Ben Shapiro is Wrong | Facts DO Care About Your Feelings

[@PrettyTranslatorSarahMoon]

Cats don't care about your filmings.

[@bookbook9495]

Look at the lil kitties messing with the decor!

[@k3yr4r]

I died

[@ArdentLamentation]

Almost missed the cat sitting at the top of frame

[@4ngellvc874]

10/10 comment

[@spiderpickle3255]

@@ArdentLamentation how? thing made me anxious for most of the video

[@dzman5354]

"Numbers don't lie, but people use them to," my dad.

[@flux4359]

He's right though.

[@someundeadtalent2016]

This is one of the best quotes yet

[@Rebeldesemkausa]

What a smart guy

[@edwardcierniak7879]

Hes right.

[@viktorthevictor6240]

9+10= capitalism is the best! Checkmate liberals

[@BestBetterBestest]

This comment section is wild. There'll be a mathematics professor from Harvard talking about the subjectivity of objectivity itself and the philosophers trying to understand the meaning of lies themselves. Then like, right under them is "let's say, Hypothetically, Benjiman Sharpie is a 3 toed cake goblin."

[@MB-yk1qk]

"let's say, Hypothetically, Benjiman Sharpie is a 3 toed cake goblin." What do you mean "hypothecilay"? Isent that a fact????

[@luisapaza317]

@@MB-yk1qk facts 😎

[@MrDemonWorm]

@@MB-yk1qk Wait, so is he a 3-toed goblin who steals cake? Or a cake shaped like a 3-toed goblin?

[@MB-yk1qk]

@@MrDemonWorm No he is agobblin that can turn into a cake shaped like 3 toes!!!

[@kawaiikoffing]

Bro that's offensive to goblins he doesn't deserve to be called one of us

[@vulcanhumor]

I used to be one of those "facts and logic" people, but then I learned about Antonio Damasio and his patient "Elliot," who had suffered brain damage from a tumor. His intelligence and memory were unaffected, but he no longer felt any emotion. He reacted to both positive and negative emotional stimuli with total neutrality. One might think being unencumbered by emotion would mean "Elliot" would be an extremely rational and logical decision-maker. This was not so. After losing his ability to feel emotion, he became incapable of making sound decisions, if he made decisions at all. Even something as basic as deciding what to eat for lunch could take hours. He wasn't able to organize documents at his job because he just couldn't decide how best to do it. Without emotion, he wasn't able to place any value on particular scenarios or choices, and so ended up losing his job, destroying his marriage and generally ruining his life. The fact that didn't care about MY feelings was that *logic cannot function without emotion*. The two are not separate forms of information processing at war with each other, they work in tandem. If you ignore one, your entire system of reasoning suffers.

[@catchinzzs7022]

Same here.

[@klop4228]

I mean, all the discussions - racism, climate change, trans issues, etc. - are discussions _about_ feelings. The feelings of marginalised groups and those they interact with, or the feelings of fear at losing the planet. And, if the discussions are about feelings, then the feelings themselves become relevant facts. Which, uh, being feelings, trivially care about themselves.

[@Feathertail2205]

This is one of those stories that if you think about it, suggests that emotions were likely developed in us along with rational decision-making to help us respond to our environment more effectively than only relying on one mode. Sometimes when we are slow on the rational side, emotions are there to immediately alert us of something wrong that may be happening that we aren't logically recognizing. As a child, I was very emotional. A lot of things would easily make me feel uncomfortable and seeing that people around me don't show that they respond the same way or that it is easy for them to swallow their feelings, it made me despise my own emotional responses and therefore who I was as a human. I tried to completely shut down all of my emotions as a teenager and it made me lifeless, depressed, and miserable (locking up emotions is not fun when they constantly want to speak to you in the back of your mind) to the point that I would sometimes have death wishes. I was basically a stoic and rational person on the surface with turbulent emotions swirling and torturing me inside. I largely tried to suppress my external emotional responses but still wanted to listen to the bodily instincts that my emotions were trying to inform me of because a small part of me knew I could and should always trust my instincts. What this eventually resulted in was a very slow processing of my emotions. Whenever I felt something, I didn't allow the emotion to make any decisions at first, instead I would spend time alone putting it under an analytical microscope and trying to logically figure out why a situation made me feel a certain way and how past circumstances shaped my present reactions. Once I figured it out through this analytical method, I would then allow myself to move on and process what I should then do about it. Sounds exhausting? Yeah, it was, for years. It was far from efficient, but it was my coping mechanism from feeling different from everyone else, lest I show my vulnerabilities in front of people that admired the other parts of me and let down all who put their great expectations on me. After I met my current bf, who is much more emotionally expressive than me but a very kind human being who could make anyone comfortable in his presence, I finally felt like I was allowed to be myself again, the self that was actually happier being driven by emotional values than pure logic. I never took myself to a therapist due to vulnerability issues, but I am much happier now than ever being able to let my guard down around someone who can accept everything that I am and it didn't matter whether I'd be in my analytical mode or having intense emotional moments where I needed a safe space to unpack and resolve past traumas to myself. There is value to trusting your emotions, even if they're not always right (they're there mainly to protect you without you even knowing it, like an invisible guardian angel), just as there is value to trusting your rationality as well, even when you don't always have all of the facts. Emotions and rationality is like a swinging pendulum in all of us, in which we all need to find that balance that is right for each of us to accurately perceive what is true. So please, to anyone who read this until the end, don't do what I did and shut your emotions away from yourself or dismiss them without a second thought, because you ultimately lose an inherent part of yourself that just wanted to increase your awareness of the things happening around you to warn you of something. (Think about how we all started out as babies that used emotions to signal our needs to our parents.) It's still up to you to interpret the messages coming from your emotions in a meaningful way that can do you more good than harm.

[@jonathannash8471]

If you have traumatic brain damage, more than one system is affected.

[@corneliahanimann2173]

I say the same thing since years, but this story is really great and also put into words better than I could. I meet a lot of people that describe me as logical or rational, usually to point out that I work in a technical field, and am therefore not an emotional woman. I'm all, but logical when it comes to decisionmaking. I don't understand why we as a society decided logic is superior to emotion. I like to describe it as two things that are not on opposing ends, but in compromise and collaboration. Logic is a tool like a screwdriver, while emotion is the thing that gives your tool a task. If there is no goal, there is no point in using your tool, and to deny you even have a goal, is essentially choosing to let your logic run without understanding what it's building towards. This is what Ben Shapiro really represents to me, a person that is so far removed from understanding themselves, that they don't understand that the reason he prioritises things the way he does, IS based in emotion.

[@WilliametcCook]

"Those who boast about being 'brutally honest' are usually more brutal than honest"

[@marcomartins3563]

Based

[@elodin857]

but also brutaly honest, there are a bunchs of truths people are afraid of

[@99juj]

@@elodin857 Dang, you're all up in these comments defending your lord and savior Ben Christ Shapiro 😂😂

[@elodin857]

@@99juj 😂😂

[@GuimoTheGizo]

Counterpoint: You can brutally honest about _some_ things, particularly your feelings. Imagine you're having a good time with friends, then someone (let's call him Bob) bursts into the room and kills the vibe -- fill that in with whatever controversial subject you want and pretend he just mentioned it. Maybe none of your friends want to tell Bob he's killing the mood because they don't wanna be rude or start an argument or anything. You could then be the one to break it to Bob that he killed the mood and that you would rather not talk about it. I would say this is an example of being honest to Bob about how you feel. Depending on how you put it (anywhere from very polite to "stfu before you get decked") you might say you were more or less _brutally_ honest. Depends if your approach is susceptible to create friction between you and Bob, or would somehow else cause some shock value. How brutal your take is depends on anyone's feelings of course. And of course, this whole "counterpoint" is basically how I feel more than sourced in any research I could've read. :)

[@jonguliker5356]

"Obsession with objectivity, reverence for rationality, fixation on facts." I appreciate your alliteration.

[@waytoobiased]

I concur, well, completely.

[@philipschloesser]

I agree absolutely

[@Shamazya]

I appreciate the application of alliteration

[@Ssure2]

Appreciated it as well. Really showed in such a small way how she loves language by phrasing it like that

[@satoshinakamoto7253]

she's speaking from a female perspective of instinct, emotion, then reason. ffs

[@benjulesrun9057]

when you said "numbers cannot lie... or can they?" my brain just filled in the vsauce music

[@Phil9874]

Hi Vsauce Micheal here and what does it mean when numbers lie.

[@impwolf]

this is exactly what i just came into the comments to say, thank you

[@meferswift]

Number don't lie. Either they false or the reading is the lie.

[@miguelheat]

😂😂 same.

[@erutherford]

Numbers don't like -- but people can make them say almost anything they want within a limited [biased?] framework. I learned all about that in "Statistics".

[@dcorgard]

Being a scientist myself, I'd like to say it's dangerous that people 'trust' in science. Science is not supposed to be 'believed' in and one shouldn't have 'faith' in it. This is a mistake we keep making over and over again throughout the ages.. Becoming scientifically dogmatic is what's happened more and more during our era since the early 1900's and is ongoing to the present. My point here is this: Science is to be understood. One must have an understanding of science. One must always question the base assumptions. [This may very well be the most important aspect of science which tends to be overlooked] And for specifics of data & computer programs, the foundational rule is: "Garbage in = Garbage out"

[@lucyferos205]

And falsification is the backbone of the scientific method, not verification

[@dcorgard]

@@lucyferos205 I was going to use that proper phase but figured a lot of people would have misinterpreted it. Falsification is exactly the word I want to use, but I have gotten sick of explaining to people what it actually means. Glad you're in the know 🙂

[@theboombody]

Very difficult for the common man to understand advanced science though. There's just too darn much content and man it goes deep. Even scientists only really deeply understand a very specific area of expertise.

