This is my problem with a lot of things, but especially when talking about dog bite stats. That’s a huge one with all the pit talk the last few years. If you read the methodology on the main site everyone quotes, which is of course buried somewhere on their site, it’s not good data. It’s not reliable. It wasn’t gathered well. It’s not recorded well. It would never pass any sort of peer review. Yet you see it all over the place and it’s taken as fact. I also see it a lot with health related topics as reported by news agencies and diet/lifestyle influencers/content creators. People seem to only get as far as the headline and maybe the first graph. They’re not checking sample sizes or demographics or collection methods. And they’re sometimes making pretty big health decisions or claims based off that poor data that they might not even understand. We can’t draw any reliable conclusions from unreliable data.

Well said

All research articles should be published as brain rot videos as well, that's what we really need!

Neutral is a lot of things. Like, “I don’t care.” Or “I haven’t even thought of it.”

So you make a post about a video being misinformation and not citing sources, and then you don't cite the source of the video you are claiming is misinformation? Consider this an algorithm engagement post.

oh, thanks so much! that makes more sense now haha and yeah, it's SUPER common for data from studies to be misrepresented either in media, or just by people, which over time can actually turn into a game of a broken telephone, because people refer to someones interpretation as fact, and it gets altered more and more each time. it's SUPER common with scientific texts also, because the average person can't easily read/understand the source (or, hell, sometimes it's behind paywalls!) and this distorts information more and more over time... thanks for taking the time to respond! :)

It's called critical thinking. I took a critical thinking class in HIGH SCHOOL so it baffles me when no one uses it. I'm pretty sure it was an elective, though. It's so sad that half the idiots out there could be better people with one high school class.

We dont use compound questions in court for a reason.

Maybe you are autism spectrum? Cuz I find myself picking apart Media and sources and flawed logic... But All of the normalz just find it 'silly' that you'd spend any time parsing words to see if their meaning is sound. Good luck... I've subscribed

The site aims to be offensive in its presentation, but the stats seem sound. I find the biggest things that throw people about the percentages is how much of the US population is married, obese and not earning *that* much money. About 50% are married, about 40% are obese. And on the topic of income, the data doesn't factor in cost of living. Income is a lifestyle and that lifestyle doesn't cost as much in different parts of the country. So a lady on one of the coasts demanding a 6 figure income isn't really asking for much. Thats just a tiny bit above median income in California or New England. Down south or midwest though a man with "less income" can afford more than someone who technically has higher income in an expensive place. Its also not even bad for the % to be single digits or even less than 1%. Its not like dating is done by using a random number generator to pick a person. People now have more tools than ever to sift through for people they at least like on a surface level. If your "delusion" is down to less than 0.75% of US men, that is still over a million men.

The numbers are a little off, according to my research approximately 48% of men are single. But that is still fairly close for a website and we don't know the last time it was updated or where it pulls its data. Sure the stupid cat lady rating is wrong and ridiculous, it does what it claims, it gives you the statistics base don the population. Also statistically it does not matter what the women look like, the statistics don't change. I might have called it the reality check, rather than the delusion calculator, but I am a different generation.

100% of the disinformation came from unreliable mercenary academia wishing to show that cabbage cure cancer for the cabbage industry or that red meat cause cardiac disease...

Okay, so I've been digging deeper. And I've found nothing. Where can I get the real stats?

hey! so, your vid is great, very succinct and informative, and the misrepresentation of vague and unreliable sources and the weight of presented data in such cases. and, i know the quoted study wasn't the point of your video, BUT, it just piqued my curiosity, because, i gotta be honest, even after rewatching the video 3 times, i don't understand what the study was trying to show and how?? and, i guess, what the point of the study lol so i was thinking perhaps you have some more insight and could help me understand? cause i feel really dumb for this but i can't quite wrap my brain around what part of those three versions of "no" exact impacts... what? and also, how this is supposed to be quantified, if the people in question are aware of it, and also, wouldn't there be a regional/linguistic reason for word choice rather than psychological? but i might be misunderstanding all of it so, just enlighten me pls 😅🙏🖤

YES! And how you say the news can impact how the delivery is received! For example, just saying 1 in 5 people get cancer vs 20% of people get cancer. Vastly different ways to deliver information, right?

Well said

So this lady's whole argument is, "it's from 2022, not 2024 and they spoke of flips"! 🤦 She missed the point. Investment firms are only stepping up their purchases, so yeah, they are buying up a lot ... A LOT of single family homes. REGARDLESS IF THEY WERE FLIPPED OR NOT!!!

Medically speaking, a delusion is a firmly held belief that is not changed in spite of any and all evidence to the contrary.

Yeah it sounds like you're just referring to the title or the abstract. The title should be an extremely condensed version of the conclusion, the abstract should lay it out in more detail but still be very digestible

I can't understand what the guy at the beginning is saying at all. His voice is too quiet. Thanks

thats pretty much what the abstract and discussion sections are there for, and while I'm sure that many researchers don't properly write those sections, I also doubt that many people know what to look for in research papers, skip the abstract, and get overwhelmed/confused by the background and data sections.

