the internet won't make you an expert. 

😂😂😂

Yea me as a man didn't know what to think watching the intro lol

same

Same, I wonder what % of her audience we represent 😅

Just started watching and subbed about a week ago. Totally fell for it. I was crushed. Thanks for the laugh! (still subbed).

I think it still depends on the vocation. For a lot of creative fields, the credential is just a way to make certain employers want to even look at your portfolio at all, even if your portfolio alone shows you have the skills. Institutions also are a way of gate keeping certain networking opportunities in some cases, leading some to skip straight to starting their own business or something (I think of how a popular radio host just went directly to a radio station consistently and hung around to learn in their spare time). We can't really fault some of these people for finding a way to not make student loan debt a garuntee when access to some of the resources found in institutions can be bought by the average consumer.

no. the internet is used for self taught when colleges in their country is not free or low cost. you cannot fault people to be fiscally more cautious. That's why countries with free education is usually the more successful ones economically.

Fun fact, I'm a licensed trainer, and am only legally allowed to run courses in fields where I'm an actual certified expert. So many people call themselves "coaches" or "trainers" who are basically paid performers on a spectrum between entertainer and scam artist.

true and also all these reaction channels and video formats where people just say their opinion on certain topics, mainly a big media issue, are so problematic. Viewers just believe the opinions of these youtubers eventhough there is barely any actual research behind it ( and if so it's very poorly done)

lmao academics are super pretentious. Not sure how much formal training helps with critical thinking, but I do agree it helps. Some people go through university and still can't do this properly, and some people never go through university and are still able to fact-check. I feel like the main issue with university is that a lot of people advertise it as being the sure way to general career success, but that isn't true. That's why we see people going against universities, they feel like we're being misled - which is true to a certain degree. Universities also aren't a completely reliable source of information (there is no such thing), that's why they try to teach you how to fact check in the first place. I do think people can use the internet to become experts (due to sheer amount of information), but they can also use the university. For most, I think using both is best. As long as you don't trust anything blindly.

You don't have to "pick a side" at all. They're both wrong. There is a common thread with both approaches that can lead someone to knowledge. Doing one doesn't preclude you from doing the other anyways. The most brilliant people I know tend to be college educated, and spend a ton of their personal time learning even more. College grads who are lazy and stop learning outside of the bare minimum to get their degree and keep up with continuing ed, I don't have much trust in. Just as I wouldn't have much faith in someone who thinks nothing of value comes out of colleges.

Yeah, I was thinking the same regarding that. But as is often the case, I think it lies somewhere in the middle. Optimally in this case would probably be the combination of both, as the first reply pointed out - college or such (formal education) as an introduction and overview of the topic, providing some guidelines and tools to use and then own interest and time spent to further advance, going more in-depth or maybe also diversifying/branch out into related topics.

@@dennisjungbauer4467 Problems with colleges 1)Too costly compared to alternatives (even if college's tuition is for free, additional road/rent must be compared to internet cost) and usually stress (such as dead lines, especially if you are perfectionist); 2)Their inability to adapt to rapidly changing world, technological innovation fast enough (study plans need to be approved MINIMUM 1 year in advance); 3)Generelised, not individualised courses (usually 50%+ is something you will not use, might not fit to your learning style); 4)Padding, not effective learnt testing methods (such as writing papers, where you half of time spend to double check grammar and transitions, translate, write references etc., instead of concentrated presentation); 5)Delayed economical integration (instead of learning, while working, or making foundations for bussiness in appropriate order, your output is basically never used practically no matter how well made).

@@dennisjungbauer4467 yeah that is exactly what is happening with my self learning journey. My background of my mom's nurturing and good private school + me practice self learning even for school subjects (even in school i only understand once i learn, most time the teacher is not needed, but the direct interaction and feedback is cool). If you have a good basics you can learn anything alone. You books videos articles and a ton of thinking.

Im on the same fence as you are but I think we can use both

😂😂

I'd love, love to hear what other channels you view as high quality! I'm always looking for good stuff to link to people who are trying to self-learn ^^ those two are favorites, for sure!

@@laurenpinschannels While I'm not OP, I believe Kurzgezagt could be another example of a high-quality education channel that values transparency.

@@leodahvee Confirmed. They link to a line-by-line breakdown of their sources in the description.

I would be interested which big channels aren't doing a good job regarding research. Are you willing to name any?

