Why are Smart People So Dumb? 

Without hesitation, Noam Chomsky He's best

Biased Wisecrack is the worst I can think of

Omg you're beautiful. Great topic to cover thank you for sharing

Rick Sanchez and Kreiger....what???

Worst Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris. They are frauds

I think most of these talkers focus on their charisma stat

Wisdom is the stat that make you “shut-up” at the right time, intelligence is the stat that make you boring if you keep yapping about it, and Charisma is the stat that make you talk like CHAD THUNDERCOCK.

Strength: I can lift it. Dexterity: I can dodge it. Wisdom: I can see it. Intelligence: I can solve it. Charisma: I can fuck it.

You rolled at nat20 on this comment.

Truth. I prefer to be a cleric over a wizard any day... (though rogues are my faves TBH)

Can relate

Obviously

Well.... second best, Trump is number one!

Me tooo

*.

feel u, but I think his laughable lies and dangerous doings were less exposed and less apparent 2 years ago

The worlds (and my) opinion of him has shifted significantly

True, but he did a lot to stop censorship.

@@imperialmotoring3789 like what? 😂

@@imperialmotoring3789 Yeah he also exploits tons of workers and works actively against worker co-ops. He did nothing

You are so right. I saw this guy appearing on several UFO pseudo-science vids who was a "Dr." /PH.D - also "author & Broadcaster" (of some book you have never heard of). I looked him up on Wikipedia and he really did have a Ph.D - in "Ancient Chinese ceramics" - or some Professor giving talks with Ken Hamm supporting Young Earth Creationism - turns out he was a civil engineer. I mean, nobody asks a biologist to build a suspension bridge.

true

Pretty much they’re egotistical

As someone who is seen as very intellegent, I can confirm that this is accurate. I do well in terms of Anime, video games, some art history, and other pop culture stuff, but put me in front of astronomy and...

That's the Dunning-Kruger effect in motion mah dude. You'll notice the smarter the person, the more they'll realize they actually know NOTHING. With someone like neil, he KNOWS he's smart and understands things that only a fraction of people do, but that egotism just blinds him

The lack of self awareness in this video is absolutely wild

But as dumb as you are, Neil saying “whats the point in philosophers fighting on meanings behind words” that just shocks me, never knew smart people could be THAT dumb

@@nicholasgeere5125 lack of self awareness elaborate??? If someone were smart they'd be smart enough to think "gee maybe I shouldn't speak on a topic I know little to nothing about on my massive platform"

It's simple: one shouldn't speak outside of their area of expertise. Most of these "public thinkers" have gone to grad school, and it is a near universal sentiment among grad school students that they don't know shit about what they thought they knew. At some point during your schooling, when you see how deep the hole goes in your chosen discipline, you come to the realization that other disciplines are similarly nuanced, technical, and highly specialized. I fancied myself knowledgeable of evolutionary biology because I read several books on the topic, and so I thought I knew my shit. After going to grad school for a different subject, I dare not speak authoritatively on anything beyond the mere basics of biology, because I realized that the world of PhD expertise in evolutionary biology is so beyond anything that I know that I will inevitably sound like a complete eejit if I even tried to talk about it. So there's no reason why Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Jordan Peterson, and others should not have that same humility and restraint.

Well I think the argument would be that an intelligent person would know when they are not speaking from expertise and not try and act like they know better.

He wrote 1984 right

.... the guy who bought into the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (which is, I admit, very attractive). IMHO Aldous Huxley hit closer to the truth more often.

@Nick Aries no Big Brother is watching me man idk where u live

like what? criticizing police state while at the same time collaborating with the police?

@@socratias NSA: Am I joke to you?

Underrated comment.

It's funny because you go to any place on the internet where people think they are free-thinkers, like 4chan for example, and all they do is believe everything posted there and then repeat the talking points. Everything is like a cult now, end everyone is cult-like.

That's the problem with the world. I wish the people that were in charge of publishing would hold standards like hey this person apparently talks about every subject, maybe they aren't as smart as they say they are. It's so upsetting to see the mediocre rise to the top and people allow them to

Personally, I find that people who diversify their knowledge base beyond one subject tend to be more wise than those who are obsessed with one subject. While it is true that some use this to their own personal gain, I feel that those who diversify themselves want to relate to as many people as possible because they are empathetic and want to empathize with a larger population

Pretty much.

Time for a hard reset

Is it that everything in the world is garbage or everything in the world has both good and bad in it?

For real, I love this channel but this video depressed tf outta me. I get these videos are supposed to serve as conversation starters, but it some proposed solutions would have been nice. Also the irony of Wisecrack as a brand making this particular video is not lost on me.

@@EffectzHeroez Corona is doing its best. Give it a few more years.

Lol, people pay for this piece of shit....

@@jacekcierpiszewski who? Cause I sure don't

Ah, I see you're a man of culture as well

You should do a TED Talk on it

Fred: Right? It doesn't seem very intelligent to spend ten grand for something you could get for free.

TED talks went from interesting discussions of complex topics in a relatable manner to Silicon Valley Bros explaining something *painfully* obvious to everyone badly because they just found out about it and thus assumed no one knew. And they usually do it by badly paraphrasing someone else's research.

This is the exact reason why a great many "smart" people shouldn't be teachers. There's a massive world of difference between being smart enough to understand the curriculum yourself and being smart enough to get others to understand the subject.

