triggers a “hmmmm” pause.
The whole things making feel that way I feel how you feel right now literally I understand you we are not meant to be in this system life and a healthy and good life should be free and kind of easy in a sense it shouldn't be a sense of dread right now we're in a very weird thing surrounded by so much deception I hope that we can be saved soon
My company has a bot that posts "🐶facts" on our chat app, to ostensibly brighten the day. However, some dog facts were sad dog facts which started to muddy people's day. So I fact checked the dog facts and found 3/4 facts are either wrong or incredibly misleading. My favorite was a dog "fact' that: "Paul McCartney wrote the song 'A Day In The Life' with a whistle at the end of the song only audible to dogs, to the delight of his Shetland sheepdog" Found first the whistle was 15khz, easily audible to most all listeners, who can prove the dog was delighted, Paul McCartney had an old English sheepdog and not Shetland, and that John Lennon wrote the song and not Paul. The only remaining fact was "A Day In The Life has a whistle"
I want to add that I tried to encourage everyone else to fact check things that make them strongly react emotionally. But this just turned into people calling me the fact checker and still reacting without pause. So this video is exactly what I needed to share not just with my company, but everyone else I meet who believes all dog facts, or reads really any emotionally swinging "facts" without pause
This fact makes no sense without even doing further research for a very simple reason - the hardware and software we use for music are designed to only really work for sounds within the audible range. There of course exist ultrasonic microphones and devices to capture and handle such sounds, but even if McCartney did somehow use this specialized equipment, no format (be it analog or digital) used to distribute music would store the sound and no widely available speaker would be able to play it. You would need a chain of specialist, ultrasonic equipment all the way from the recording to the song being played by the listener and all of that for a sound that's not audible 🤔
It's weird; I immediately saw the over saturated colors and the weird halos and thought it was one of those old fireworks screensavers. The type of blur each spark has isn't natural, it looks very much like the feathering that most photo editors use.
Suddenly i have a desire to see a video on how to be able to see the difference between tempered glass and regular glass... in case my lfe depends on it for some reason
@@BrianEltherington Hmm. So tempered glass is on fire, and it obviously burns the same way glass flows -- very, very, very slowly. Which means glass experiences time at much faster rate than the rest of the universe, which could only be true if glass were from another dimension. A dimension beyond that which is known to man.
"Factoid: an item of unreliable information that is reported and repeated so often that it becomes accepted as fact. OR NORTH AMERICAN a brief or trivial item of news or information." Does that mean the original definition of factoid has been misreported so often by Americans that it became itself a factoid? I don't know if i'm glad that I paused when you said "factoid" in this video.
The 3 minutes describing "The Art of The Pause" is actually the best and most incredible way of telling people the difference between being emotional and being rational. This is the secret to being super smart and achieving stoicism and self control. Just pause.
The problem with trusting anything online or not pausing at everything is that you are training the the algorithm to bypass your pause filter. I find I need to be actively uninfluenced by anything I see from the internet unless I know the truth of the information.
Wow, that's *really* freaky. Just when I came up on that clip at 1:20, I saw out of the corner of my eye literally saw a firework go off just a hundred meters outside of my window, perfectly timed. I haven't seen a firework in real life since last new year, so that is one hell of a coincidence.
Expectations play a big part in your perception though - probably a slightly more immediate reaction when you're watching a video called "how to detect fake fireworks" ;)
Maybe you should have pause and ask yourself: but are they really fake ? You cannot just say "it look fake so it's fake". A lot of things look fake but are real (slow-motion fire, laminar flow, some fireworks,...). Being skeptical do not mean "I do not trust lies", but "I am able to think beyond my first impression".
@@radishraccoon3657 I hear what your saying based on bias but all I can do is try to counter argue that I would have known immediately just based on my specific perception of reality. But that won't make me win the argument because you probably already think I assumed they were fake based on the title.
@@pierrotA You can absolutely say 'it looks fake, so it's fake' if your educated guess has enough evidence to assume so (reflections, cgi-like design, etc). I can look at many things online and automatically determine genuine-status based on a quick glance by taking the context of what is being presented and being able to catch things that stand out that trigger my mind to call out what is fake and what is not fake.
@@socosurf But sometimes you will be wrong... Don't tell me you are ALWAYS right and NEVER did a single mistake in your life. I'm sure I can find some videos that you would instantly reject as fake, even if they are not. You don't think so ? Again, the point of this video is not to know if this particular video is fake (it's not even an important subject) but to be aware that sometimes you can be certain you are right but you are not, and if you never question yourself you will never know. If you never pause and check if you are right, you are surely way, way more wrong that you think you are.