Sure, but what are the real numbers? 30% would still be a massive problem

Amazing! Thank you for the informative and educational video 👏👏

Likely much worse in reality

You had me at Business Insider as a source. They're pure clickbait trash.

Please keep up the good work. recently in Australia we had a census, from the data produced journalists made the claim that there was 1 million unnocupied homes in australia on census night. which was probably true, but it was sensationalised into being a major factor for high rents and people took it to mean investors were deliberately leaving properties empty to force up rents. Not one sane journalist corrected the obvious misinterpretation of the facts (gotta sell the news). On census night you have to do the census from wherever you are. so if you are on holidays your home is listed as vacant that night. say you are in the process of making a sale then that property is vacant, perhaps its getting a major renovation - vacant. perhaps a bitter divorce - vacant, perhaps its an estate being settled, vacant. there are thousands of reasons why a house may be vacant on census night. However, when I raised all these reasons on social media, I don't ever recall getting a "oh you may be right" just a lot of ridicule.

I applaud your efforts in the fight against misinformation. With the lack of scrutiny we so often see nowadays we can certainly use people like you keeping our "journalists" careful and honest. Keep up the good work!

Seems to me then that journalists need to have laws imposed on them to stop any and all opinion pieces with the intention of misleading the reader into believing it's anything but an opinion and also to prevent any articles being written with misleading headlines or propaganda. It's not necessarily the readers fault, it's the journalists desperately seeking clicks to keep their jobs relevant. It needs to stop.

Go to an open house. 80% of the people that show up can't speak English

If society didn't teach people to believe things from birth, misinformation wouldn't be an issue.

Yes girl 47 years old

You look like Mary Elizabeth Winstead

Who cares what this woman is saying?

Huh!?

I would hope most people read these a general idea vs a hard answer

This is so important, I used these calculators to gain weight and never thought about this. Thanks for the video!

I also always ask who is paying for this study to be done.

If PhD is the bar, then what are medical professionals who work on research teams and call themselves researchers and research assistants eg, docs, nurses, folks with a masters in physiology, biology or chemistry? Aren’t they all scientists? Scientist should include the largest group of folks doing scientific work. Researcher/assistant, sure I get that should be distinguishable. But, phd isn’t the bar. 🤷‍♂️

Isn’t a researcher, in its simplest form, just someone who conducts research? Most people *could* do that, postgrad degree or not. There are probably more rigorous degree requirements for those who want to conduct research professionally though.

To pick at the specific phd argument. Most "research" type jobs at least in my field are Phd or MS with varying levels of experience. So is a brand new just defended barely published Phd more of a scientist than a 20 year experienced researcher who stopped after their masters? Then even publishing is a hard way to judge, what if you work in an area where publishing is less common (defense or heavily IP protective areas)? My take: If you're researching, formulating a hypothesis, and testing/attempting to validate that hypothesis, and documenting it somewhere, you're a scientist. I don't care if you're a plumber or a nuclear physicist.

I think the degree comes in handy if you want to get paid to do research for other people and/or businesses. But, it’s like professional vs proficient/expert. An expert isn’t necessarily a professional, yet ability to be paid also does not equate to expertise. I believe it’s a fine line. Knowledge is required either way. I respect the phd, and know that’s not the only thing that matters. “The world is full of educated derelicts. Unrewarded genius almost a proverb…persistence is omnipotent.”

My bio professor in college told us that taking the class made us officially scientists freshman year, because a scientist is just someone who studies science

Researchers *hate* the paywalls, too. If you find an article you want to read, it’s entirely possible one of the authors has posted it on their lab site hosted by their university. University has rights to do this because they were the ones who funded the research, not the journal. The journal is getting their content for free and getting *all* of the revenue! You can also *politely* and *respectfully* reach out to the primary researcher/author directly by email and ask for a copy of the article. Their contact info is publicly available in association with the article even if the text itself isn’t.

Its the neo liberal economy. Money above all.

They charge as much as they do because they can, not because of any expenses. Without the publications, it’s no career for you.

You can simply go to the university library and read the materials there.

If you find the system to be immoral (that the the publishers are scamming the researchers), you are morally justified in using other sources to gain access to published articles. Also, apart from the model being ridiculous for people needing to see published research, it is also very hard to publish. The option that this research was performed outside of any institutional affiliations literally does not exist. Sites like researchgate require academic email for signup. And many more.

I would be interested in knowing if the respondents were giving their personal income bracket or their household income bracket. Either case the 50k-75k bracket seems a little high given the current average income statistics for the U.S. Makes me think the survey was performed on house owners or some other reliably middle-class group.

I thought it was probably true until I saw that it was the headline. Then I thought, "oh so it's unlikely that any amount of this is true" lol

No headlines are fair.