IMO the Youtube title isn’t even accurate, it’s just clickbait. The HN title is a more accurate representation of the content. Also to back up my sibling commenter, Derek is known to trial several title and thumbnails within the first few hours/days after a video release.
Veritasium very often changes the title and thumbnail of their videos shortly after release. Whether it's to squeeze some more views out of a video or because of some metrics they take note of I don't know.
Simply put, voting itself creates a bias. Once you commit to a decision (e.g., vote) you are *less* likely to change your mind, change your perspective, etc. Yes, it can happen. But it's less likely.
If you drop the whole voting thing from your comment, the idea you're conveying becomes very self-evident, perhaps even amusingly so:
> Simply put, (...) Once you commit to a decision (...) you are less likely to change your mind, (...).
And so I'm not sure the video was about this specifically. To me, it was more about how narrative and tribalism easily overpower critical thinking in general. Being decided and then unwilling to change your mind is one thing, but as the video details, the issue discussed actually exhibits itself with open minded people more.
The interesting thing that is less obvious is that, if you are convinced you made a choice that you didn't (e.g. you see your votes but one is falsified), you will stick to it. So you hadn't gone through the commitment process but then you somehow you did retroactively.
His model of rhetoric suggests that the authority of a respected figure (eg. ethos) can override either pathos or logos (emotion and logic respectively), but not both at once. In political terms, this means that candidates have to prove their point emotionally and logically to have the best chance at changing your mind (or at least overriding ethos.)
It kinda sucks that we live in a hyper-emotional and hyper-informed election cycle, but this is the logical conclusion of two competitors dueling with rhetoric alone.
The act of committing to a candidate makes you at that point subjective. Ppl would rather stick with their (perhaps bad) decision then admit they got it wrong.
When so much emphasis is put on Federal elections, this bias contributes to the divisiveness.
I agree, and I think Aristotle would too. But inherently sticking with a bad or mis-guided belief is a human experience that has always existed, not a new political phenomenon.
The bias is just how people behave. There is a tried-and-true framework for undermining those biases and even dialectic processes by which one can be proven logically superior to the other. We watch debates, read op-eds and encourage discussions of policy so that these entrenched beliefs are challenged - a free country has no obligation to brainwash it's citizens, even for a good cause.
> Harris has detailed policy proposals for most topics
No she doesn't.
She has three topics on the issues section of her website. Abortion, safety and the economy. How is that most topics? What is her plan for foreign relations? Where is her plan for climate change? Where is her plan for any number of other issues?
Thanaks. I skimmed too fast. Regardless, they are not detailed as claimed.
With climate change, for example, it says "she will unite Americans to tackle the climate crisis as she builds on this historic work, advances environmental justice, protects public lands and public health, increases resilience to climate disasters, lowers household energy costs, creates millions of new jobs, and continues to hold polluters accountable to secure clean air and water for all."
But doesn't explain any of it. This is not detailed. Just listing things you want is not detailed.
If I was running for president and said I want nobody to die from cancer, I want everybody to get a quality education and want to stop the fentanyl crisis nobody would say that was descriptive. How am I going to do any of those?
Hiliarously, it is trying to use Harris' vote on the Inflation Reduction Act to show she will lower energy costs and yet mine are more expensive now.
> But doesn't explain any of it. This is not detailed. Just listing things you want is not detailed.
In a two-party race like this, I'd argue she kinda doesn't have to. People know Donald Trump as "the oil president", simply marketing yourself as the alternative is all she has to do when her opponent's reputation precedes himself.
Normally I'd agree, and overall I resent how American policy promotion on both sides of the aisle has turned into virtue signalling. This is a good example of taking advantage in an adversaries blind-spot though - climate change is a real concern, and certain candidates can't even acknowledge that with a straight face.
I would agree that she doesn't "have to" be detailed, but the person I was responding to claimed she had a "detailed policy proposals for most topics". She doesn't seem to have a detailed plan for anything let alone most topics.
Title is editorialized, the actual title of the video is "On These Questions, Smarter People Do Worse."
IMO the Youtube title isn’t even accurate, it’s just clickbait. The HN title is a more accurate representation of the content. Also to back up my sibling commenter, Derek is known to trial several title and thumbnails within the first few hours/days after a video release.