This is why I never have any emotional response to advertisement because my first reaction is to feel manipulated which numbs all potential followup reactions.
Great video. Couple of pause thoughts.... 1 - There was a Sci-Fi series called "Null-A" that had a prominent feature of the non-Aristotelian pause. This helped the protagonist out think his enemies. The novel promoted inductive reasoning and several other things, but I thought the notion of pausing was a direct correlation. 2 - One of the things that I try to do to help people with presentations and public speaking is to insert short dramatic (much shorter than Shatner) pauses into their talk. The goal is to both slow them down and to provide emphasis for the listner.
Thank you so much for this video! I spend a lot of time online and at one point I was running a meme page on instagram, reaching tens of thousands of people per post (sometimes hundreds of thousands) and it always irked me that I had mutuals who would just share or like posts that I KNEW were untrue or horrifically outdated. Like, I'd have to message them like "hey, you do know that this news article is from 4 years ago, and that law has been overturned now, right?" I don't really mind people spreading fake anecdotes online (because life is weird and it's hard to prove things are fake and as far as lies go, saying "hey, today someone bought 78 melons at my local walmart" is pretty harmless) but when it's things to do with politics or news or big world events, the LEAST you can do is check the comments that will all say some variation on "hey you should take this down, it's old/inaccurate/incomplete/literally fully made up as a satirical post" before sharing it with others.
Excellent video! This reminds me of how I reacted when a co-worker of mine told me that the "cotton-eyed" part of "Cotton-Eyed Joe" was an old phrase referring to a symptom of syphilis. I was skeptical, so I did a Google search. I _did_ find multiple sources, but... none of them was credible on its own, and most of _them_ cited no source of their own. The few that _did_ cite any source at all only cited another similarly suspect source, like a comedy blog, a personal blog, or some other thing that should not be considered a primary or even a secondary source. I concluded that there was no serious reason to believe that cotton-eyed actually referred to the symptom of any disease. If there _is_ any scholarly source on the subject, I would love to see it, but I have not found one after my search.
Google scrubbed a lot in 2013 onwards when they got the Watson AI crap and now have moved well beyond that after 2016. They are deeply afraid of being found out but feel invincible especially since 2020 pulled the wool over everybody's eyes. I can't believe humanity is stupid enough to fall for the media.
I have, over the years, paused a number of times and then told people what I found out after. That the things in question are not true, a joke or whatever. And every time they've reacted negatively. Even when it's literally saved that person from wasting hundreds of pounds of their hard earned money, I am the bad guy for pointing these things out. So now, I don't. People want to be ignorant on things that make them smile for a minute. So be it.
It also depends a lot on how you present it. If you go "no you are wrong and incorrect" people are naturally going to feel put out. I like to frame it as (like they say in improv), "Yes, And": "That was a neat video! I was curious how they did it so I looked it up and it turns out it's actually a computer simulation, isn't it amazing what modern technology can do?"
This is nearly identical to a distress tolerance technique from a therapy model called DBT (Dialectical Behavioral Therapy) called STOP. STOP includes: Stop, Take a step back, Observe, and Proceed mindfully. It is one of the easiest and most effective distress tolerance techniques therapists teach. So cool to see it laid out from a different perspective. (Distress tolerance is the idea of being able to weather emotional floods and other experiences of crisis or feeling overwhelmed while keeping yourself safe and not making the situation worse.)
Well phrased and therefore so applicable to many fields without strongly taking sides. Most obvious and pointed out in the comments are conspiracy theories, but it perfectly matches cyber attacks like phishing. In fact this could be used as internal training material for cooperations.
We shouldn't have to fear being labeled a "buzzkill" for pointing out something is fake and trying to manipulate us with a lie. That's like calling someone a "buzzkill" when they stop you from drinking too much and harming yourself. It's fine to politely reply "that was a great digital animation, I wish they had given the artist credit instead of making up that story" if you want to stay relatively upbeat, but we only build other people's pause reflex by pointing it out.
This is great if used on everything (that triggers the pause instinct) that comes your way. A lot of people only do it if it rubs them the wrong way and will accept it if that like/agree/conform to what is being shared. Great video all the same. Very fair presentation of thinking about misinformation.
4:17 forward your inquiry about eye of newt to CGP Grey. He'll obses about it for a year until he finds the grave of the witch who came up with the name.
Fun fact, the word "pause" comes from the word "paws", since you need to get a dog to stop moving around for a moment in order to get a good look at their paws. Since many people weren't terribly literate at the time, they started spelling "paws" as "pause".