@@AlloAnder Veritasium has had major errors, though personally I think they've sparked debate and I still like a lot of his work. His insightful videos tend to be a bit more hyped up than the underlying tech *quite* warrants. Eg his video about the importance of understanding fields in understanding the flow of electricity was *extremely* good in making my thinking better... but it didn't do the right thing until I watched a bunch more electromagnetism videos, many of which were from actual universities and quite long and had very low view counts, and there were a bunch of disagreeing followup videos as well.

Damn this is a GOOD video.

Thanks so much 😭✨

Same here. Came when I saw the Alt-Self Help video and this has rapidly become one of my favourite channels. Any suggestions for other high quality channels like this?

@@nicduynstee2171 Off the top of my head… Tiffanyferg, Tara Mooknee, Contrapoints, Philosophy Tube, Kat Blauqe, Salari, Jordan Theresa, Shaun, Annamarie Forchino, MIA Mulder, Saint Andrewism, Ash Tanya, Khadijah Mbowe.. Some of them might not be what you were hoping for, and overall the recommendations definitely lean to the left politically but all of them are insanely gifted creators!

Agreed!!💯

Exactly! That's what makes me afraid. The education system can be boring and old-fashioned, but it makes sure you cover the most important aspects, and it forces you to see what you don't want to see. Imagine if doctors or psychologists were licensed without having all the necessary skills? In addition, studying on your own makes you dig deep in what you think is important, and that doesn't mean that this knowledge will be useful to society.

How do I know if my "wanting to figure out how things work" is then really sincere or I'm just fooling myself with that a million times over?

This is critical and in my opinion is a skill taught by parents to children or mentor to mentee (1 on 1). The modern perception of older people as stupid and unreliable massively impacts their ability to effectively transmit their knowledge across generations. "Listen to me, someone your age with a massive conflict of interest [I literally benefit from you failing]"

And also the aptitude for the field you are interested in. I could never be a surgeon, for instance.

@@penultimateh766 True

To became an expert you need years of experience, and in the very beginning that someone had taught you his/her experiences... then you can make your own path... but the point is nobody will transfer you quality content of this kind over a youtube channel, and if done, it should be 2 hours video daily and would take years....

@@maurivillalobos Good point, but I think it also depends on what you learn. For example, if you study Philosophy, what experience do you need to get?

So what should people who can't afford college do?

Not only in Italy but I believe here in Germany too. I know plenty of people who went to the university but can't think critically nor fact check.

could just search online for a linear algebra course syllabus and go off of that

Exactly and this is the issue I have with the scientific community sometimes scientists just want to hang on to old theories and dismiss other scientists. So I don't put full faith in colleges

So true

What should people who cannot afford college do, then? I could but I literally almost see every day people who I seriously doubt ever could have. I know, it's the system/society, but when that translates into that result, should we personally evaluate them negatively? When we make wildly-disseminated advices like these on public fora to everyone and their dog, how should we take into account those people?

Absolutely agreed. Also that college is not wholly a taxpayer-funded public service just as the K-12 is.

I agree. I'm a self taught artist, that's a field you can definitely learn on your own. But I have a a degree in business administration. I believe it's still interesting to learn about other people's experiences in their fields, but that should just be a first step into further investigation. Personal experiences are not rules or a perfect guide to the rest of the world.

And how do you think people in university learn? Do they acquire this superior ability where you can bypass experience and directly access reality as it is? lol

@@DaviAreias no but in university you read a lot of experiences, which reduces the misconceptions. Opposing arguments is something a lot of people don't really seek out but in university we have to sit through all sides.

What should people who cannot afford college do, then? I could but I literally almost see every day people who I seriously doubt ever could have. I know, it's the system/society, but when that translates into that result, should we personally evaluate them negatively? When we make wildly-disseminated advices like these on public fora to everyone and their dog, how should we take into account those people?

What should people who cannot afford college do, then?

it really depends. my economics degree has been of no value. whats really valuable is experience and networking with people and in the field you wish to grow and develop in. college is one of many ways and a well paved path. do not limit yourself do your research

well exactly this question is bothering me right now and i switched sides more often than i can count

If it didn't cost so much money, then yes.

@Shimmy Shai This type of stuff?

@Shimmy Shai Yes dffinatly. but i belive even more inportent is the ability to formulate and organize an informed, coherent and sophisticated set of ideas.

everyone who ever sat on an academic board, even if only a students board at a faculty knows there are also politics in play there as well. And big names or much funding does not necessarily mean better research/science/papers. That is why there are also other researchers around, often trying to rig or game the s ystem in their studies, sometimes being successful with it (what then often makes it into the mainstream news). And rightfully so. Pear Review is often lacking, publish or perish incentive is bad, we need binding and standardized data policies as well, but also correct identification of researchers, what and how they did their work and so on. Often times, you can skip this, if you are just a "big name". But you shouldn't be. All have to be hold to the same scrutiny and standards.