That's most professors. Teaching is just a requirement to many of them. They're more interested in the recognition they get from publishing papers, not teaching.

Cool story. Also irrelevant to the video.

@David Orozco Except we have no way to ascertain the boundary once and for all, nor to assess scientifically which questions are worth asking, so philosophy will remain necessary. Philosophy is not just something that precedes science, only to fade when answers can be given; it's the very foundation of science. These guys seem to think, instead, that science is 100% on the path to answering all relevant questions, so that philosophy is becoming thinner and more useless.

I did not think that that statement by Tyson was so dumb.

@@andreab380 This. Science, philosophy, and even religion/faith all have a place in intellectual "searches" for the "truth." I really love how Fullmental Alchemist explores all of these concepts through its character's and their growth throughout the series: Edward/Al = Science is the only means to the truth, Leore Peeps / Ishvalans / Scar = Science is nothing if Faith says otherwise, science has caused our downfall and murdered our people Father = My philosophy to attain the truth is to remove all 'imperfections' in myself so I can be a pure, godly being. State = Suppression of religion and scientific oppression leads to a stable society You see so many characters grapple with the above 'lenses' to understanding their world and their place in it. Ed by the end of the series has to accept that alchemy (science) literally cannot solve all problems, and that it is important but not as important as his loved ones, his brother in particular. Wrath learns that a 'miracle' of the sun blinding him during his duel with Scar is what caused him to lose the fight. Scar learns that alchemy can be used to help people and that he has been a hypocrite by only 'deconstructing' with it, and once he starts to use it he was able to help save everyone. Rose from Leore learned to 'walk on her own two feet' and to not take religious prophets at face value just because they 'give you something you desire.' Its really such a wonderful fiction that hits home for our 'reality' we face even in 2020. Everyone loves to assert their framework for understanding the world is 'the best' while the others are 'less than.' It really takes an appreciation for the limitations of all frameworks and a collaboration between them to get a broader view of what "might be the truth" of a given subject.

@@pathwaystoadventure I love FMA (Brotherhood) too! Such a well-crafted plot and such high concepts for a manga/anime. And I do kind of agree with their stance on Truth as well: science, philosophy, and spirituality (I won't use the word religion, because I'm not a huge fan of organised religion) are all valuable parts of our search for the truth. It is obvious to intellectually honest scientists that science does not solve everything, at any point in time; it is rather a neverending search, and that's what's actually beautiful and useful in it.

@David Orozco Science can speculate things without knowing it for truth. Albert Einstein wasn't the man that proved relativity is a fact, it was actually some observations in astronomy years after the fact that Einstein wrote that theoretical equation that the movement in the stars did in fact prove Einstein right and therefore that the question of relativity was known.

twitter.com/billwurtz?lang=en enters the chat

True, same goes for RU-vid comments ;)

Interesting comment. I thought that's what Twitter was...though I never go there.

yes I agree with the criticism they are making, but even in this video you can apply the same criticism to them.

I think one of the goals of the video was exactly to work as an metacritic for all youtube channels that runs in the "intellectual" discourse. Best way to find a criteria for this is to aways analise their methodology of research for the information they share and criticise their conclusions. Scientific method applied in informal situations also work haha

Exactly what I was thinking... Like, how are you different? Shouldn't you just be happy we keep watching your videos? I heard this stupid smart person the other day who made a distinction between a mark and a smark. A mark is someone who's being duped and doesn't know it. A smark is a mark who knows they're being duped but keep coming back anyway.

I saw this as more of an explanation of the whys and how’s... not so much as a “Listen to me!” Situation...

@@viniciusnogueira3465 so the first homework they are assigning is to criticize the teacher? In this case to criticize their vid and use it as an example

@Flightless Boy Are you, by any chance, trying to ''thought lead'' those humble of us too thick-skulled to follow her points in the video with that comment. . . Or merely trying to encapsulate everything she said into a sole, single, Confucius - style parable of wisdom, like a mantra we can apply to all things and be done to think about it? I did take a grain of salt with this video, and that grain turned out not to be a grain, but to be a piece of honey, because these words she has said, are words I have so longed to hear as this intellectual climate of thought leaders has sucked the life dry off my bone until I'm almost at the point where I feel too numb and wary to even try to have any semblance of a kind of freedom of thought anymore.

@@JingleJangleJam listen all I'm saying is that everyone has their own agendas and points that should be taken with grains of salt because everyone has their own thoughts.not even wisecrack is free of this. In the age of information we ironically seem to be in a world of mis information. How do we know that wisecrack themselves are trying to "thought lead"? And I get it , you yourself have taken in this video with a grain of salt but some may not. People should be able they want and things like ted talks and the likes should be as well.

@@flightlessboy4040 I don't know what the point you're trying to make about her video is. In which point in the video is it that you actually disagree with her on the topics she says about? I don't mind if you have disagreeing thoughts, it is just that you have no stated them in a clear enough way, and her argument to me, seems completely untouched by the comment that you had made. She has stated clear facts. The process of democracy is tainted by disinformation, and not only that, but in your reply, you have reiterted and reinforced her own point also so it seems that you agree with her, and also think that it is ironic and we live in an age of disinformation, which was her own take...

@@JingleJangleJam I'm sorry im really just confused on what you where saying. I agree with what she is saying but I also want to point out that we also need to be careful with this video as well because she herself is painting a picture like many of these "thought leaders". My original comment was paraphrasing in a comedic way what the video was saying.