[@MuljoStpho]

@@theboombody For this part from David's post: "Science is not supposed to be 'believed' in and one shouldn't have 'faith' in it." I'd follow that up by asserting that what should be important is trust, not faith. As you said, there's too much out there for any one person to study it all, too much for any one person to perform their own experiments to test it all for themselves. So at some point or another you have to take someone else's word for it on certain things. The mistake is when blind faith is taken in someone's words just because they appear to be an authority on the matter (and never questioning the credibility of anything we hear from an accepted authority), when what should really be happening in a more ideal world is that any alleged expert must earn our trust and then work hard every day to keep that trust alive. When a scientist sells out to some politician or to some corporate entity and reports skewed findings to support an agenda, that's a betrayal of trust and ought to ruin that person's credibility. But it seems to be difficult for most people to even know how to judge whether or not someone deserves their trust, which means that "science" is often treated with a religious fervor instead. It gets politicized and weaponized for the masses that will just blindly accept what someone in a position of authority dictates to be true. And actually... Unfortunately, they've even poisoned the word "trust" now and maybe that wasn't even the best word bring up. "Trust the science." has in the last few years been given out as a mandate telling people to stop questioning things, to just shut up and accept what they've been told. People using the word trust in that way are demanding your trust instead of trying to earn your trust. And a lot of people seem to fail to see through it. They fail to consider that someone who demands their trust hasn't earned it and most likely doesn't deserve it.

[@theboombody]

@@MuljoStpho Well said. My undergrad was in math, but I still questioned special relativity A LOT when I was first exposed to it. I eventually grew to accepting it with no further questions, but I'm glad I questioned it at the beginning instead of taking it on blind faith. I think I learned a lot more about it that way.

[@gingganggoolie]

Frontal lobes: hmm yes, good points about constructed reality Hind brain: GIANT CAT

[@augustaseptemberova5664]

Ah yes, disclaimer you say .. KITTIE! Get that bonsai! .. erm where were we? x)

[@ImperiumofRat]

Lizard brain: reject thought return to monke

[@Densoro]

I read this as Hindi brain and took it at face value because idk anything about that xD

[@ConvincingPeople]

BIG KITTY. .w.

[@RedLion_52]

Big chungus :3

[@aeronshade]

The very first thing I was taught in my statistics class is that, while numbers can not lie it is very easy to lie with numbers

[@grantbaugh2773]

Nothing made me more skeptical about numbers than my stats class. Now I find myself wondering (rightfully so) about whether sample sizes were big enough, whether the same was representative, or even what the scale on the chart is.

[@leilanidru7506]

@Grant Baugh don’t forget lurking and confounding variables as well. Or not having a Control group/reliable baseline. or not making sample selection randomized as appropriate. Or the classic CoRreLaTiOn DoEsNT EqUaL y’all know the rest🤓

[@chadgugu6535]

No shit

[@markdouglas1601]

@@leilanidru7506 agreed. Ppl need to understand how research works. There are always some confounds, that's why you need replicability to make try to reduce the odds of bias/confounds but even then it's not perfect

[@MikeSW]

Could have learned that from nutritional science journals

[@DAndyLord]

Even if there was a difference in average intelligence between identifiable groups doesn't justify racism. Intelligence is not a synonym for human worth.

[@cedartheyeah.justyeah.3967]

Well said

[@marcus3d]

So, given the fact that there is a difference in IQ (the teacher lady is just straight up lying about that), would you call it racism to simply acknowledge it? Or what would one have to do to constitute racism?

[@revimfadli4666]

Seeing other people as inferior in certain aspects doesn't necessarily come with contempt or pride either. It could be paired with compassion instead Intelligence with bad attitude/mentality seems like a waste

[@Rheologist]

Have you heard anyone suggest otherwise?

[@ononono7016]

@@marcus3d similar to crime statistics, there are many non-race reasons why marginalised people score worse. Provided education, social expectations, stress in life due to poverty and other reasons, the test not being only about reasoning skills, the test not measuring intelligence, taking the test for the first time, etc. Biological women tend to be able to see more gradients of colour than man. That's okay. Creating a flawed test and calling it an intelligence test is just inviting discrimination since "stupid" is an insult

[@plaguekidd6902]

Facts do care about my feelings. We met up yesterday, grabbed a drink, talked about career goals. It was nice. Facts is one of the real ones.

[@FlyForAWhiteTy]

“I’m an English teacher” “I don’t know any cool kids lol” Damn, way to roast the whole class

[@andrewcheng2852]

Who listens to Ben Shapiro

[@neilsiebenthal9254]

@@andrewcheng2852 a lot of people do...

[@andrewcheng2852]

@@neilsiebenthal9254 The quote was:" I don't know any cool kids who listens to Ben Shapiro."

[@TheHotHelios]

She said she deosnt know any "cool" kids that listens to Ben Shapiro; not that she doesn't know any "cool" kids.

[@TheElino]

@WACKY Uh...yes? I mean just because someone is retarded doesn't mean they're no longer human I mean yeah they're dumb but they're still a member of the human race if u like it or not

[@mikeyahl7363]

*Ben:* "The facts don't care about your feelings." *Therapist:* "But *we* care about *yours,* Ben." *Ben:* "... **Sniff** Finally..."

[@johnsecheverell7824]

This was beautiful.

[@juliantreidiii]

LOL

[@alex.g7317]

ARC

[@gael-talk1263]

Oh ... "facts"! I thought she was saying "The cats don't care about your feelings."

[@jesuschristoph6567]

Gold comment xD

[@helloworld7515]

How ironic is it that Ben says “facts don’t care about your feelings” while he himself has displayed that he’s vulnerable to conformation bias which is based on one’s personal values

[@Fuzzyfezz]

I mean, we all are, right? Essentially you can argue, like the creator does that all our 'facts' are influenced by feelings. Bc we're humans. We interact with reality based on our subjective senses and fallible minds. The irony definitely just comes from Ben thinking he's above all that.

[@helloworld7515]

@@Fuzzyfezz yeah, none of us are safe from it

[@dutchray8880]

Shapiro isn't all that rational.

[@helloworld7515]

@@dutchray8880 I agree. I’m not surprised if the reason he started this “purge the feelings” campaign is so that he could justify his ideologies and shut down anyone that disagrees with him with the: thats-just- -feelings card and make his idea seem more reasonable than anything else. Aka, he just wanted to have an excuse to make this beliefs always seem correct than the contrary. I’m also not surprised if the only people following him are the people that wants to seem smarter than they actually are or someone they shares his beliefs and also want an impenetrable, seemingly-rational excuse to back their beliefs

[@dutchray8880]

@@helloworld7515 The last Shapiro video I saw was the one in which he ranked the presidents. There was nothing empirical about it. The rankings were completely based on his subjective feelings, to the point of absurdity...of course that's just my opinion.

[@darkartsdabbler2407]

I'll never understand how these people can say something like "facts don't care about your feelings" and then immediately take the anti-intellectualism approach of "asking questions is bad, questioning data is dishonest, new information bad"

[@shmayapeskin9083]

When did this happen?

[@AlteredProf]

The foundation of science is to ask sensible questions/relevant questions/questions that makes sense not the latter. Plus not questioning data is absurd considering it can be forged

[@bgorg1]

Objective facts are supposed to exist outside of subjective feelings. The concept is not that feeling or biases are wrong, it’s that the facts exist outside of that. This is a restatement of Patrick Moynihan’s wisdom on bringing your own opinion to an argument, but not your own facts.

[@reichen609]

@darkartsdabbler - it's religion. It's one of the main 'secret' tenets of ALL RELIGIONS utilized by their despotic male leaders to perpetuate ignorance and keep their brainwashed victims in check. *Infantilization* _keeping them innocent & dependent_ kzbin.info/www/bejne/mWScd2NqntN_gJIsi=QvFxBsHR-krgbFzy

[@caydenblue]

@@shmayapeskin9083That’s the whole point of being conservative, it’s literally in the name, to conserve the standard ways of thinking and not progress to new ideas

[@tillatidtryte]

When I was a child, we had "How to lie with statistics' by Darell Huff in our bookshelf. I never actually read the book, but the title stuck with me, and later I studied mathematis and physics, and I started to understand how biased we are. I don't think 'the truth is 'relative', but it is very easy to back up your illogical beliefs with numbers and 'facts'. A man can believe that he must buy a new car for 'logical' reasons, even if his old car works perfectly well, and he lists up all the 'facts' that supports that this is the best thing to do, when actually it's just his feelings screaming: 'What a nice car, I really want it so bad!'

[@anaionescu8913]

And also, just presenting numbers for the sake of presenting numbers, without actually granting them the context they need to relay relevant information is just an undercover method of lying. I can say that 3 is the greatest number there is, the highest value in the world, and that may be true if 3 is the single number I'm willing to present

[@princessadrigirl6774]

Perfect example of a situation where this can easily happen! It’s so common, everyone does it all the time, wether they realize it or not

[@OWnIshiiTrolling]

@@anaionescu8913 That is why scientific publications devote a section to data and methods, and why the results are discussed instead of just shitposting some conclusion right after the abstract and being done with it. Reading a headline isn't a substitute for critical reading, no matter how many people act like it is.