Such insights. Love your view. Also support it

I think that depends on the discipline a lot, but anthropologists are leading the way in that kind of research,although it still needs a shitload of training and interpersonal abilities to really integrate non-academic participants in formal publications.

Yes! Was hoping to see a comment like this

What should people who cannot afford college do, then? I could but I literally almost see every day people who I seriously doubt ever could have. I know, it's the system/society, but when that translates into that result, should we personally evaluate them negatively? When we make wildly-disseminated advices like these on public fora to everyone and their dog, how should we take into account those people?

whoops, here they are !

I feel like she may not add time stamps because she can't easily split the video cleanly into separate topics as all of them are connected and the transition from one to another may not be so clear. But I personally would also like time stamps lol.

Why does it soud like you advocating for absoluto unregulation of behaviour and spreading of hate-speech using "free speech" as a moral shield. Right now free speech Is a buzz-word to "attack whoever i want without any consequences" even when it ends up killing real people.

@@kiriki4558 Hate speech should not be regulated. I'm sorry but you either believe in autonomy of a individual to speak freely or not. Calling to action or inciting voilence is another thing i don't support but i don't believe any controversial ideas should be censored.

@@jefrreyjeffery2192 Hate speech is in itself a crime, what you're saying is nonsense lol.

Which actually shows the right-wing has some valid points. Has she explicitly said those words? She should, then?

Would you elaborate on why you distrust Rogan? Sincerely asking, because I like to listen to his podcast.

@@Jay_hendy Oh hey Jay, I never said I “distrust” Rogan. If you enjoy his podcast, that’s fine! I used to listen to the JRE years ago when he had discussions about spirituality or had an intriguing guest on the pod. I stopped listening after a while, not because of any controversy, but I gradually lost interest. 3-4 hour discussions can be quite time-demanding and found the quality to be very hit-or-miss. I was being a bit cheeky with using “Rogan” in my example, since he’s currently topical for spreading misinformation about COVID-19 (either through himself or through his guests - an “unhealthy degree of skepticism”, if you will). Even before this, I’d always take his claims with a grain of salt - Joe presents himself as an independent thinker, but is still prone to bias and bad takes. If you view the JRE as “just entertainment”, once again, that’s totally cool - I’m not going to judge you for it. I can see the appeal. We all have our personal tastes. But the key thing is - it’s entertainment. It doesn’t matter whether the details are coming from Joe Rogan, Alice, or whomever - ultimately when it comes to scientific/medical information, I’m always going to defer to the doctors, epidemiologists and-or other medical professionals because “The internet won’t make you an expert”😉

@@TheZatzman Haha okay cool. I also take what I here on podcasts/RU-vid vids with a grain of salt. I do find that I have similar interests as Joe, so I like most of his serious podcasts. Just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing a glaring flaw! Thanks for the reply!

Statistical significance not having any practical utility is extremely common. I would also add that the current higher education atmosphere seems very reluctant to acknowledge the limitations of empiricism, especially in fields where controlled experiments are impossible or difficult. Sometimes, an a priori approach or one based on experience and anecdote is best. Which to even suggest such a thing is blasphemy to many. There isn't much sense in dogmatically clinging to the "gold standard" RCT, when every trial you conduct is riddled with confounding variables that you cannot possibly ever control for.

@@Theviewerdude Well said, my opinion on the matter doesn't differ too much from yours. I find the situation disgusting because of how insidious and opaque the issues it's causing are. It is not something people at large are aware of. Regardless, it's funny that simple and straightforward methods such as anecdotal evidence can trump and highlight how myopic and absurd things can get in studies. You made a good example of how something doesn't have to be scientific to be useful. Unfortunately though, I don't think things will change, it's the status quo. Low quality studies will continue to be churned out as long as the fields in question have too many people and too little interest/funds, leading to a tendency to treat studies as tools to further one's career and add visibility to related institutions moreso than their original purpose. More onto the garbage pile, and more confusion for people seeking answers.