@@flightlessboy4040 Oh, well she distinguishes in her video between 'thought leaders' and 'intellectuals' and I thought she fit into the latter category because she does refer to true intellectuals like Simone de Beavoir. I apologise I got a little offended when I thought you were mocking her, because I do not think it to be the correct context, in a joke, to say that you should take a woman saying that sexual harassment of women by CEOs that happen factually frequently from overwhelming evidence shown through investigative and legal teams, that cannot help but filter into the media although it is often blurred with sensationalism - and concrete solutions never offered and acted as though they are somehow miracolously impossible to come up with on this issue (thus avoiding further substantive decision making and using the fact a woman is raped for making money by spreading sensationalism on the news that also gets people worked up and start to believe anything, like even a pedo cult could exist, and to start to totally become desensitized with this money-drive thoughtless reporting until they become desensitized to the issue rather than learn about it. I do not think it the right context to say you should take a grain of salt with a woman saying that corporate leaders who often are mixed up in sexual abuse selling info that says that women who are having depression and anxiety from being harassed (instead of us solving their social harm caused by others) should be striking ''power poses'' and blaming it upon their own lack of willingness to be happy, then I do not think you should say that a woman sho says this is blatantly horrible and wrong, is an opinion that should be taken with a grain of salt. To taker something with a grain of salt means to take said thing as being put forward, in a slanted and biased way, and to trey to get a better balance and understand the views of those whom are on the ''other side'', meaning those CEOs who put out the crap information saying a woman who is having these deep traumas with her self identity from a predatory sexual environment, should give a false solution to her dangerous social enviroment that we, as a society, lethargically allow to continue without being dissolved. I'm sure, put that way, you might find hard to disagree, although you I do not know might have been thinking of a different thing when you said what you had said, and an impression of the words someone says can often be different from the intention of who is the speaker.

Except that is not what Elon is or does. See you are already starting with a lie. The lie being, someone born wealthy and with the resources to purchase or fund or start companies cannot also be very smart. Doing the former does not negate the other. If you want to debate whether Elon is a genius or not, start from the truth. Or atleast a truthful measure .. something like his understanding of engineering that has contributed to the works he has done.

Your bias is on full display. Musk became the richest person in the world, is the head engineer at SpaceX, and is brilliant at understanding and solving problems as "evidenced" by people that have worked with him. Tyson is a brilliant astrophysicist, but has horribly misplaced views on social issues and pretty much anything that doesn't involve the macro universe. Perhaps you just don't like Musk's political views and therefore deem him not an intellectual.

True LMAO. Some dissonance between writer, host and editor.

@@azzor4134 yeah the talking head is trying to save theiur viewership and the writer and editor are just like "fuck that we dont respect our viewers"

Was looking for a comment exactly about this when she said legitimate people then Oliver popped up I was like yep there it is.

It’s also a subtle way to tell the truth without saying it

@@magavsdeepstate2095 this is what they have to do on this platform, I agree with you

Peterson too...more or less.

"I'm kinda retarded" - Alex Jones.

“It isn’t the 20th century: it is 1993, so it is the 19th century...” my father, David Koresh, Waco, TX edit-Korean wasn’t my dads surname... it was not koresh either but the dumb ass changed it from Vernon Howell.

I guess that makes the smug know it all, narrating this video completely unwise.

@@Autistic_Internet_Slap_Fights A broken clock is right twice a day...the video can be narrated by idiots and still be completely true. It is best to evaluate content on its own merit rather than being biased by looking at who is its speaker.

😂😂🤣🤣❤

rick and morty gang

It is tho

it kinda is. a dwarf planet literally is just a very small planet, no other differences. pluto isn't much smaller than mercury, which is considered a planet.

@@keane6 wooosh

When people say this to me , l always think that l need estudy more if l want talk about some subject.

WELL I DONT. SO WHAT THE FUCK IS UP.

A presidential historian said "every president is a little bit of a psycho. They have massive ego thinking they can solve the nation problem" i say we all have a little bit of that

@@gamingislife3332 It ties into what Frank Herbert said about those who seeks power being implicitly insane...

That's a really good point you made

It’s to network with others that can afford to pay that amount for an event.

@@chipmonklarry And to feel smug about it.

But I'd assume that TEDx events are way cheaper. We had a few at my college, and I'm pretty sure students can't afford 5-10k (neither in dollars nor euros)

Most of them aren't paying for it themselves, their company paid for it. Still pretty absurd imo, I doubt the company gets that much value back from it.

@@zon3ful so basically just another "conspicuous consumption" under intellectualism cloak.

lol yeah. They did say good or bad but he was still the first to be shown.

I was like wait... WHAT DID HE DO??

ehh, he's not a saint you know?

@@Fabelaz are you referring to that whole exaggerated (no)thing from a few years ago? Next!

@@theocean1973 I'm not sure what you are talking about. Can you elaborate? Answering your implied question though, I honestly don't remember all of the problems I have with him or his content, but one of them is that he is a bit full of himself which I dislike. Doesn't mean I can't enjoy his content though. Also, "next!" - excuse me but what the fuck?

People have surrendered their minds and their wills to some other entity who does not have their best interest at hand. I don't confuse smart/ genius with someone rich in book knowledge (public school teachers, police officers, retail managers etc). Those 3 examples listed have book knowledge, but they don't have the common sense of the average 2nd grader of the 1970s, nor the work ethic or sense of responsibility. More like toddlers pretending to be grownups

Ah yes, the biden followers

Hasnt heard that name for a long time

@@richardcranium6081 so true. I think the most important qualities humans should have is curiosity to learn, common sense, Resilience and a strong work ethic. I think all of those qualities are missing in a whole lot of people.