This is a nice sequel to CGP Grey's "This video will make you angry". The pause is a necessary defense when human attention becomes more and more commodified.
I find it sort of interesting that his own sponsor section at the end of the video checks many of the boxes he gives for if something should give you pause. He really should have done more to cover them completely, but at the very least I hope people look into his sponsor before giving them any money.
I paused at 6:29 as soon as I heard the phrase "we got a sponsor". Very likely I'll never take this video off of pause and will just move on. I don't care who it is, I don't do clickbait. I don't need any ads pushing their product on me. If I need it, I'll look for it.
@@emrek99205 There is a massive difference between manipulative, mis-attributed clickbait and a simple ad. This had a simple advertisement, at the end of the video no less.
"Your pause may take less time, or more. Or you might decide you don't care enough to deliberate and you just wanna get on with your life" It's sad that 2020 and 2021 have taught us there are also people who lack the ability to detect this fabled 'pause' and decide that everything they are told is the truth.. The less trustworthy the source the better, apparently.
The power to "pause" is what I would call your "cognitive resistance". Do you know about the trope of "cognitohazards" and "memetic virus" in sci-fi horror? And that the hero of the story has the ability to resist these conceptual monstrosities? Yeah, to me, that willpower IS the power to "pause". It is the closest you can have to a "real-life superpower" to a real-life threat.
Thanks for this video! I think the "Well, actually..." Is underated. Sure, when seen as a competitive one-upsmanship, it's annoying or worse, but if not for external corrections, what difference does my pause make in the larger picture of a dangerous meme?
I think "Well, actually..." is associated with an obnoxious behaviour and the feeling that it provokes in the people receiving it. So it's more about the way the message is delivered and the emotions it provokes rather than the importance of "correcting" people. Here's a comment seen above that seems worth repeating : I've found it's important depending on the person saying something false to first mention the feeling of the "fact" and then offer a similar feeling with the truth as you're adjusting their foundation for how they see the world. Like: "It does sound wild that we use only 10% of the brain, but I've learned it's closer to 100% since we now have fMRI data which makes you wonder what it's all doing"
@@ghislainbugnicourt3709 I generally agree with you that communicating well is often more important than being right. I'm left still with the concern that bad information is shared and propagated in whatever way it wants, particularly with the use of strong emotions. I don't see how a strategy of corrections that deliberately avoids strong emotions could possibly provide a solution. I certainly don't want to justify people feeling self-righteous while acting like assholes, but I hypothesize that sometimes a negative feeling is a good thing. I mean, at a minimum, being corrected is supposed to feel uncomfortable (maybe I'm wrong?). Is a negative feeling necessarily a sign that things are going in the wrong direction? I admit that my style of argument has many times upset people in the past. I want to be clear I avoid name-calling, generalizing, or getting personal, but I don't shy away from the various ways of saying "you're wrong here." From all those experiences, I still haven't figured out a way that works for me, and that's one of my biggest frustrations at the moment. Thanks for helping me think about it.
@@jimbrookhyser Maybe the best way to think about it is to place yourself in the role of the one who has that wrong idea in your head, naturally you think it's true and want it to remain true. You don't want to hear someone say "you're wrong'. So ask yourself, how would you like to be corrected, ideally ? I'd say the best way is to be lead to make the conclusion that you were wrong *by yourself*. No need to say "no" or "you're wrong", instead present the arguments or facts so that the person can verify independently. Also, very frequently people are not really "wrong", they rather have a point of view or model that doesn't fit the data as well as yours. It's important to remember that your point of view, although founded on better arguments, is still a model. To be clear, I face this problem frequently too. I try to help students do their homework, and very often I notice that I start my answers with "No". That's not constructive because it doesn't encourage them to think about it, so when I notice it I try to rephrase so that they can see the mistake themselves.
Some organizations have a separate group of donors that specifically cover marketing and administrative costs. What gives me pause is "donation matching". Are there really a ton of rich benefactors out there that will only give money to charity if you do? Or if it's a company doing the match, it reads to me like just a form of advertising.
This is a very good video on how to interact with the information you see around it but I admit I was disappointed throughout the video that there was no actual information on how to tell fake fireworks from real ones
I'm a bit annoyed because it made the video hard to look up later. I knew it was about pauses, and sponsored by something about charities, but fireworks? Barely a lead in.
I'm currently reading "thinking fast and slow" by Daniel Kahneman. It's quite similar to this video and can wholeheartedly recommend it. It has made me laugh and think about how our brain functions.