[@lucasng4712]

Darell Huff later become the tobacco industry's biggest science shill

[@darkstarr984]

@@OWnIshiiTrolling Yup. The goal of a headline or title is ideally to give enough information for someone to tell if they could find something valuable or interesting to them in it, but really is to attempt to get them to read it. Clickbait titles make everything harder for everyone even though sometimes they’re still made in good faith, mostly, I find, by scholars who get to actually make their own titles, which is unusual.

[@paint4pain]

As a statistician I can make the numbers say whatever I want. I can say that a 0.001% to 0.01% increase is insignificant or that it is a tenfold increase or even a 1 000% increase. It's all the same but I can bias the way I frame the numbers so that they reinforce my opinion. It's bad practice but I see a ton of studies that do exactly this, most of the time it's to get funding for another study. Scientists and journalists are humans, even the best randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study can be perverted for money, fame or ideology.

[@TheYoshieman]

But no matter which way you frame it, (the type of spin you put on the number, the bias you have or the person you are convincing has etc), the FACT is that 0.01 is larger than 0.001. Your feelings about that and everything listed above are your feelings/the way you feel about it - and it has no effect on the size difference of the number - the fact. In other words, something is either objectively true, or not. For example 0.01 is greater then 0.001. Your examples of comparing the numbers as either "insignificant" or "a tenfold increase", although altering the way that is perceived, do not alter the objective fact of the numbers. Facts don't care about your feelings.

[@ChespinCraft]

@@TheYoshieman Except we don't live in a vacuum, and the data is being presented in some way.

[@henriquepacheco7473]

@@TheYoshieman But your dry facts don't matter; their presentation and the spin put on them inevitably have a significant effect on people's perception of them. Nobody cites statistics without having an intent in their presentation of those.

[@piotrtoborek2442]

@@TheYoshieman You are right about that and I agree as math teacher and as reasonable person. You and me would understand it as objective fact but someone can think that 1000% growth is astonishing without even thinking about the causes or absolute values (different Covid statistics are first to come to my mind). Others will ignore the fact that 0.09 incrase may be tenfold growth and would be extremely significant in some cases (like doing blood tests for example). The problem is most people do not understand math and aren't reasonable. When people are too dumb or too lazy to understand numbers they will buy some bullshit spun by trash media - see also "flat-earth" "russian-collusion" "anti-vaxxers" etc.

[@WhateverEveryoneSay]

@@TheYoshieman There is a whole field in Statistics called "Bias" which is about how statistical numbers obtained are not always correct since people do tend to create situations in which their hipothesis will be proven true. That means that a number increase might not even exist, or be an increase given by a different situation not correlated to your study, one which you did not analize but it would require to contextualize what truly happened with the numbers. And that is not only about mathematics, one of the reasons we do peer review on scientific papers is to prevent the paper from being contextualized by the person that wrote it as correct as a proof of their ideas, after all the person might have ignored or not noticed things that would derail their hipothesis. In short, facts are only capable of being true or not and they do not care about our feelings BUT we can create false facts that sprung from our feelings, views, ideas and other contexts. We can spin the numbers to represent what we want to believe and not what they truly are, and there is a field in science dedicated to talk about that.

[@edim108]

So basically Facts don't care about feelings, but people collecting the facts do.

[@Felixr2]

Facts don't care about feelings, scientific facts do

[@thebloocat]

@@Felixr2 ?

[@justinchetelat9962]

You just said that facts don't care about feelings.

[@aviendha1154]

No..... you missed the whole point. . . Literally facts can't exist without the feelings that both made and surround them. Everyone's facts are sleeping with feelings. I petition we should rename facts as feelywheelyfactywhackty wibbywobblydatacollection-abobs. And I feel very strongly that everytime someone says fact they mean to say feelywheelyfactywhackty wibbywobblydatacollection-abobs but their auto correct ruined it and so they gave up and used fact as a convient short hand. (Mic drop) **🚶‍♂️

[@justinchetelat9962]

@@aviendha1154 so, is that true regardless of whether someone agrees or not; regardless of how I feel about it?

[@norran42]

As a mathematician, I'm always glad to hear people talk about the problems with Predpol. It's a terrible model that is guaranteed to create feedback loops even in the best of cases. In most cases, those loops also target minority communities, which makes everything worse

[@GretgorPooper]

Wouldn't it be correct to say, though, that it's not the model causing the feedback loop, but the decisions made given the output of the model? Like, if instead of just throwing more cops into the problem, which is what police departments use the model for, they started working on educational programs, poverty reduction institutions, etc, the feedback loop would eventually shatter.

[@itoastpotatoes399]

I can't believe that nobody in the police force noticed that the place you put the most police in is the place where you catch the most crimes. It's literally the first thing that I thought of when I heard the description of the system. Not a single person. One single person.

[@GalladeTheWarrior]

​@@itoastpotatoes399I think they did notice and realized they could get away with targeting minority communities

[@nuqwestr]

many terrible models out there not fit for purpose, like some climate change models which have error rates 100 years too high, making them useless for policy decisions, very bad.

[@teiull9388]

@@GretgorPooper its still not trully objective data on crime, the only crimes reported are those found by police or reported by others, who knows how many or how little crimes are commited in other areas? you can't know because no police officers are there and crimes can be commited in broad daylight without anyone noticing, especially on busy streets with lots of people or noise.

[@kaseywahl]

The first time I encountered Shapiro's "Facts don't care about your feelings" slogan, I almost laughed at the irony, given it's a slogan purposed to emotionally galvanize his base.

[@ArthurRex131]

And you know that...how?

[@muhdancent4362]

@@ArthurRex131 because no one says "Facts don't care about your feelings" more than emotional 13 year olds who think they've outsmarted all of sociology and criminology by citing out of context data pieces spewed by Ben and his millionaire benefactors.

[@kaseywahl]

@@ArthurRex131 "Okay Google: define slogan."

[@amtlpaul]

@@ArthurRex131 Because people feel better about themselves when they feel that they are more rational than other people, especially if that seems to reinforce the belief system that is central to their personal identity. Just because a person says that facts don't care about feelings, that certainly doesn't mean that that person doesn't care about their own feelings.

[@gonnacry442]

@@muhdancent4362 AYEE YOOO THAT'S A SICK BURN LOL

[@crungus__]

It’s hilarious to me that Benny Pepino would spout “facts don’t care about your feelings”, and then proceed to make arguments composed almost entirely of feelings.

[@elizabethhicks4181]

Yeah, because the whole point of the line isn’t even to really care about the facts. The point of the line is for him to basically say “I’m arguing with” (his opinion) “sound logic, everyone who disagrees with me is operating entirely on feelings, and my way of doing things is good and theirs is bad!” Looking about an example for how he uses this to make his opinions look like facts…Taking trans people as the example, the implication is that “X person was born and raised in a culturally masculine position because of what they’ve got in their pants, therefore anything they say about themselves to the contrary is morally awful and reprehensible and worthy of contempt because they’re lying and misrepresenting themselves.” (That last bit about lying was actually his position the last I knew it.)The first part is a fact, but the second part is the opinion, and the “facts don’t care about your feelings” bit is there to try and push the opinion section as part of the fact section.

[@vibaj16]

Benny pepino

[@xquisid]

Ben Sharpie

[@abeplus7352]

Ben shabibo

[@abeplus7352]

Ben sha3bi (for the Arabs out there)

[@scorpioigor]

People who try to shame other people's feelings in order to try to assert a supposed rational superiority are, in fact, the most emotional people I know. Anger, disdain, disgust, and hate are also feelings. Most of them argue based on their own confirmation bias based on their hate towards certain subjects.

[@natalienatz1903]

TL;DR If someone says "Facts don't care about your feelings" they are just some insecure wee wee little fucks who have fragile fees fees, outsmart them to assert utter dominance and end their will to live

[@shutdownexecute3936]

I don’t really agree with this. I always approach things in a very level-headed, logical way, it’s just my personality, and when the feelings of people that I care about stop them from acknowledging the truth, I don’t respect those feelings, because reality will not wait for you to catch up with it. Reality keeps going whether you’re paying attention or not. This isn’t out of anger, or hate, or disgust, just logic. Emotional people tend to rationalize the actions of everyone around them in a way that paints everyone else around them as just as emotional as themselves, even when that isn’t the case. Some people are just level-headed like that. Not everything has to come from emotion

[@Red_Bastion]

@@shutdownexecute3936 The problem is everything *does* come from emotion. Your personality is such as well. I once thought I was logical, but in reality my emotions were just opposite or different to those I was comparing myself to. But I'm not super versed to talk about that, what I want to say as well is that you'll never convince someone of something they don't feel, or have them respect your opinions, if you do not respect theirs. "Emotional people" are not a detrement, as their emotion serves as a balance against cold logic that can take things too far. Respect feelings, whether you agree with them or not, and start your basis for convincing others, with the offering that you could be convinced yourself. No one listens if they don't feel listened to. Sorry if that went a bit long, I hope it wasn't too pretentious, have a nice day.

[@RanEncounter]

@@Red_Bastion You misunderstood what emotional people mean. Sure there is always some emotion involved. The fact is that when you are in a hyper emotional state your judgement is heavily impaired. You can learn to calm down and think more rationally. This is a skill that can be practiced. You can also feed into your emotions so that you will not learn to think more rationally. This will lead to many misunderstandings of people and the world around us.