@@Laolunzuo my first foray into the world of science and truly understanding it was exercise science and nutrition, so I'm intimately aware with all of the things you mentioned in your original comment. The more I learned in those fields, the more often I found that my own experience and my own reasoning based on what I could establish to be true was more reliable than any random study. A very good example of the sort of misleading nonsense you find in the research are weight loss studies comparing low carb/no carb (keto) diets to any other sort of diet, controlled for calories. To explore the validity of the carb-insulin hypothesis and calorie balance equation. In plenty of these studies, you'll find that the low carb / keto group loses more WEIGHT... but upon further examination, this is only over the duration of the short trial period of say a few weeks. When you control for things like protein intake and water retention, or you just have the trial last longer than a few weeks, turns out the difference between weight lost disappears. Meaning, short term, keto diets cause more weight loss in the short term due to loss of water, but not more fat loss, which is what people are actually concerned with. And this is still only the sort of thing you can hope to find after extensive critical analysis of dozens of studies on the subject, looking at the ones that were actually designed well. The vast majority of the research of that sort relies on participants to track and self report their own diets and results - which means it is unreliable garbage. Some of these studies don't even make it clear when that is the case, there may only be a sentence or two mentioning it deep within the methods, if there is any mention at all. I still don't understand how some studies get published without being crystal clear on the methods. But as you say, we will never have strong evidence for what happens long term for anything. It is unethical and unfeasible to stick identical twins in a metabolic wards for a couple decades. While through very carefully controlled and well designed research we CAN figure out pretty well what does happen over a period of 8-12 weeks or so, it is difficult to impossible to tell after that. For some things, we don't really need longer research periods, as what happens in the body over the course of that time period is unlikely to change over a longer period of time. A 12 week trial is more than enough time to observe how someone's metabolism can slow down as a result of aggressive dieting, so we can establish some strategies for how to avoid that happening over a longer period of time, in a real world scenario where someone may be dieting on and off over the course of two or more years. For something like determining the risk of heart disease from a lifetime of a diet high in saturated fat, it's nearly impossible to tell. For more advanced athletes and lifters, the most popular forms of organizing their training involve sophisticated, rotating cycles of training that span over the course of several seasons and even years. Simply referred to as periodization, or more generally as programming. Anyone who's ever trained at a more advanced level or trained others knows very well you can't just keep doing the same exact thing for months and keep expecting great results, you need to constantly adjust based on your body's needs, and sometimes you need to focus more on one thing more than another to reap the benefits of both - such as powerlifters sometimes training as bodybuilders. There is virtually no possible way to test any of these long term periodization and programming methods in a clinical setting. Regardless of the issues with feasibility and ethics, there is so much individual variance between people that you'd have to conduct the research with an absurd amount of people to even begin recognizing trends. By their very nature, we are primarily concerned with how these things play out in the longer term, after 3 months. You often can't even measure results in any shorter window of time, you really don't get a clear picture until 6 months or after. In this field, you really have nothing to rely on BUT anecdote and your own reasoning. Through scientific research you can develop some axioms for how the body works and responds to training. From there you can use your reasoning to establish some methods worthy of trying out, but these are theories at best. Adjust based on your experience trying your own methods and listen to what other experienced people in the field do and have success with and over time you can blindly stumble your way through the dark. I trained others for over 5 years and I tried to treat programming like a single person experiment and it never works. Even the most dedicated and consistent of my clients went off plan often enough to muddy the results. Had to work late, misses one workout, entire plan is changed for the week. Tweaks his knee, have to adjust plan on the fly. New job which means less sleep and more stress, can't compare any new results to anything I tested before. It was impossible to take a few training blocks of 6 weeks which were identical and only differing on a few variables. At best I could piece a few things together and sometimes just make wild guesses and see if it works. Ultimately this is how humans figured out anything about everything before modern science. Even early medicine was this, essentially. The story of how early Italian doctors found how silver coins can patch holes in skulls is incredible, and later how drilling holes in them allows the bone to regrow over it. Pure deductive reasoning. It works, but it's slow and buggy. Many of the things old school bodybuilders from Arnold's era believed in are being found to be true. Even completely nonsensical shit like "fish thins the skin" might have some truth to them, due to chicken (the alternative they would eat) containing high amounts of linoleic acid, which seems to have some odd effects with fat retention. But there's still some which is undoubtedly hearsay. Ultimately a bunch of cavemen managed to figure out selective breeding at the end of the paleolithic era. Did they have peer reviewed journals back then? To sum up, deeply understanding this field truly taught me that empiricism has some substantial limitations, in some cases. Once understanding that for one field, I began to see a similar thing in other fields. I also have a deep interest in economics and there is a compelling argument from the Austrian School for why empiricism is grossly overused in that field. It all comes down to when you mix in more human behavior and genetic variance into the field, clinical research becomes less reliable as it is more difficult to control for. Exercise and nutrition relies heavily on human behavior and genetic variance. Economics, it is impossible to observe two identical countries, economies, universes differing on a single economic policy. The field of economics is the study of human behavior - how people trade resources. Psychology, same issues. Chemistry? Physics? You can control for that pretty well. Putting rockets into space based on simulations proves that. Yet our entire society and culture has thrown our whole weight behind this notion that empiricism can provide the answers for everything. I'm not one to discount someone's competency in a field or their intellectual prowess based on their lack of "official" qualifications, but the woman who posted this video is. By her own standards, she's not in any position whatsoever to weigh in on this issue of the limitations of empiricism. Which makes the video quite ironic. Who is she to say otherwise, as an expert of only the language she teaches? Like I said, I personally don't believe that reasoning. It's just odd to be making her argument when she is in no position of authority herself, by her own standards. I think over the next few decades we are going to witness a bit of a revolution in this regard. The "old guard" of intellectual elitism will evolve. There will be less gatekeeping, less appeals to authority and more judgement of the validity of an idea or statement based on its merits. That will include things like less reliance on empiricism for all things, at it is primarily the higher education institutions which are perpetuating this.