"Korzybski was a fraud" Robert Anton Wilson

well scientist are a kid that never grow out of their room of toys

so they will continue

THIS, I think is the biggest problem which we can see in play with Neil Degrasse Tyson. Very knowledgeable astrophysicist, but doesn't know a thing about philosophy. So why is he commenting on philosophy?

well you can be knowledgeable in more than one, but not in everything. And even if you are knowledgeable in one subject doesn't mean you know everything about that subject.

@@HeckleJeckle87 because everyone has the right to comment on what they want. You just assume he is right if you want.

Same with me here. I love knowledge and can memorize stuff quickly, but I lack common sense and a thinking that makes people successful leaders and such. It's pretty hard knowing that the c students around you may become bosses and A students may become workers. It just becomes depressing to even study and makes me hate my qualities

Let's not forget that being intelligent and able to understand abstract concepts may alienate you and thus cause you to not get experience socially. It doesn't mean your naturally bad at socializing you just lack experience doing so

@@MylesKillis wow i didn't know that, thanks for sharing the knowledge

@@killme5630 why do you tend to associate studying or intellect in that matter with work? Is that all there is to life or education in your opinion?

@@barathor not really. Even tho in the present I am rather obsessed with the notion with getting grades, or rather, studying for better job opportunities, I know that it may not be, in the end, that necessary. This is coming from the perspective of a student who was deemed "gifted" and now believes the only thing they can do is memorize stuff quickly and they better put that stuff to use in order to survive such a world, since they do not have the wits or brains to manipulate the system for their gains. Eh, personally I'd rather write, draw and be in my own imagination- not uncommon, I know. Not a perspective of a person who is always chasing victory and these are the qualities people would associate with a "weaker" pers . But it is true. The only reason I even care about grades and work now is because the scores I have achieved have put expectations on me and I cant let other people down or disappoint them - I'm too fragile for that. So yeah. The only reason I seem so "obsessed" with work maybe because of all the things I gave been taught since I turned 13. It may seem nice to achieve a high grade, but it is not some sort of insane drive of mine.

Ironically, the amount of focus that you have to have on _one very specific thing_ in order to get your credentials as an intellectual often leads to being clueless in other areas. While not academic, Garry Kasparov is arguably the greatest chess player to ever live, but he thinks that all artifacts over 600 years old are forged. I do not say this to mock them at all. I tried my hand in academia (I didn't get my PhD because I couldn't demonstrate written proficiency in German), but I can probably tell you more about the Cross of Gold speech than all but maybe 50 people alive on the planet (most people who study Bryan today tend to focus on the Scopes trial), because that would have been the topic of my dissertation, and once you get to a certain level, you spend an awful lot of time focusing on one thing.

Helen ANNIHILATES philosophers. Helen WRECKS intelligence. Helen EVISCERATES the ivory tower. Such strong verb choices.

@@wvu05 I'm exactly the opposite. I drive for a living and listen to a lot of podcasts and audiobooks about a wide range of subjects. Because of that, I have a general, broad overview of a lot of things, but am an expert in few if any. But I also don't speak on a subject with any authority unless I have a few experts and data to point to. I also end long rants or explanations with "but what do I know? I drive a truck for a living."

@@georgebynum2659 Indeed. I am not one of these people who tries to show off my credentials, but I realize that there are only a few areas where I can speak remotely credibly when having any sort of discussion, but I do realize what those limits are. My academic training is in religion, and I have some real world experience in politics (I ran for a seat in the state legislature in my late 20s and have worked on a few campaigns, some as a paid canvasser) and I have enough familiarity with a few other subjects that I can discuss the basics, but you have to know what you know and also what you don't know to avoid the thought leader trap.

Preach

I like what you said." Truth" without data is the opposite.

We have to realize that all these people are flawed just like anyone else and if data doesn't show it they're wrong just like all the other humans

Glad to know there are still people that recognize this. If they disappear we will be in a lot more trouble like @musicnerd1023 said.

Yep. Think tanks have become fanatical political propaganda machines, instead of fact-checkers.

@DJHart not when they are arrogant

@DJHart of course it ok to be rude if you're rich :)

I think rude & arrogant people are stupid. i kinda think Rick & Morty made it a trend for smart people to be loud arrogant assholes. Say what you will i think smart people are more like keanu reeves or morty. Maybe i mean wise.

So that’s why elon likes Rick and morty

This is painfully true and accurate of a lot of my college professors. Had one dude that was uber smart and he said he cared about teaching too, not just research. He attended a lot of education conferences and came to the conclusion that cold calling students in a lecture hall of about 300 kids would be beneficial to comprehension. I'm normally pretty good at paying attention in class, in part thanks to anxiety. But bro's cold calling made me almost have a panic attack in class everyday. He was so smart that he didn't think to assess and adjust his teaching style

A lot of intellectuals is sharing interesting knowledge about their fields on Twitter. Problem is, you have to look for them. They don't have 50 million followers.

@@primtones you’ll have that trouble in every social media,not only twitter.

I'm not sure if you're joking!

@@unvergebeneid I mean I feel like the point is that Neil Degrasse Tyson is an astrophysicist, and that his sentiments on other subjects, like philosophy, should be seen with relevant skepticism.