[@alansmithee419]

@@shutdownexecute3936 Emotions are the only reason anyone does anything. You argue against these delusions for two reasons: one, because you think they are delusions in the first place (you could be wrong), and two, you think harm can come from them in some form. The only reason you care about that harm is because you have emotions. It is not "just logic." If no harm can come from something, or you don't care about the harm, the logical thing to do is nothing. To not act. Don't waste energy on something you don't care about. This is just logic. You also can't assume yourself to be infallible just because you believe yourself to be using "just logic." You may be missing information, you may have interpreted what you know incorrectly etc. 'Logic' can be used to justify almost anything based on individual personal biases - which are in turn based on emotion.

[@skkat7336]

Calling ben shapiro a philosopher is very generous

[@terrabite87]

I'd go so far as to say it's just an outright lie

[@justin2308]

@@terrabite87 I guess it would depend on how you define a true philosopher.

[@nuqwestr]

Academic Institutions where he earned a number of degrees were not generous, he earned them, fact. And you?

[@yohualihigaredarayas4035]

​@@nuqwestrYou can earn what ever titles you want with a bunch of money and time and influence, but if you can't write a decent book that actually brings something new or important to philosophy, or can't even make a correct analisis of other's work, no, you are not a philosopher

[@ethanstyant9704]

He's a failed screenwriter

[@bearofthunder]

"Facts don't care about your feelings"... he says YOUR feelings...not his own. He has proven time and time again to be a very emotional kid, like other rich people who cry on TV because other people care about each other.

[@jnagarya519]

People caring about each other is "Marxism"; to affirm that we individuals live in a "society" is "socialism". Ben is fundamentally dumb. It's a genetic defect: when the "I" is recessive, the "Q" is dominant.

[@mjt1517]

@@jnagarya519 that’s not what socialism is.

[@olivermorin3303]

@@mjt1517 Hence the quotation marks, which distinguish between denotation and connotation. Socialism is distinct from "Socialism" in the same way a tobacco pipe is distinct from Magritte's *The Treachery of Images.*

[@ABurntMuffin]

itt: a bunch of people having the facts of the matter skewed by their feefees.

[@ArthurRex131]

@@jnagarya519 Shapiro has literally never said anything like this.

[@cruelabduhl]

A great analogy for drawing the wrong conclusions from a good data set is one where in WW2 they studied the bombers that came back from bombing raids to see where they had been damaged by enemy defenders and the intention was that the most commonly damaged areas they would beef up with armor to protect the crew and plane. It wasn't until someone pointed out that they need to do the opposite, that the areas where planes that came back weren't damaged was where they needed to add armor because obviously the planes could survive damage to the other areas and the planes that WERE hit in the areas that didn't show up commonly did not make it back. Facts matter, even more important is how we interpret them.

[@LordRavensong]

Okay, I'm a cartographer, and when you brought up maps and photographs I got so excited. Royal cartographers used to draw their countries as large as they could, or including lands they claimed were theirs. Even today, making a map of the countries of the world determines where that map can be sold. A map showing Nagorno Karabak as being part of Armenia could not be sold in Azerbaijan, for example.

[@yolosnuff1476]

A modern example would be Ukraine or Taiwan and how Russia and China respectfully, want their borders drawn

[@Zeunknown1234]

@@yolosnuff1476 this comment is eerily accurate to 2022 A.D

[@emmakane6848]

@Curiouser and Curiouser My mom always complains about how they blow up maps of Israel when it’s shown on the news. (For reference: it’s about the size of New Jersey, and is an eight hour drive if you could theoretically use the longest straight line possible running through it as your route.) This is a disappointingly common tactic for people trying to hawk political agendas. I think there was an example about the U.S. budget in a comment on here. Something about how politicians may choose to use low percentages if they want more funding for a program, while using large numbers if they want it cut.

[@vancouverguy2533]

Or people in parts of Georgia, who think they are in Armenia. Consider themselves Armenian. This is one of the problems with post-soviet secessionist conflicts and zones. Particularly in the caucus region.

[@luckyblockyoshi]

@@Zeunknown1234 you do know that Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014, right… that reply is referring to Crimea

[@csweezey18]

Ben Shapiro: Facts don't care about your feelings. Also Ben Shapiro: **ignores, misconstrues and denies facts whenever it suits him, makes shit up, only cares how things make him feel**

[@csweezey18]

@Iron Reagan ok

[@shloprop4751]

@@ironreagan6633 Lets see. Gender and sex are defined as different things, those are fact. Climate change has been proven by scientists yet he denies it, that's a fact. There aren't even 2 biological sexes unless we're talking in 5th grade science class. He never states a fact ever, and yet you suck his dick constantly.

[@shloprop4751]

@@ironreagan6633 I have read many, and also they aren't up to debate, most of those are dictionary defined and proven by scientist. Before you make an accusation, find evidence. They taught you that in middle school. Or did you not go to middle school?

[@DG-iw3yw]

@shloprop4751 not everyone went to middleschool captain america

[@-GordonFreeman]

​@@DG-iw3yw That's sad

[@coyotetrickster5758]

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." Mark Twain

[@drewharrison6433]

Actually he claimed that Benjamin Disraeli said that. For someone who is so often misquoted it is ironic that in this instance even he was wrong and the phrase is not found in Disreali's writings. This whole episode made me think of the story of ww2 bombers. The airplanes were coming back with very specific patterns of damage. The engineers thought that they should put more armor in those places but someone spoke up and said "No. We should armor the places we don't see damage. We are only seeing the survivors." (or so I imagine). That is what they did though and it worked. The places they saw damage, were the places a plane could take damage and still fly. Even good data needs proper interpretation.

[@philb4462]

There are three types of people in this world: Those who can count and those who can't.

[@zeromailss]

"There are four kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, statistics, and quotes." - Tsun Zoo

[@sienathewayfarer]

Statisticians are some of the most honest people i know... They try to admit limitations, discuss their biases, etc. Good statisticians know pure objectivity isn't possible. But, it's people who have an agenda (like making money prioritized over trying to find or report helpful information) who warp the interpretations of the numbers.

[@hippo-cryp342]

i still dont know who mark twain is but everybody is quoting him

[@cervicalvertebrea]

As a mathematician, I am very fond of the fact that it's been logically proven that you cannot logically prove that logic works (Godel's incompleteness theorem) In clearer language, it means that logic is unable to prove itself. From this, the natural conclusion is that we have to take some things as a given. It is impossible to prove everything.

[@LEON-Cyborg]

From what I understand, logic is unable to speak for itself. We the people must.

[@GeorgWilde]

Maybe it is the arithmetic that doesn't work... Godel's incompleteness theorem doesn't prove anything about the logic itself. It is a statement about the relationship between formal logical calculi and possible axiomatizations of artihmetic within it. Obviously logic as some inherent nature of valid reasoning vs logic as some particular formal calculus are two completely different things. We reason samentically, not within formal system. That's also how Goedel had to do the proof, by reasoning semantically, informally about the formal language formula of form "this sentence is not provable". If it can be derived, that's a contradiction, if not, the formal language can form some formulas that the arithmetic axioms cannot formaly entail or contradict. The formal languages have such property that some formulas are either not decided by the arithmetic axioms or some formulas that are derivable together with their negation. That is the system of axiom will be either incomplete or contradictory. Contradictory axioms are possibility when using a paraconsistent formal language.

[@sandroselladore3506]

im rereading your sentence and i still dont understand

[@thegodsofai3845]

Mathematics is still not ripe enough, we can we may not be advanced,

[@aaaah540]

Aha, so the Earth IS flat! After all, you can’t prove that you can prove that it is. /s

[@OtakuDaiKun]

Ben is unable to separate his "facts" from cruel conservative religious greed. He doesn't fight for censorship or freedom from political correctness, he is merely acting like his biblical influences are objective. He's more controlled by his feelings than anyone he criticizes.

[@happyduzers3321]

Your focus in Ben’s greed is something apparent in every type of politician, and their manipulation and nitpicking of data is commonplace as a tool for persuasion, and is up to us to do our own research and use our logical brain. Your point about him being more scientifically unfounded is something I must disagree on, as his opponents are usually more opinion based and what he would call “feelings”, being more scientifically unfounded, from what I experienced and through my use of what I view as common sense. The thing that disturbs me is that you ignore the fact that people, despite who they are, are all prone to bias, as clearly stated in the video, and I hope that you begin questioning everyone and everything around you more, and question your sources more a build a more complex opinion, which is something I personally strive for and began doing, because despite what one thinks, it’s very easy to get trapped in an echo chamber.

[@yoshisarethebomb]

Agreed

[@joshuawadsworth6417]

@@happyduzers3321 Your worst mistake is hoping that people will actually do thier own research when at this time it's never going to dawn on them.

[@saltysquid7284]

excellent point but ben is jewish

[@zayatamburelli5322]

@@happyduzers3321 sorry FAM but trans people are definitely more scientifically based and less emotional then Ben.

[@andrewcolliver2642]

What Ben is saying is “my chosen facts don’t care about your feelings.” Sadly, he actually means “my focus on facts is an attempt to not care about my own feelings.” (Principally compassion and empathy, I imagine.) Jaak Panksepp’s work in affective neuroscience clearly shows that affect precedes cognition, and that rationality is dependent upon emotional literacy.

[@manformerlypigbukkit]

@@007kingifritbro did NOT watch the video

[@Iamhere829]

@@007kingifrit”i watch ben I know what he thinks” is enough for us to not take you seriously lol

[@DebNKY]

​@@007kingifritthe right is passionate about reproduction. Pro-life is full of feelings. The medicine be damned.

[@googolplexcinema]

Ben Shapiro's voice sounds like what I'd think a parody of his voice would sound like

[@shannonlee4622]

oh just wait til you see his sister....

[@Robstafarian]

His novel is a parody of how I thought it would be written (it has been featured in special episodes of Behind the Bastards).