Whops, I forgot that I had dearrow enabled, a browser addon that changes titles thumbnails on yt to community based versions.
While this is true, the video title on YouTube can and likely will change.
Veritasium very often changes the title and thumbnail of their videos shortly after release. Whether it's to squeeze some more views out of a video or because of some metrics they take note of I don't know.
YouTube even provides a feature to automate A/B testing thumbnails now: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/13861714
s/Political b/B/
Isn't it kind of the definition of bias?
Proud to be the sanest person I know. What does that tell you?
Simply put, voting itself creates a bias. Once you commit to a decision (e.g., vote) you are *less* likely to change your mind, change your perspective, etc. Yes, it can happen. But it's less likely.
If you drop the whole voting thing from your comment, the idea you're conveying becomes very self-evident, perhaps even amusingly so:
> Simply put, (...) Once you commit to a decision (...) you are less likely to change your mind, (...).
And so I'm not sure the video was about this specifically. To me, it was more about how narrative and tribalism easily overpower critical thinking in general. Being decided and then unwilling to change your mind is one thing, but as the video details, the issue discussed actually exhibits itself with open minded people more.
The interesting thing that is less obvious is that, if you are convinced you made a choice that you didn't (e.g. you see your votes but one is falsified), you will stick to it. So you hadn't gone through the commitment process but then you somehow you did retroactively.
Aristotle had this one figured out a while ago, methinks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric_(Aristotle)
His model of rhetoric suggests that the authority of a respected figure (eg. ethos) can override either pathos or logos (emotion and logic respectively), but not both at once. In political terms, this means that candidates have to prove their point emotionally and logically to have the best chance at changing your mind (or at least overriding ethos.)
It kinda sucks that we live in a hyper-emotional and hyper-informed election cycle, but this is the logical conclusion of two competitors dueling with rhetoric alone.
The act of committing to a candidate makes you at that point subjective. Ppl would rather stick with their (perhaps bad) decision then admit they got it wrong.
When so much emphasis is put on Federal elections, this bias contributes to the divisiveness.
I agree, and I think Aristotle would too. But inherently sticking with a bad or mis-guided belief is a human experience that has always existed, not a new political phenomenon.
The bias is just how people behave. There is a tried-and-true framework for undermining those biases and even dialectic processes by which one can be proven logically superior to the other. We watch debates, read op-eds and encourage discussions of policy so that these entrenched beliefs are challenged - a free country has no obligation to brainwash it's citizens, even for a good cause.
[flagged]
> Harris has detailed policy proposals for most topics
No she doesn't.
She has three topics on the issues section of her website. Abortion, safety and the economy. How is that most topics? What is her plan for foreign relations? Where is her plan for climate change? Where is her plan for any number of other issues?
https://kamalaharris.com/issues/
Last section is about foreign relations.
First section has info on tackling the climate crisis.
Thanaks. I skimmed too fast. Regardless, they are not detailed as claimed.
With climate change, for example, it says "she will unite Americans to tackle the climate crisis as she builds on this historic work, advances environmental justice, protects public lands and public health, increases resilience to climate disasters, lowers household energy costs, creates millions of new jobs, and continues to hold polluters accountable to secure clean air and water for all."
But doesn't explain any of it. This is not detailed. Just listing things you want is not detailed.
If I was running for president and said I want nobody to die from cancer, I want everybody to get a quality education and want to stop the fentanyl crisis nobody would say that was descriptive. How am I going to do any of those?
Hiliarously, it is trying to use Harris' vote on the Inflation Reduction Act to show she will lower energy costs and yet mine are more expensive now.
> But doesn't explain any of it. This is not detailed. Just listing things you want is not detailed.
In a two-party race like this, I'd argue she kinda doesn't have to. People know Donald Trump as "the oil president", simply marketing yourself as the alternative is all she has to do when her opponent's reputation precedes himself.
Normally I'd agree, and overall I resent how American policy promotion on both sides of the aisle has turned into virtue signalling. This is a good example of taking advantage in an adversaries blind-spot though - climate change is a real concern, and certain candidates can't even acknowledge that with a straight face.
I would agree that she doesn't "have to" be detailed, but the person I was responding to claimed she had a "detailed policy proposals for most topics". She doesn't seem to have a detailed plan for anything let alone most topics.
[dead]