@@skylersmith7 Yes exactly. That's why the irony is overwhelming!

I really fucking hate that guy

He acts like he’s the genius on all fields, stay on your fucking lane neil.

fair

A debate is really nothing more than enforcing a formal structure to a conversation - not every debate is a competition.

dafuq. A conversation is literally just two people talking. A debate isnt about "destroying" the opponent at all. What you described as a conversation is what a debate actually is.

You confused an argument for a debate, and a debate for a conversation

I find debates too draining and stressful, id rather have a conversation, theres a deeper connection to be found in it, why does everything have to have drama for it to appeal to people...

That is of much possibility

A German scientiest (forgot his name) put it that way: Not that long ago, every village had its own idiot. Everybody knew that he was an idiot, so nobody listened to him. The idiot understood that circumstance and kept his mouth shut to avoid making people's view on him even worse. Now all those idiots have access to the internet and are able to connect. Its idiots listening to idiots, so nobody amongst them is smart enough to tell the idiots that they're idiots. That's why idiots don't know that they're idiots anymore and so they don't keep their mouths shut anymore. Now that we can't ignore them anymore like we did back in the day doesn't mean that they've grown in number. There's still one idiot per village, it's just that progress gave him the ability and confidence to speak.

People have had more chances to be heard, censorship by the "gatekeepers" notwithstanding. Previously, only the "approved thoughts" (which, depending on the time could well be "the earth is flat") could be heard. But dumb people don't have any ideas of their own. They believe something because someone told them to believe it. And they are the sort of people who will respond to a detailed argument against the position of their preferred echo chamber by just typing back "wow" or maybe "that's a big wall of text." Ideas, even bad ideas, even incorrect ideas, come from smart people. Smart people may sometimes make dubious connections. But dumb people can't make connections at all.

ok so if you could prove that statement, you may have a point. (even though i don't see how being smarter has to do with being heard at all lol. but really people have always been intelligent and i doubt you could survive 1000 years ago as people 1000 years ago could not survive today if we were to somehow switch places over night. the point of the vid is that people are being wrong on purpose in order to please the corporate handlers of information.

I was reminded of this not too long ago when I saw a 20-30 year old video of an author on TV talking about his books which were turned into a TV series. Back then it was rare for an author to speak directly to the viewers about his books before the start of the program and even interviews were rare, now authors have fans tweeting at them 24/7, they do year round interviews with journalists and tv hosts, they've go their own websites, and they have sites dedicated to them sometimes even including things like wiki sites that host every detail about their franchise ever mentioned or written and every time they appear in public a fan has them on video.

It turns out that if you want people to remember what you say, a joke helps to strengthen the connection. Now I'm not saying this was a particular good one, but you can expect him to make fun of other fields and ideas and take them into absurd metaphors. It's pretty low hanging fruit but you've got to remember the target audience is not his fellow scientists. The good thing about philosophy is that it asks questions and uses logic to derive an answer. You could say a scientist asks questions for which the elements are known or at least suspected to exist whereas philosophers don't really care whether the elements contained in their questions exist as long as the answer makes sense.

True, though I'd still rather have a free marketplace of ideas rather than a system that censors ideas (and I can't think of a third option apart from those two). Now I think to combat the problem with it, we'd need a way to cultivate a longer attention span, incentive to want to know the truth rather than to confirm your own biases, and good education on dissecting an argument (even for people who haven't got the fortune to attend college). Oh and ofcourse the introspection to asses our own biases.

@@KarlSnarks You can't have a free market of ideas with no restriction on those ideas. We deplatform specific people who talk about crazy shit. We don't need to give a platform to holocaust deniers because "We can't censor anyone". We need intellectual security to some degree. You can't have total physical freedom because it causes anarchy and the same I would think holds true for Ideas. Some ideas are just dumb and dangerous.

@@KarlSnarks you don´t get it, the "free marketplace" is an illusion, the most prominent ideas on this space will always be the ones that benefits the corporations who offers money to this "market". it´s a rigged system, where truth is never a primary concern. I agree with you that censorship is not the solution, but the system we live in operates in a similar way just undercover

No one has ever said "Free" Marketplace of Ideas. They only ever said "Marketplace of Ideas".

You smooth talker.... ;)

Each field is important, the most absurd thing to do is to claim you know that one is intrinsically better than another.

@@browngosling3929 nope. The field of homeopathic medicine is not important. And even as a planetary scientist, I can say that the work done on social and technological solutions to climate change is more important right now than what I am doing.

@@firstnamelastname7003 nope, that’s completely subjective. You may be a planetary scientist but once again, claiming that your science is greater than herbal medicine, whether it be a science or not, is absurd. Some have been touched by homeopathy more than knowing the orbit of certain planetary objects. I’m a man of science too but it’s quite arrogant to take away meaning of anything to any individual.

@@browngosling3929 yes, of course it's subjective. Subjectivity is in the definition of the word important - there's no objective measure of it. That doesn't mean one person can't claim that one thing is more important than the other, or the word important would be meaningless. And a consensus on importance based on common values can be created. We can agree that the world not ending is important to us humans in general even if a few of us are nihilists. Gosh, pedantism is dull.

Fridge Logic joke , lol. How could the editor possibly have matched the visuals to the audio wihtout knowing precisely what is being said at that point?