[@NotANameist]

You don’t like his voice? Well then he must be wrong!

[@Robstafarian]

@@NotANameist Please, tell me that was supposed to be a joke.

[@Froooosh]

@@NotANameist Wrong order there - he's wrong and his voice just adds to it

[@denglish5275]

As someone that works in science, facts don't really exist. Empirical data does though and data doesn't care about your feelings. But when they talk about "facts" they are talking about their interpretation of the data. For hard sciences like physics and chemistry the studies are quite irrefutable and can effectively directly answer the question. For instance if we observe that the climate is warming faster than we expect then we can test what may be causing that and show empirical proof that human emissions of CO2 are directly affecting the warming of our climate at a dangerous rate. Sociopolitical studies are not hard science though and therefore leave a lot more room for interpretation than for empiricism. This leaves the "facts" that they are talking about to be littered with bias. For instance there is empirical proof that college educated people tend to lean more democratic in their political views. That is an empirical fact. The interpretation that "colleges are indoctrinating people towards left leaning ideology" is not a fact. It's a hypothesis created based off of that data. You could also make the claim that educated individuals find democratic ideology to be more conducive towards a better society but even that would have to be studied. That's where this idea of "fact" falls apart. How do you empirically study either of those things? ***Edit*** So I am seeing this comment getting some attention recently and I believe that most people, reasonably so, are not reading the entire thread for the conversation that was had on what I initially meant to say. So as to correct for this I am editing this to include a later comment I made clarifying quite a few things. Also anyone discussing the climate change portion of this comment i highly suggest visiting the NASA website for climate change as it gives a very thorough FAQ about the issue. "@Hagane no Gijutsushi You explain my differentiation between what I initially addressed as "hard" science vs "soft" science perfectly here in your concluding sentence. Giving them the names of Natural sciences and Social sciences is much more appropriate and less problematic. In no way do I mean any dissent with the notion of soft it was simply an archaic term that came to mind and one which I will not be using going forward. I should also really humble myself in this comment thread by instantiating that I am no expert on the philosophy of science nor have I studied the social sciences so my perspective is very limited. After reading through Ishan Kashyap's comments above I believe that I have dismissed the social sciences' rigor in data analysis and the divide I have made between the two at times can definitely be seen as unjust or to David Kornfield's point as if I am making the natural sciences superior. I do not mean to do so. Also I should instantiate that the initial point of my comment was simply to make the statement that empirical sciences are based on empiricism and then interpretation. Therefore the fact of the matter lies in the empirical data. My initial critique was mainly of the breakdown of science to the general public in that the public usually gets the flashy headline and a sexy article about the conclusion of the experiment yet the true details of the experiment is tucked away neatly in the fine print. This leads a lot of political pundits to incorrectly quote science. The irony is that my statement that "facts don't really exist" is exactly that headline and my real point is that when quoting "facts" you must back up your statement with proper empirical data and proper data analysis, which I never see in modern "debates". Also a note here is that this refers only to empirical sciences so Logic, Philosophy, and Linguistics (I'm not to sure I'm using this one correctly) aren't being considered in my analysis. Therefore facts of reason and my take on the philosophy of science are not considered in this analysis. Finally after admitting my own bias and lack of expertise in the issue I would love to talk from what I do know and learn about what I don't. In my perspective, as Hagane explained, the natural sciences study things that, for all intents and purposes, have exact characteristics. When I study a particle the mass, charge, and general state of that particle are effectively exact and therefore I don't have to consider those aspects as variable in my experiment. They are constants of nature. In social sciences there seem to be no true constants and therefore in order to simplify the experiment you must make greater approximations. These lead to higher uncertainty and therefore less precise conclusions. I do fear that my strict perspective of someone from the natural sciences may be skewing my analysis so I would love to hear from someone from the other perspective on this idea"

[@stevenhskns]

Foucault would like to know your location.

[@LadySnowfaerie]

As a biologist, I concur. Even if an article in a high profile journal says thing x, you have to see if the journalists reporting it are representing it accurately, how many other articles agree, how many disagree, what do they disagree on and why, and then wait for a few years till some kind of a scientific consensus forms. Then you might finally have something that might be close to reality. Even if a scientist does everything right and without bias, they might still get a false positive result due to this idea of p < 0.05. Basically it means that the probability of getting this result by random chance is less than 5%, and it's usually treated as a good enough threshold, at least in biology. However, it does mean that 1 in 20 papers is probably a false positive. Making matters worse is that positive results, even false ones, are much more likely to get published, so the actual amount of published false positives is higher than that. In conclusion: science is built on a consensus, not on a few articles making flashy claims.

[@dinnerwithfranklin2451]

Well said, thank you.

[@dinnerwithfranklin2451]

@@antonk.653 I suspect this whole video discusses "objectivity". And the fact it does not exist. Perhaps I'm wrong but it seems to me that the fetishism about objectivity is a red herriing to avoid taking responsibility for one's own biases.

[@dalstein3708]

@@antonk.653 As a counterexample: in the 19th century, the collective of scientists agreed that men's intellectual capabilities were superior to those of women. (The facts that practically all of those scientists were male may have played a role.)

[@youtubeuniversity3638]

Nice to see Shaun in the background in the bookshelf.

[@stevenhskns]

lol

[@maestro3947-b9g]

A people of culture, i see

[@M-Soares]

Or is it Davis Aurini's toy skull?

[@stevenhskns]

Hello everyone, today we are going to be talking about how based this comment section is

[@Owesomasaurus]

What is this, a crossover episode?

[@3G2J]

“Facts don’t care about your feelings.” - a guy who’s job is to justify his feelings

[@despondent27]

the slogan itself is used to justify he and his fanbase's feelings

[@-GordonFreeman]

His job is to prove points, he never takes his feelings into his debate, listen to his debates first then speak blabber mouth

[@maybe6536]

@@-GordonFreeman i dunno man i used to be a fan of the guy when i was an angsty teen and i can tell you first hand when you grow up from that teenage phase you realise the guy just speaks in logical fallacies and tries to justify his feelings

[@-GordonFreeman]

@@maybe6536 Your opinion, not mine

[@maybe6536]

@@-GordonFreeman you were the one that started spreading lies dude not me

[@hawdgeal]

Zoe: I'm not going to dunk on Ben Shapiro Zoe: proceeds to murder him with words Ahhh refreshing

[@williamwrobel4928]

The kinda thing I come to KZbin for lol

[@theoverunderthinker]

it's kinda easy to do that in a conversation where you present both sides of the argument, don't you think?

[@rossromeave]

I swear I saw you on Gyee Discord server

[@hawdgeal]

@@rossromeave I didn't even know this game was a thing, haha! had to look it up... 😜 It wasn't me, someone with a similar pfp maybe... :)

[@sbyrstall]

She'd still loose on a one-on-one.

[@jweezWhy]

One of the worst things I've done was deciding that I was the clear headed arbiter of truth and everyone else was just being PC or letting their identity get in the way. "If everyone just could see the facts as they are they'd come to my conclusion!" I'm glad I stopped that BS. I'm a better person now.

[@MetaKnight964]

Facts are facts and nothing will change that.

[@jweezWhy]

@@MetaKnight964 lol ok.

[@foxtail286]

@@MetaKnight964 How do you know that you are right? What if the information you're believing is wrong? Would you be ready to accept that? Not saying that it is, but if there is overwhelming evidence against you, what would you do?

[@zanir2387]

@@foxtail286 the reality is what doesn't change regardless of your beliefs pal...

[@foxtail286]

@@zanir2387 But what if YOUR beliefs were wrong? Would you consider changing them?

[@afriend4196]

[stares into the horizon] maybe the facts were the feelings we made along the way.....

[@Kamila-ey5vi]

To me, the biggest proof that facts DO care about your feelings was a researcher who wanted to prove gender dysphoria was a trend, so she interview parents of trans people, who told her their kids had never displayed any type of gender non-conforming behavior until seeing it on TV or having a classmate come out, to which she created the "diagnosis" of "Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria". Problem is: she took her sample of parents from transphobic forums on the internet, most of the parents in that forum had been neglectful to their kids regarding their gender identity, some even had kicked their children out of the house or spanked them for playing with toys that didnt align with gender expectations. Her methodology was biased from the get-go and now her research is used by alt-righters to diminish trans identity.

[@Kamila-ey5vi]

@@007kingifrit okay, do the research then. Forget left/right and whatever genderism is, and repeat the research with a larger sample then

[@IgirlbossedTooCloseToTheSun]

Even if she used supportive parents or a 1:1 mix of supportive and non-suportive it would still be unreliable due to the fact it would be coming from the parent and not the trans person themself, to a parent, anything can look sudden, especially something someone keeps inside themself for fear they'd get hurt over it, to a parent, especially a transphobic one, a kid coming out as trans would seem sudden, even if there were extreme amounts of signs it wasnt. Consulting trans people would give actual reliable results, because it would be coming from the trans person themself and not a potentially transphobic parent. TL;CR: even if she used supportive parents her "study" was still doomed due to excluding trans people themselves

[@darkstar2874]

@@007kingifrit “parents know kids better than kids do” I struggle to understand how you could believe this if you were a child yourself at one point. If you ever kept something from your parents at any point in your life, even just chose not to voice something to them then empirically you know yourself better than they do. NO ONE knows someone better than they do themselves because no one else is privy to our internal lives. Besides, a parent’s role is not to arbitrate who/what their child is, it’s to help to learn to figure that out for themselves.