This is a good and important video. Thanks. What's "funny" in my opinion is that almost everyone is certain to think enough. You will rarely be in front of someone that say "I do not want to think too much about it". I think that we (the humains) have a strong abitily to lie to ourself. Sometimes we know we are wrong but it ask to much questioning to admit it to ourself. Of course, being humain, I write this thinking of all the errors people make around me and not my own mistakes, and you surely did the same reading me.
We humains need to stick together. I notice my own mistakes and try to learn from them. When I see others make mistakes, I first think of how I would have done it. Only rarely do I determine I would have done it better.
@@voodoodolll to me Pierre's spelling choices indicate a French heritage, where considering the truth of what is being said is commonplace. Unfortunately it still does not prevent rampant confirmation bias.
@@LabGecko What I try to say is that almost everyone pretend to themself that they think enough while pretending that they are the only one doing it. The @SensualCream message could be seen as a proof, while implicitly saying that he is the only one that think enough, given that everyone but him do not.
Another thing about the fireworks is that at such a distance the sound of the explosions and the visuals wouldn't be in sync (unless someone made the effort to synchronize them).
My pause detector has largely been formed by the work of Captain Disillusion. Nowadays, I can almost enver watch a spectacular photo or video without thinkng "mmm, this can't be real, this can totally been done with visual effects"
This is a great concept and I think it applies well to emotional responses. However, I think the video is really on the line about encouraging "google doctors" who have done their own research by not fully understanding how to do proper research
Ah yes let me find proper sources out of thin air, pause, if you listen a bit more he's actually promoting on how to google correctly, by finding reputable sources from reputable institutions and telling apart false sources. You dont *have* to go to the library to find every little fact 😪
@@defango well google doesnt HAVE to give you correct info, it gives you popular info first and it takes a bit (a lot) of digging sometimes to actually get to the (hopefully peer reviewed) paper the posts and articles are talking about Aaaand the problem is that people often think they are doing the correct way of researching but in actuality they aren’t Impossible to tell them apart sometimes and ya godda live with it
@@Apersonl0l can you give me an example of a google search query that has ALL of the results on the first page be false info about a real thing? (Of course stuff like witchcraft shouldnt count unless followed by "is real?")
@@defango an example would be A lab publishes a study saying that eating a bar of chocolate a day may have beneficial effects on your health Then one news outlet picks up the story, misusing the statistics and results of the experiments and title their post “NEW chocolate filled diet helps you live longer says study” or sth like that Then all other news outlet copies the stories (as they do) and not bothering to check if this is even true. The fad goes viral, youtubers posts eating challenge videos and on social media people share this little “fun fact” around like crazy Now if you go and research this mf all you’ll see on the first page would be all the popular news outlet citing other news outlet as source If you are “that guy” who just sees everyone says it’s good and dont put in the effort to track down and read the original paper properly then you just be like “oh ho ho i did the research, you can’t argue with me, you should be doing your own research etc”
@@defango Very possible on topics about non-western countries, since you search in English you'll only get English results which can very often be wrong, because it's written by non-native people. There are also topics that aren't well documented at all online, so the only way to really know is to talk to the people IRL who know about them. Google / Internet isn't the answer to everything, even if it is for 99% of what i want to know.
This reminds me of those free IQ tests that started in the late 90’s. A friend sent me the link. I took the test and my IQ came out to be 150 or something. Neat… hmmm… That seemed a bit high. Pretty sure I’m smart, but not a genius. I went back and went through the test a few times and answered the questions randomly. I constantly got around 120 to 130, which is still a high IQ. After the free test the site tried to sell you some sort of training material for smart people. I figured I passed their IQ test by not purchasing their products.
Two questions I ask when I pause: Is the information verifiable or is it an opinion? What difference will it make regardless of the verification? In other words, is it important for me to verify the information?
What a great video. I want to share this with everyone I know, including my students. A very important principle clearly explained with engaging examples. You can't ask for more than that!
i know your aim was different... but the pause does a LOT more than simply keeping individuals alert to ads and propaganda. it can also foil the tracking algorithms and prevent people from falling into radicalising spirals. in fact, it is so essential that i would consider it part of media literacy, specifically social media awareness, and it should be taught in grade school.
I love how the way you talk about "pausing" is really just another way of saying critical thinking. Like, actually think about things before you react or come to conclusions. You know, the way that everyone should behave all of the time.
This video is reminds me a lot of Yudkowsky's blog post on Noticing Your Confusion, but is expressed in a really nice and understandable way and connected to a bunch of other useful framings. Is good advice! :D
Censorship no longer works by hiding information from you; censorship works by flooding you with immense amounts of misinformation, of irrelevant information, of funny cat videos, until you're just unable to focus. Yuval Noah Harari, historian