​@@Theviewerdude That was a fantastic reply! I have to count myself lucky because it's extremely rare to be able to exchange words like this on this platform. Thanks for sharing a bit about your background. Since I have no qualifications in exercise physiology I really appreciated your view on it. I suspected it would be like this, but obviously lacked the clarity and experience to put it into words as clearly and articulately as you did. Agreed on things like water retention affecting weight. It's a flawed measure, we should look at effective body composition instead, except, it's not nearly as easy to measure so you really have to be observant and learn to know your body, just like you said. Do you know of nitrogen isotope testing on human bone remains? Its findings alone can already tell quite a lot about human nutrition across hundreds of thousands of years. When something works for such a long span of time, as proven by the fact we are still here and as a dominant species to boot, it should be hard to dismiss and overlook, yet that's exactly what has happened. You also mentioned no carb/low carb and calories, so maybe I can try to add my thoughts on that as well: another flaw often found in such studies is that their standards for what no carb and even low carb are, almost always prove unsatisfactory. The people followed are found to still consume a considerable amount of carbs even in the so called "no carb" group, and on the other hand, to even have a low carb group, one must first be able to establish what exactly low carb is. The exact number or range should not be taken for granted. Even health organizations and so called experts vary quite significantly in their recommendations. Often what is regarded as low carb on such studies most definitely isn't, and is actually absurdly high, just ask any diabetic or pre-diabetic. It wouldn't be an overstatement to say this straight up invalidates the study from the get go. And I can totally get behind your disbelief at how studies like these just get a pass, especially since very often the abstract, which should hold relatively little weight as a whole, already shows invalidating red flags left and right, before even getting into the empirical nitty gritty. If that's not shameful when there are practices such as peer-review in place, then I don't know what is. And on the calorie side, I'm pretty sure you will agree it's an awkward measure because of thermodynamics. Living organisms are considered open systems. We freely exchange energy and matter with other things. A calorimeter used to measure calories is instead considered a closed system, as it only exchanges energy. It's therefore highly reductionist to talk about calories the way it is being done at large, and not just in terms of semantics. It just doesn't work for a person the way it does in a calorimeter, as an entire core component, the exchange of matter, is being completely taken out of the equation. I really hope you are right on your final take though. It's hard to predict such things and expectations often lead to disappointment. I will admit sometimes I find myself morbidly hoping for some catastrophe or crisis originating from the malpractice in these fields, because without a proper shake up, I find it hard to believe there will be any significant change. So fingers crossed it won't come down to that.

I don't think I have much to add to the interesting conversation but I would say there is a huge gap in between Humanities and Sciences which can solve the issue of people in higher education not willing to listen to each other. Questions of practical utility are multi-faceted, so it's both arrogant and partially stupid to think there is one way can solve every problem. Anecdote and priori approach is much more accepted in Humanities and I personally feel the both sides can learn from other. Education have a tendency to fall short when tackling real life problems and that creates the "It's backed by Science!" sticker on almost everything, because for every shitty product there is a controlled experiment done by some underpaid research facility. Slowly but surely, "Science-based" have became more of a buzz word than something credible since so often research in controlled environment contradict each other. It also have eliminated that empathy that we all experience. For example: "if this one research support that people who are different from us are "mentally ill" then surely it must be right, and I can be hateful and then claim science is on my side", no longer are morals considered because people justify their lack of empathy to be backed by science. Forgive me for rambling lol

😂😂

19 hrs ago?