[@peterwallis4288]

It seems highly likely that a for a lot of people, it is to do with trends. In the 90s, 2000s and earlier 2010s, this was not a huge problem. Are there a large number of adults who are repressed trans?

[@Kamila-ey5vi]

@@peterwallis4288 Yes, absolutely there were, it wasn't a matter of "not existing", it just wasn't talked about because people would be ostracized, or worse, lynched if they came out. Just in the US there was the Lavender Scare, "don't ask don't tell" policies in the military, DOMA, being LGBT was (and still is) hard AF. People couldn't come out, now they can, but they are still scared. A lot of older folks are now feeling more free to express themselves.

[@cobalt2220]

This reminds me of a neat little tidbit in quantum theory; you can't always observe or study something without changing it, since the thing you are studying often is affected by the action of observing it in the first place. I feel like this can be applied to many of the things we measure for statistics.

[@crazydragy4233]

Not only can, it should be. Objectivity is a lie as humans are inherintly subjective. What matters is fairness.

[@jooot_6850]

CrazyDragy objectivity is a lie? 1+1=2, right? I get that for more nuanced topics, an objective standpoint may be impossible, but let’s not call the whole thing a lie

[@truffeltroll6668]

Get your eyes out of my double slit

[@crazydragy4233]

@@jooot_6850 Context also exists yet you decided to ignore it :). Ironically missing the point of what I was saying.

[@jooot_6850]

CrazyDragy ???

[@eatienza9447]

Ben Shapiro gets DESTROYED by cats and logic

[@artstyle8995]

That doesn't make sense

[@demarcuscousinsiii7334]

Libtard gets mad by facts and logic

[@ajarofmayonnaise3250]

@@demarcuscousinsiii7334 not surprising that you are a shen bapiro fanboy

[@mjrhmekssh]

@@ajarofmayonnaise3250 man it's sad that this is a literal child you're responding to. I fucking hate that children watch right wing grifters

[@accurategamer7085]

@@mjrhmekssh you must be a different kind of moron to think "kids" watch right wingers, when in college most KIDS are left wing. In social media left wingers are mostly KIDS.

[@bamajama13]

Background kitty cat is best kitty

[@DairunCates]

You mean Foreground Kitty?

[@bamajama13]

@@DairunCates You're right. Foreground cat is why we're all here

[@MarieAxelsson]

Legit my first thought

[@jiralishu]

For the horde!!!

[@SEmme-ov6yy]

It’s a big baby

[@yoyohayli]

It's always been so weird to me that people act as if the brain isn't a PHYSICAL organ. Like, feelings ARE fact. We factually have feelings because of chemical processes in an organ in our bodies. And when the topic is identity, such as with trans discussion, it is quite literally fact BECAUSE OF feeling. Or when people say things like "words can't actually hurt anyone." Yes they can. If the listener understands the words the speaker said and they were spoken with vitriol, hate, and intended to harm, then they DO cause PHYSICAL harm. Again, the brain is a PHYSICAL organ. When people are hurt by words, their brain involuntarily releases chemicals that cause a type of pain, and repeated release of those chemicals from continued harassment and verbal abuse changes a person's physical brain chemistry.

[@nuqwestr]

find me the physical spot in the brain where transgender resides? if so, perhaps we can fix it without castration or mastectomy. Many birth defects can be fixed inuterol, and more in the future. Gender dysphoria can be cured.

[@Leetah36]

Anyone else notice that she made a rainbow out of her books by placing them according to the color spectrum?

[@maddiemcnugget1076]

It’s so pretty right? Very aesthetically pleasing

[@alberto3814]

my anxiety is pleased with that.

[@jediknightnamek]

Just noticed it after reading this comment. And I found it much more pleasing than I thought it would.

[@Smokr]

That says quite a bit, doesn't it? Not about LGBTQ issues, but about her and her staging.

[@alexiayearty8105]

I do now, so cute!

[@kikicogger2284]

What annoys me about Ben Shapiro is that he never seems to acknowledge his own biases and he picks and chooses the “science” he follows, often going against consensus.

[@WL1264]

example pliz?

[@adjoint_functor]

@@WL1264 Using his catchphrase in the context of climate data: the warming of the atmosphere is a scientific fact, but it’s passed of as “feeling" to devalue it.

[@tinygardentomato]

I think both sides do this, ngl.

[@iseriver3982]

That's so true, his feelings are literally hurt by the fact his god isn't real and the fact he's wrong about global warming.

[@iseriver3982]

@@tinygardentomato "I'm all together on nobodies side, because nobody is altogether on my side."

[@PumaArg]

I was talking with a guy about this the other day. I believe I said "but what's the point of society if not to make people happy? What's the point of progress if not to make people happy?". Ignoring people's emotional and psychological wellbeing in political matters is like destroying the root of society itself. Edit: I think some of you are not getting what I meant. Society and governments are not there to make you HAPPY, that's impossible, they're there to make it FAIR and to work together for the general wellbeing (society) and to work as a mediator (governments). If you still aren't convinced by this, take a look at XVII and XVIII century philosophy, especially Thomas Hobbes, and XIX philosophy too, especially the criticism it recieves

[@Wringfale]

Because facts don’t care about your feelings, lol

[@Amir_97]

@@Wringfale I just read that comment like 3 times and it's always anime, hentai and loli weirdos posting lmao, no wonder incels like Shabino bambino

[@Wringfale]

@@Amir_97 indeed. We just have no choice but to take the black pill.

[@bruh-zw9hx]

@@Wringfale anime creep and ben shapiro fan, shoulda known

[@Wringfale]

@@bruh-zw9hx stop it. The truth hurts my feelings😭

[@naomigreen2147]

In summary: The truly rational thing to do is to acknowledge your own and other people's irrationality, understand how it operates, and try to work past that. As someone who used to think that rationality ruled, and that emotions interfered with that, I find it terribly ironic that these people who claim to be paragons of rationality are not rational, but are trying to artificially foist the label "rational" onto whatever they happen to think. Thank you for educating me, and opening me up to my own biases.

[@zathary564]

What about hard facts like maths? 1+1=2, a dictator feeling that 1+1=3 doesn't make it true. Or how about facts like "racism is bad"? What if someone feels that racism is good? Wouldn't that make facts not care about their feelings?

[@ALittleBitOfGay]

​@@zathary564the point isn't that the facts change based on their feelings, the point is that a person's biases and feelings affect their perception of the facts as we know them. So instead of trying to be objective by simply ignoring biases, we should strive to be objective by seeing our biases, and accounting for them in our reasoning.

[@Sir_Bucket]

​@@zathary564bro if we have to explain you this, you're not old enough to be here lol

[@pghCaretaker]

>"I'm not a philosopher." >philosophizes We're onto you

[@iantaakalla8180]

Fun fact: she is philosophizing in a similar manner to Nietzsche. She takes words, and analyzes their usage and etymology to determine the philosophy people “really have” similar to what Nietzsche did in the Genealogy of Morals to set up his philosophy.

[@sergioa.orozco685]

Philosophy is a tool that can be used by anyone

[@onaviv835]

@@simorote why?

[@Darth_Bateman]

@@onaviv835 because be disagrees and he's mad

[@blarg2429]

@@sergioa.orozco685 Yes, but a philosopher is simply a person who uses that tool.

[@notjocelyn]

Zoe: lots of smart, articulate analysis Meow, an intellectual: CAAAAAAAAT

[@stevenhskns]

Let's say for the sake of argument, I like this video. And for instance I comment and subscribe. Recently found your channel through recommendations about a week back. Glad to see I am not the only one to have found your content!

[@bencouch1178]

Then, purely theoretically, you would have made a good decision.

[@stevendorries]

Fear not, puny mortal, for you have been conscripted into the host of Lord Oculon’s legions of eyeballs

[@zawas4889]

I instantly read that comment in Pen Shabino's voice

[@the80386]

@@zawas4889 Pen? Aren't these 'let's say' type 'though experiments' Ham Sarris's schtick?

[@stm7810]

Fucking Aquaman?!!!!

[@galinneall]

Shapiro is probably the most emotionally unstable snowflake I've ever seen. I remember how he freaked out during his interview with Andrew Neil on abortion. He stated that "scientifically, life begins at conception", which is an emotional rather than scientific idea, and then accused Neil of being a leftist. Because Neil had the gall to question him. And then he cut thé interview short, because it wasn't going his way. Very rational, Benny.

[@maciejgrenda216]

I remember when this video had come out, I'd been watching it every other day for at least a month. So satisfying ☺

[@joshwhite5730]

Literally life does not begin at conception in fact it takes 1-2 weeks for a women to even get pregnant after conception, I can believe someone who cares about facts would believe such a thing, when using biological terms I would say life begins 5 weeks into pregnancy when the cells of the baby start to form, this definition lines up with how we classify as bacteria as life because they have cells but not viruses

[@Amitkumar-dv1kk]

The eggs cells are alive, the sperm cells are alive, so Ben is wrong. Life doesn't begin an conception, life is just always there.

[@violetbackedstarling]

@@Amitkumar-dv1kk but there's no consciousness, no feeling, no pain. cells do not have brains. so, isn't it better to end the life of something that won't ever know or care, than a living, thinking, adult human?

[@goazer2]

You know that literally no one ever questioned the idea that life began at conception until liberals needed to justify abortion?