@@LinkEX It's a fucking joke you utter clown. it points out dissonance, that's why it's funny

Well, sometimes a study doesn´t certify a point. A research is part of the process that we know as science. A research is not a "definitive" truth. Is dangerous that people take them like that just to "prove" their points, and that´s not the researcher´s fault. And, the other risk is that people use the bias thing to discredit researches that don´t certify their point of view or their ideologies... That leads to a lot of BS...

@@SeSdesc The reason why the CDC wants you to think its hands are tied researching gun violence is because the director of the CDC, in the early nineties, decided he was going to use his position as the CDC to spread anti-gun propaganda under the guise of "research", which lead to a ban on the CDC being allowed to produce partisan studies designed to promote specific policies. Even today, the CDC is still so biased that a ban on producing partisan studies designed to promote specific policies has kept the CDC from producing studies on the subject. Because "researching gun violence" and "partisan study designed to promote specific policies" are synonyms to them. So they just went ahead and ignored actually doing research and just declared "gun violence" a health crisis, as if we aren't in the middle of a literal pandemic. Because they're an organization of lifelong government bureaucrats attempting to gain as much power over society as they can.

@@IncredibleMD While that may very well be true, the U.S. does have a major gun problem and there's no denying that. Biased research can't be disregarded in light of what we actually see. We aren't seeing guys go into Wal Marts in other 1st world countries shooting people up. I do agree there is far too much of a Boogeyman mentality about guns (especially from those who have never even held one before), but we can't just pretend there's not a problem whatsoever.

Who takes every research at face value? - I assume an unintentional grammatical error, but I do not understand what "every research" even is. To take research at face value literally goes against what research is.

@@THE_BEAR_JEW we don't have a firearm issue in America, we have a mental health issue coupled with easy access to equalizing weapons. - Also, so many studies are confounded by adding in suicides as firearm violence. I call a firearm an "equalizing weapon" because [within reason] it doesn't matter your gender, age, mass, etc; most people can become proficient enough with a firearm with minimal work (and cost). But, I struggle to understand the mainstream argument surrounding the effect (firearm violence) and not the cause (mental health issues). - And even the root cause of mental health issues. Both sides just seem to want to argue to argue and not actually work on the actual causes.

Some people have both. I spent a decade homeless, but was trained as a philosopher. Wait.

bravo fella, agreed. One killer fact is this "All things written (codecs) are made up by arranging various types of vibrations (keys) into a recognised pattern (cipher) so as it is decoded and interpreted correctly. Therefore it is always open to interpretation , meaning anything ever written by someone is just an opinion, or the best model so far, theory , What is a Fact ? anything known as a fact which is based on scientific theory is actually a serious deception these placebos can cause serious mental issues and physical illnesses,

I love that, Mr Kent

@@DJ-Brownie-UK I mean… if the message is conveyed *effectively* then the meaning shouldn’t be contentious, as long as we’re talking about practical communication (e.g. poetry might be a diff story)

​@@straightupanarg6226 Diogenes?

YOU DESCRIBED ME!!!!!😭😭😭

Really, fuck Elon Musk - what a complete psychopath.

@@secretname4190 He isn't doing shit, he's just some rich guy taking the honour and money of other people's work and giving money to fascist coups in South America because he wants cheap minerals. People like him is degenerating our world towards a dystopian hellscape with his greedyness and psychopathy. Yes, he was a bit poggers on a potcast once, but please don't simp him just because your favourite marvel hero is inspired by him or because he has a really good marketing team who is really good at making happenings and promoting his name. With his Bolivia comments it's clear that he's ready to do ANYTHING for power and money.

@@secretname4190 Elon Musk would literally support Hitler if he thought it would make him a buck, how tf don't you see a problem with that?

@@secretname4190 he has stated that he would support a fascist coup just to get lithium - what is your response to that? Until then I thought that he was better than most bourgeois - I kinda liked what he did. Now it seems clear to me that he is just another psychopathic fat cat.

​@@secretname4190 Are you really sure? A normal and famous brand like the banana brand Chiquita is doing stuff like this through the collusion organiziation "the United Fruit Company", american firms has supported fascist coups in south america, africa and the middle east since forever; it really wouldn't suprise me if a firm like Tesla joined in on coups like this. Thereby I'm not able to just brush off Musks comment as "just a joke bro" easily. Furthermore it still stands that Musk, like any Bourgeois, exploits his workers and take the honour for what they have done. I want to be clear; when i said "I kinda liked what he did", i meant being entertaining while exploiting his workers, and these entertaining ideas are probably again other's hard work that he takes the honour for. My point is that any simping for Musk is and has always been cringe and should remain so coup or not.

There still a gem here and there IMO, they've always been hit or miss.

Yeah, they should be good but they’re crap

They’re just a toastmasters event on steroids...I hope the pseudo-storytelling trend along with the poor use of hand gesturing in presentation that TED Talks have turned into a template fizzles out soon. I also think people get the point by now that “doing what you love and what makes you happy” is the secret to the arbitrary definition of “happiness”. If not, don’t worry - they’ll have 3 new speakers next week ready to remind you.

Are AI TedTalks good or am I just blind?

Only good ones I remember or see nowadays are ones about physical inventions. Like when someone was demoing his app (for tablets) for kids to learn language by some abstract visuals plus pronunciations and such. I don't remember the details, and it might not have been too useful of a thing as is, but it's tangible and something you can actually test and refine. The rest needs a lot of effort to validate and the speakers usually don't provide that validation machinery in the talk itself, which makes it suspect _even_ when I find myself agreeing, shocked, or questioning at points.