@@JM-st1le patreon lol! Join usssss

@@ravenitz oh

however: do not confuse mentorship with imitation, the latter ven a monkey can do

🇧🇷🇧🇷🇧🇷

Would you mind if you could recommend some reliable, interesting video essayists other than Alice, shanspeare, and mina le?

@@glory3475 Solar sands, lonerbox ,the right opinion

@@frakus3068 thank you

Well, "science" can be wrong, too. But one should generally bet it is right first before betting it is wrong.

@@shimrrashai-rc8fq True ! Blindly believing in something because its labelled as "scientifically proven" or if its said by some scientific institution is exactly the same as following some random dogma. "Science" is supposed to be proven, following the scientific method. The method is constant and reliable, but the humans are still variables in this equation, and so is the data in some instances. So "science" maybe incorrect , in the best case due to the data in question changing with time, thus the paper requiring updates. Or in the worst case, due to disingenuous people who somehow got into positions where they could publish their personal agendas and label them as "science" .

Tell me how shit-poor my videos are by comparison. Tell me please. I want people to be honest, frank, and factual with me. I feel honesty-deprived throughout my life, honestly more like trauma kinda

I think it definitely depends on the field. I am currently working on my uni in Material Sciences in building industry and a lot of mechanisms, methods and substances are company's secrets but that is not the worst part... simply there is no way of learning many of the analytical methods, research the properties or confirm your suspicions if you don't posses the equipment. And that is worth thousands of dollars (or in my case pln) that an average self learner just doesn't have. Not to mention that it is simply a field in which noone will hire you without a formal education in at least similar field. Not that universities teach you everything, if they teach you basics, show you how to read science papers and give you the access to the equipment it is already a lot. But definitely there are some fields that being an expert based on internet history or even amount of books read is just not enough.

Yeah, I'm a shitbag

Well, they're free and donating is optional so that's something.

Never read it ! Thanks for sharing ✨

The real solution is to study the first principles of every field. Learn the first principles well and thoroughly. Like the reason people think COVID-19 vaccines or other vaccines don't work is because almost always (in my experience) they don't understand even a FEW first principles of immunology. Like that vaccines aren't therapies they are "training" for your immune system, so there's no contradiction between "strengthen your immune system" and "get a vaccine" - it's like a fighter, a fighter trains his muscles but also learns technique and skill and not only CAN you do both, doing EITHER one without the other is to put yourself on a serious back foot. College can help with this and _ideally it SHOULD_ - BUT only if you get a good Professor. I remember coming into my first year Engineering Physics I course because that was required and I did great but honestly the instructor was so terrible that I knew that if it hadn't been for all the self-learning (primarily Internet!!) I'd done on the topic before then, I'd likely have been royally confused. What's ridiculous is there are colleges like that out there that let such people teach such courses and/or that the system lets them. Literally I corrected this "instructor" when they repeated a common mistake about Newton's third law(*) to their whole class right in the classroom, and I remember how much murmuring came out of that class and ... I think I have about as much to say on this topic as the video author does because I have experience thoroughly with both the pitfalls and advantages of college/formal learning AND self-learning being also totally self- and home-taught prior to college, then going to colleges - two of them now. The way I see it, college nor self-learning is not inherently better. But self-learning is also perhaps for not as many people, maybe only those with special talent; ironic when we consider that college is supposed to conventionally indicate you are "smart". But then colleges, they have a _responsibility_ to be truly good teachers, and it shouldn't be that you should have to go to Harvard, Yale, or MIT just to NOT have a _basic error_ like the one I mentioned "taught" to you. We seem to have a social class-formation where that the less advantaged are literally deceived by bad teaching because they get those colleges, and I would argue that's an absolutely unacceptable crime, whether it's a legal crime or not. --- (*) for those with physics savvy and/or interest: that the normal force on a book lying down on the table is the reaction force to the gravitational force from the Earth. This is wrong! The reaction force is the force _ON THE EARTH (incl. table) FROM THE BOOK._

Oh thanks ! I thought it would be a nice change of scenery ✨

@@AliceCappelle you're videos are so interesting, you must be a great teacher

So evaluate my video critically for absent quality.