[@hotpaws_maths_and_science]

the "facts don't care about your feelings" guys are predominantly using this phrase to disguise their interpretation of facts as the actual objective truths, and in a lot of cases they actually don't see the difference

[@serdirtbagoftheleft4045]

“Listen girl, the fact is you are crazy and I dont care about your feelings”

[@applepierules1000]

Exactly. This is exactly right. I’ve seen Ben do this time and time again

[@notloki3377]

the word fact can be abused, for sure. however, ben has directly stated that the facts don't care about your feelings mantra is effectively a ward against hysterical thinking. this is mostly because, when enacting policy in the real world, using logic tends to get the best long term results whereas feelings like compassion, left by themselves, tend to produce results that make people feel good in the short term but aren't sustainable across multiple iterations. i'd also like to add that you're using a logical syntax to refute the idea of logical syntax, and you might want to check that internal contradiction.

[@violet_silly9929]

@@notloki3377 nobody is refuting logic as a good means of conclusion, what is being said is that within that feelings get in the way, especially if you ignore them. no information is infallible, even ones that feel like they are example ben feels that he is being objective, so he must be right? you see the problem? his own feelings are getting in the way and he is simply trying to ignore them without effective recognition, leading to hugely biased opinions

[@notloki3377]

@@violet_silly9929 that's the same damn thing i just said. and there is a big difference between someone "feeling objective" and making an honest attempt at truth. ben has a point of view, but rational thinking is the ability to detatch your emotions from the outcome of an argument. you have to want truth more than you want to win an argument, or feel good about yourself or whatever. i have yet to see an example where ben has chosen his personal identity over a logically coherent worldview grounded in evidence and deduction. can you name any specific examples? the only one i can think of is where he got caught on the spot and misrepresented his enemy, and used an appeal to status against someone who he didn't know had a bigger audience than him. he has since apologized for this, and admitted his feelings got in the way. we are all only human after all. can you list any other examples?

[@keris3920]

As an expert in my field, I'd even argue that experts don't know the facts either. Even experts disagree on what the facts are. That said, I understand your point and have a general appreciation for it.

[@thesurrealist8588]

What field is that exactly, because experts do have facts. A biologist knows the facts of evolution, mitosis, etc. Physicists know the facts about motion. For example, biologists might disagree how evolution operates and works, but they do not disagree that evolution is happening.

[@MetaKnight964]

Keris: In that case the sky is green and grass is blue.

[@MetaKnight964]

@@thesurrealist8588 Evolution is nonsense and has no actual evidence to back it.

[@keris3920]

@@MetaKnight964 Correct, they both emit green spectra, and they both emit blue spectra.

[@keris3920]

@@thesurrealist8588 I am a physicist. And no, you'd be surprised at how much we don't know. And more to the point, it's extremely unscientific to assert things as fact. There are things we understand better than others, and things we have more confidence in our conclusions. But physicists are proven wrong all the time. Peter Higgs was "proven wrong", and then we ended up finding the Higgs Boson 50 years later. Newton was technically wrong that F=sum(ma), because that only works at low speeds. Yet we teach it as fact in schools. It's F=dp/dt, which does work at relativistic speeds as well. We thought there was a mysterious medium that light propagated through called the aether, but that was proven wrong with the Michaelson Morley experiment and explained with Einstein's special relativity. My hot take, is that "facts" are used to assert dogma on people during arguments. The reality is that there are very few to almost no facts in existence. Everything is an opinion, and the only difference is the amount of confidence we have in that opinion. Some opinions are more tried and true than others.

[@spliffyrodgers4266]

Me: *listening carefully* *notices cat* "Aww a kitty" *Diverts full attention to cat*

[@kaitlyn3168]

SAME! LOL

[@RockSprites]

"Facts don't care about your feelings" is just a craven way to say "I don't care about your feelings."

[@DG-iw3yw]

yeah and, "im on the factual rational side and u iz not lel"

[@DG-iw3yw]

@007kingifrit you realize "cold" is just an arbitrary descriptive word for someones demeanor or temperment. It has nothing to do with logic or intelligence. People who are warm are not immediately less logical than cold, miserable and curt people, i have always found it quite the opposite...

[@armorclasshero2103]

​@@007kingifrit so you reject empathy? that means you're not even human any more.

[@armorclasshero2103]

​@@007kingifrit 50% of the federal budget goes to military spending. If you had an honest bone in your body you'd know 70+50 is more than 100, doofus.

[@evanbarth7173]

@@007kingifritI would love to take you to school with a debate about empathy personally, unless you’re too “rational” to hear out a silly wittle fewlings based mortal like me lol 🤣

[@abdulmasaiev9024]

I actually agree with the literal meaning of "facts don't care about your feelings". Facts are an abstract concept. They are incapable of caring. Or doing much of anything else, really. What I rather strongly disagree with is the tacit "and therefore since I said that magic phrase, everything I say now is FACTS and if you disagree it's only because you're being EMOTIONAL, so unlike the SUPERIOR BASTION OF REASON as myself. No, it doesn't matter how much of a purely subjective and interpretative hot take whatever it is I say is (well removed from being just pure "facts"), or how shonky the means of gathering the data that may or may not support it or whether I even bothered to show any" that silently follows.

[@Dimension640]

Yeah. Facts don't care about your feelings is so true that it is naive to argue against it. 2+2=4, or the sun is bigger than the earth, no matter what you feels. The game that's played by Shapiro and others is that what are they presenting as facts i.e. some irrefutable truth, it's not. Is an opinion.

[@MrDavibu]

I totally agree and want to add "the only statistics you can trust are those you falsified yourself"~ Winston Churchill(seems the quote's origin is not 100% certain) And even if you use facts, doesn't mean you take the necessary context into consideration.

[@rmbee5412]

@@Dimension640 I think the insidious thing is that opinions can be communicated, while still going unsaid, in a statement of fact. Take for example a complaint about the supposed '1 in 5 college rape myth'. Perhaps researchers whose work originated the infamous '1 in 5 statistic' have indeed cautioned against its broad application for modelling US colleges, or maybe their research does not make such application reasonable. However, there can be a tacit 'and therefore sexual assault isn't a problem because such a model is consistent with this information' that gets tacked on, benefiting rhetorically from the veneer of 'facts' without an explicit statement to reveal its true nature as a subjective interpretation.

[@DonCDXX]

The line "facts don't care about your feelings" is just another example of Republican projection. Climate change is real even if conservatives don't feel that it is. Countries with a lot of social programs are doing better that the US even if conservatives don't feel that it is. Judeo-Christian values when turned to laws are a detriment to society no matter how much they feel opposite. It's the conservatives who deny facts in favor of feelings, so as a defense mechanism, they are the ones making the accusations that the other side is doing it.

[@elisabethnordin]

It sounds to me like you missed the entire point of this video. We aren't arguing the validity of vectors here, because the entirety of this discussion is not- at all- about maths. This entire discussion is about human beings, what we mean to ourselves, what we mean to each other and how we interact with one another. In other words, the social sciences. It is rather disingenuous, and indeed laughable, to presume we could possibly have the capability today to whittle human beings in their sociohistoricalpolitical contexts down to an algorithm, as if quasalities aren't a thing either. None of the individuals brought up in this video to argue against their opinions, have ever argued about maths, they argue for their version of social sciences as "facts," which are in and of themselves based off of faulty premises and bad faith arguments. That earth's diameter is 12 742 km is not based on feeling, but discrimination is. The fact that more people ar regularly killed by cows than wolves, doesn't mean that cows are inherently more dangerous than a wolf. We just don't happen to round up hundreds of thousands of wolves to handle them like we do with cows. We have to be very careful how we interpret social numbers and what they mean, because this inherently affects people's lives and their happiness and survival options, and confirmation bias is a thing too.

[@igorkovanakoff4166]

I can be labeled as an atheist ... but I gotta say you’re “doing god’s work”. I find that that expression really captures the positive feeling I got from watching this video. You seem to display a compassionate and non-dismissive attitude to “the other side’s” thinking style, which is always refreshing. Just subscribed, good luck and looking forward to your future content. Stay safe 👌

[@ThrashGeniusOG]

I’ll just say this. It’s good to believe in God. Reasons why is because it’ll help guide you in life and it helps you with your daily activities. I am not the incorrect kind of Christian that will tell you “you will go to Hell”. Those Christian are wrong because they are being judgemental. It is okay to practice Christianity each day and believe in a God. It’s just wrong to overly talk about Christianity because it’ll lead to non believers that want to do their own thing. Most Christian households teaches their children to become Christians but they fail to keep them that way due to either overly teaching or constantly bringing up the bad side in people. Have a good day :)

[@maddiemcnugget1076]

@@ThrashGeniusOG 100% I mean there are other issues with the “Christian” way of raising kids. I like the shift where we love our kids like how God loves us, unconditionally. Though unconditional love does have its faults for us faulty humans.

[@ThrashGeniusOG]

@@maddiemcnugget1076 well what exactly do you mean by this? (Sorry I have a Little trouble understanding things). If your saying humans are sinful and raise kids wrong even with the teachings than that’s just the natural way of sin. We as humans must turn from sin because we have sin in us. That’s why we must use God to raise are children correctly. Sin is the reason for wrong. God is good and God will be the correction. Nothing is wrong about God’s teachings. They are constantly misread or interpreted into something else. If this is not what you mean, I apologise.

[@bloomp9676]

@@ThrashGeniusOG This! This is how it all should be, believing in a reason to be good, and believing that everyone deserves love.

[@kingofgrim4761]

@@ThrashGeniusOG please do not believe in the Christian god however, as when u read the Bible you’d probably be disgusted with who you’re worshipping. Recently converted to agnostic after all these years

[@mauchkimberly]

...also, whenever Ben says "facts don't care about feelings" that should be read: I don't care about feelings. In the most literal sense, facts, because they aren't physical things capable of doing anything, don't care about feelings. But people, who don't care about feelings, can use selections of facts to validate their opinions. And, at the same time, other people, who do care about feelings, can use a selection of facts to validate their opinions.