I’d digress. Yes, more people than ever are going to school, but I don’t think school actually makes ppl any more intelligent.

Even in the past century many people weren't educated in things we consider basic. It's a marvel that most people in modern society can read, write, do some basic math, etc. It's disheartening to know, more than ever, the opportunity to be informed is wasted by a high number of us.

People are still expected to source their information to some degree, but the issue here is that information can be bought from “intellectual figures.” Sometimes this scientists w expertise (research, phd, etc) and sometimes nothing. For example, PragerU is one of the biggest sources ppl use, but all of their content uses evidence from thinktanks owned by corporations from major industries like fossil fuels or weapons. They also promote distrust to scientific research if its “paid for by the government” aka taxpayer funds which create taxpayer owned research. If no facts are trustworthy, why not turn to anyone at all with any opinion?

@@uchewb3 There's also people like Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson, Neil deGrasse Tyson. They will talk on matter such as religion, politics and social issue despite having no prior understand of field or even basic reading of history. And then is theres internet commentator. Who's completely talking out of their ass. I remember when a bunch of atheist channels was talking about social justice and it was clear had no idea what they were talking about.

@@5Chaor I too am an internet commenter with no idea what I'm talking about.

I agree, that's just being human I guess. Maybe if we were all smart human beings we would respectfully correct each other and not just get totally haywire over some things because we are emotionally invested

Pretty much.

Fax

100% agree high levels of expertise tends to be specific, not broad

Well Malcolm gladwell is famous for the 10,000 hours book but that idea's been proven wrong. The lady Helen opened with...her claim to fame was proven wrong as well. The problem is that some of these people are becoming known as public intellectuals because they are just illustrating common thought in an "intellectual" way and other people's claim to fame is legitimate but their reputation starts speaking for their work rather than their work speaking for itself.

This guy gets it

Exactly, she seems like the biggest pseudo-intellectual at wisecrack.

I like that idea, though I'd say that Wisecrack up to date has shown a surprising amount of academicship when using outside sources for their analysis, and in several of their analysis of popular culture I believe they acknowledge what they say as an interpretation rather than the ultimate point of view.

The whole premise of this video is self-contradicting, because a lot of stuff that she points out as "dumb" are actually points still in discussion (like everything in science, as an example). If you're calling diverging points of view on an undecided topic. Well... You ARE the pseudo-intellectual you're trying to debunk.

To be fair, a medium examining itself is a sign of growth towards maturity. It's surely a step in the right direction, ironic or not.

Invest in BAT now!

Pretty shocking seeing a a fan of Peter coffin here

@@youare5907 I mean, peter is right

@@youare5907 I know right? Wisecrack doesn’t even speak in overly complex academic jargon that is completely inscrutable to anyone lacking a PhD in social sciences. You know, like Coffin does.

Being smart or intelligent was never about how often you can be correct tho. Rather what you can produce when knowledge is acquired. Which I believe many pseudo intellects or just other people get too lost in trying to achieve the stature of ALWAYS being correct, Rather than making positive high magnitude outcomes for others to realize the magnitude of their intellect. Example) einstein's regarded as a high grade intellectual because his findings with the knowledge he had ... had a positive impact on the world as a whole. And he displayed that's how capable his intelligence was. If you have examples of "intellects" yet their ideas only lead to self improvement or inevitably have bad outcomes for groups or others avast. The intelligence decreases. Tho technically someone who does things that are supremely terrible can be percieved as intellectual based on its definition ... I often reserve the term for those worthy of reverence through positive outcomes. Not those willing to go about negative outcomes for self with consideration of knowledge in front of them (like the hitler types ... surely he was knowledgable of the impact of his actions but still chose to do something haneous. And surely he was knowledgable of circumstances and of systems in place to gain traction. But cuz of this I wouldnt call him an intellectual because if he was fully intelligent hed know not to do what he did.) Also ... when you reject the possibility of being wrong regarding ideas that's when you open the door for unrelenting stupidity which I personally believe plagues many people in some form or another (even myself at times but I try to catch it and grow from it). At least that's how I see it. It's great to know there is a lot of things they may not know to have an openness to understand outside perspective beyond your intuitive beliefs. Especially should those outside perspectives aid your principles or ideals. And even then to have a willingness to concede the flaws/cons in your own ideals and perceptions of life if reason presents itself

its only human to get things wrong

Yet the wisest are the only ones who acknowledge those mistakes and try to improve from them.

NO WAY

And The Doctor is the "when and where" person

Time Travelers are "when" people

Dictators are "whose" people. Businessmans are "how many" people. Boomers are "how old" people.

@@Feefa99 man of progress (people are a means)

Capitalist 🇺🇸 are “mine” people Communist 🇷🇺 are “ours” people

To be fair...

...You have to have a very high iq to understand...

Facts 👆

Cringe

How many reddit points do you need before you can truly get rich and morty

Fuck yeah man. More people need to watch Some News. I love that show. He is the reason I bought an AR-15, the boars are going to make their move any day now...

He lives in Arkansas - our mascot (his profile picture) is the Razorback. There are indeed rural places here that do have that problem

@@seangagnon8458 Here in Sweden the fuckers are doing their best to ruin the little fun there is in farming. My cousin recently had a large chunk of his rye field completely obliterated by hogs. I had to drive 1000 fucking miles with a high caliber hunting rifle in my trunk to help him out because 1. You never abandon a cousin in need 2. The hogs made it personal. So far I've killed 8 of them with my trusty bolt action. I've set up my office in his guest room so i'm staying here until every damn hog in the area has met an early death at my hands. All wild pigs and boars can go royally fuck themselves. P.S Good luck with the AR! There's an old saying among hunters where i live, a token of good luck if you will. Roughly translated it would go "By the powers of the Midnight Sun! May your shots end them swiftly!" If you don't want to sound like a Scandinavian He-Man you can always opt for a more American saying: fuck 'em up!

@@apotato6278 I like you.

Any liberal making jokes about feral hogs is proud of how superior they feel about how ignorant they are about the reality many rural Americans live in. You're seriously going to mock a guy who lives in an area with huge herds of extremely strong and aggressive animals... for asking how he will deal with those large aggressive animals being in his yard? Are you a fucking sociopath?

In other words, you don't just value and are satisfied with knowledge you get from what they say, you prefer also the suggestive tonal and facial expressions that guide you to thinking a particular way and drawing a provided conclusion. Wisdom (wise being the first word in wisecrack) would be to want your info given with as little suggestive remarks as possible so you can make your own conclusion.

@@devstuff2576 if this isn’t satire, you are an absolute fucking weirdo. Talking like an anime villain doesn’t make you sound smarter.

​@@devstuff2576 wisdom (wise being the first word in wisecrack) would be to refrain from posting your asinine comment. dude thinks the girl is cool so what. you're also here watching the eye-catching pop culture video essay entertainment channel bro. yes it has an ideological bias, everything does. so do you when you 'come up with your own conclusion'. you are a sheep who thinks themselves otherwise. idk if it's what you needed to hear today but you are just an annoying nerd. welcome to the herd

glad we have experiments in science, or the "consensus" would sayed that atoms didnt exist

@@FenixIzyuze Lol you've got me there

@@FenixIzyuze But, the scientists who conducted, verified, and replicated those experiments had to, gasp, have a dialogue and consensus about their results. Scientists are never, EVER immune to the flaws that impact all humans. That's how some of our absolute worst 'science' in history, that hurt people and robbed them of their dignity, were perpetuated. Example: Go look into IQ testing and its origins. It was SO biased around a white, middle class, American education context. So when applied to children from different backgrounds, with less educated parents, with less resources, going to schools with less funding, and on children with vastly different life experiences, they scored much lower on average. This then was extrapolated out to support racist views on "intelligence" between people of color and non-color, when in reality it was using a poor control protocol and not being aware of, or giving a shit about, the methodologies that biased the results by not considering factors in the formation of the measure. Or if you want an example of shit science in my field: Social psychology. Good read up on the Bystander Effect and the Kitty Genovese case. A misreported news article, an erroneous conclusion by a scientist, who then formed an entire theory based on this incorrect information, that later on was difficult to replicate outside of specific contexts, oh and that resulted in life long trauma and at least one suicide attempt of one of the so-called bystanders. Experiments CAN be valuable. They CAN be ethical. They CAN really attempt to grasp at the realities they are attempting to study. But we must always be vigilant against shitty science. "Consensus" absolutely should matter at times, especially with dialogue from *everyone* impacted by the study. This researcher could have just interviewed the people who were involved in this case instead of extrapolating an entire theory based on a false news story...

Can someone elaborate this quote ?

@@JustThatOneRandomGuy from what I gather, truth comes from a collaborative conversation that leads to a consensus rather than a conflict driven debate about who is right or wrong.

Thank you! Dear lord.

They are twisting themselves into knots trying to show how "BOTH SIDES" are equally bad. Notice how they mentioned a bunch of horrible things that thinktanks do, and every single one of the examples was conservative rightwing think tanks paid for by billionaires? But both sides are equally bad. SMMFH

Yeah that was pretty disappointing. Comparing a guy who cites, reads, links, and is very comprehensive about sources (and admitting he could be wrong) to a guy who will entertain the idea that climate change is real only as a hypothetical is... well, it's bad.

@@springss1861 that's not what either of those words mean

It's weird because when she cites a good case she only shows Contrapoints, which doesn't seem to follow the "both sides" thing. I mean, if she wanted to choose a more "controversial" youtuber from the "left tube" she could have chosen someone like Vaush (I don't have any particular feelings towards the guy, but I've read many more complaints about him than about hbomb).

Actually, geniuses are polymaths, like da Vinci, who had 220IQ, thus defeating your fallacious inbred garbage blabber by a factor of a trillion

I agree with you until your started criticizing Iq. Actual valid IQ tests actually overcome the problems you address. They aren't biased because they extract out and test the skill that is common across all areas of knowledge and what common trait takes to learn them all. That's IQ. Crappy quick iq test don't do this.

Yeah,it’s basically “We made this test with these certain questions and these certain topics,if you fail you have a low intelligence level,regardless of any other social or emotional knowledge you may have experienced and learned from”,which is basically the main reason i hate school so much,since it’s just such a primitive way to classify people for how well can they memorize a book or two to then spit it out on a paper on a limited amount of time,and even worse is that apparently your performance on said activities represents your worth,and future;again regardless of any other aspect that you may have skills on. Power is still on the wrong hands.

@@demonposessed7413 The highest recorded IQ was 184. There were no IQ tests when Da Vinci was drawing insane looking vaginas.

@Kaizoku Jimbei Yup. XO