[@maya-mu3ce]

i read that in his voice, all quick n nasal

[@darththeo]

No no. You don't understand Ben Shapiro. It isn't "facts don't care about feelings" it is "facts don't care about YOUR feelings, while they DO care about mine." Seriously, Shapiro argues that facts do not care about feelings, but then make arguments build around his own.

[@ubernerrd]

Ben doesn't care about *your* feelings. That's the key.

[@Robstafarian]

Ben Shapiro's tag line begs the oft-posed question: "is Ben Shapiro a liar, stupid, or both?" If Ben Shapiro is not a liar, then he does not know what sentience is.

[@TheGlassgubben]

He also makes it seem like feelings don't care about facts, which at least in my experience is absolutely false.

[@Kattlarv]

As a whistleblower: Yes, very, VERY much. People care almost exclusively about feelings, and ignore any facts that hurt them.

[@fatcat1414]

The idea of "facts don't care about your feelings" is often taken to an extreme where feelings aren't considered at all, at least not the feelings of the out-group. Knowledge is what helps move society forward, but only if it is accompanied by compassion. The application of knowledge without compassion is just scientifically-advanced cruelty.

[@airplanes_aren.t_real]

This reminded me of the people who would say "facts don't care about your feelings" when defending slavery

[@iseriver3982]

But compassion can't actually change the fact. Let's take Ben on his trans issues. He's right to think that you can't change your sex, because you can't. But he refuses to accept that trans people's brains have developed as a different sex. I don't know how compassion will make Ben change his mind (hypothetically of course, he'd never actually change his mind 😂)

[@airplanes_aren.t_real]

@@iseriver3982 Wait I'm confused is trans people can't change their gender then why is there an entire medical industry with that exact goal in mind? Are you talking only about chromosomes?

[@iseriver3982]

@@airplanes_aren.t_real Sex (gender, its the same thing) is binary. If it wasn't trans people wouldn't exist. For example, a male fetus (xy chromosome, small gametes) is developing in the womb, but when their brain starts to develop something goes wrong in the womb, and the brain develops as a female brain. And 9 months later, you get a male who believes they're female, because they are female in their mind. When this man wants to transition to a women, you can't actually change anything about their sex. All that's been changed is body parts and pieces of paper. And hopefully that trans person lives a happier life. That's the bit Ben gets wrong. He might be right saying that a man is a man even if she thinks she's a woman, but he ignores the fact that the mind is female. Probably because that fact hurts his feelings.

[@airplanes_aren.t_real]

@@iseriver3982 Actually it's surprisingly more complicated than that, if you want to learn more about it here's a video from a biologist talking about the subject kzbin.info/www/bejne/qavJZZuwhpqtqsk

[@idealyst8292]

This is such an important message. People become so close-minded when they pride themselves on objectivity, when really they have filters of interpretation like everyone else. And lately I've been struggling to accept my own biases, so it really helped to hear this. I can't even describe how much this means to me, thank you so much 😭

[@MrCmon113]

Lol, the irony. By saying that you have "accepted your own biases", you basically elevate yourself over the epistemological problems by which you reject the opinions of others. You assume that you actually know your biases in the first place. You can always do Hume-and-Derrida trolling when a conversation doesn't go your way.

[@idealyst8292]

@@MrCmon113 Uhh, no. Accepting my own biases means no longer gaslighting myself on every opinion, and giving up my futile strife for an objective truth. It was never about rejecting the opinions of others, rather the opposite where I was too considerate of other opinions to give my own a chance. If you watched the video, you'll know there's always a "bias" of sorts in every opinion just due to the subjectivity of perspective. The alternatives to accepting my biases are to deny them and allow myself to mistake my opinions for facts, or reject them and keep seeking an objective truth of life that I'll never find. By accepting my biases, I can properly correct them when necessary, AND avoid the crippling levels of self-doubt that I was facing before. And what reason do you have to believe that I don't know my own biases? If your goal here is to discredit and/or mock me, then I don't think we'll ever reach common ground. But if not, I hope this clears things up.

[@TOH_Fan]

I’ve always said that, facts may not are about your feelings, but your feelings sure as hell do care about facts.

[@Blank_Dude2]

Luz pfp gang?

[@LoveYourself-my9nz]

But it's true that facts don't care about our feelings! It's just Ben sharpio like people are misusing it.

[@kat4923]

"Facts don't care about your feelings" How cute, he thinks that we humans are able to separate 'rational thoughts' from 'emotions'. Both happen in the brain, bud.

[@dumbumbumbum8649]

You can though? I’m fully able to recognize that I want a certain food for dinner, but also recognize that the actions I take to satisfy my hunger and proliferate my own existence are irrational, since there’s no factual basis for action.

[@justin2308]

Which PARTS of the brain, though (Amydala, Prefrontal Cortex)? Just because they both happen in the brain doesn’t mean they’re not separate.

[@lays5277]

​@@dumbumbumbum8649 but is your decision to eat healthy really DEVOID of emotion? Or is it just run by a different emotion- your desire to be healthy and do what's best for yourself (which is an emotion)? You might THINK you're choosing to ignore fast food cravings because you know they're irrational, but think about it. Even on the most basic level, you have experienced a stomach bug or constipation or bloating pain before, and your brain knows that it's caused by eating unhealthily. But the knowledge isn't what causes you to eat healthy- it's the EMOTION, the very understandable FEELING of wanting to avoid pain as much as possible.

[@nuqwestr]

Not "CUTE" but aspirational, and most likely the reason you are alive to cynically, and with such Feminist Critical Theory verve, say "CUTE".

[@doggoadexx2680]

@@dumbumbumbum8649 acknowledgement ≠ decision making

[@amareastralis9290]

The funny thing about “facts don’t care about your feelings” is that when people like Shapiro are shown peer reviewed studies and other evidence that sex and gender are not the same thing and trans people exist, they reject that. It’s implied that “facts don’t care about your feelings, but my feelings can determine what is a fact”.

[@darththeo]

When people tell me that that it is a FACT that there are only 2 genders. I tell them, please look at other cultures besides your own. There are many cultures that had 3rd gender, or genders different than male/female.

[@HaganeNoGijutsushi]

Facts don't care about your feelings except when discussing human psychology, which is literally the science of which feelings develop, how and why, within the human mind. So in that case, the feelings ARE the facts.

[@stm7810]

@@darththeo I just ask them if they time travelled and asked every person who ever existed and to ever exist their gender, because without doing that you can't check, physicists don't claim there are only 6 quarks, they talk about the 6 quarks we know of and make models about them.

[@bananewane1402]

The current scientific consensus is that sex in humans is bimodal and gender is a cultural construct.

[@synchronium24]

@@bananewane1402 "The current scientific consensus is that sex in humans is bimodal" Mhmmm. "and gender is a cultural construct" This is an unfortunate example of how language can be manipulated to hide rather than reveal scientific findings. In this case, the concepts of gender roles and gender identity get conflated as just "gender". Gender roles are a social construct, but gender identity is biologically based according to current scientific understanding. During fetal development sex is first formed in the body and later gender identity is formed in the brain. Because these processes occur at different time periods, there can be a mismatch between body and brain. Later in life this mismatch manifests as dysphoria in (binary) trans people. Now comes the especially controversial part. This leaves little room for non-binary people, at least as the term is commonly used today. In the context of a body-brain mismatch, it could mean someone whose brain developed in such a way that they desire an intersex body or a body with no sexual features. However, non-binary to describe someone who doesn't conform to gender roles doesn't jive with this model. They would just be gender-nonconforming.

[@Darth12000]

"facts don't care about your feelings" was there long before Shapiro. Millenia. This is a point against the appeal to emotions fallacy. With that said, there's something called biases. Belief bias, confirmation bias, Dunning-Kruger effect, etc. These will cause someone, who isn't careful and self aware, to believe as fact opinions fueled by feelings. This is why the scientific method and similar methods include peer review, to compare notes between people with different biases. The more people do that, the less biases poison it. This is what we get as close to facts as possible. It's not reaching truth, it's looking for what's likely to be true. Nice outline of the data input problem with models. This is why models should be based on predictive hypothesis to be tested. We need to know the cogs in the model, after all. The infallibility of scientists is indeed an appeal to (true) authority fallacy. Consensus doesn't give us what's true but the best we have to get as close to truth as possible, given our current data. Room for improvement. With that out of the way, I'm going to watch the second video. ;)

[@henriquepacheco7473]

There is, however, something to be asked of biases that are pervasive in society. At one point, bias supporting the supposed superiority of white people intellectually over non-white people was so pervasive that this belief was widespread in scientific circles. It is possible that we have other biases so widespread and normalized that they come into effect enough to have an effect on conclusions we reach through the scientific process. Of course, I'm not trying to discredit the scientific method here; it's the best research model we have, after all. However, it is of value to take this thought into consideration in order to reflect and introspect on our own internalized biases.

[@tylerbreau4544]

@@henriquepacheco7473 You make a good point but that just goes into importance of being skeptical. The interpretation of facts and presentation of facts can change facts into something that is not a fact and because of that you need to be skeptical of the information that is a proposed fact. Being skeptical needs to happen when both receiving the presentation and interpretation of a supposed fact. Ultimately being skeptical in this context means to question it and to take time in your questioning so that you do not make rash decisions. I'd say this more falls in line with "However, it is of value to take this thought into consideration in order to reflect and introspect on our own internalized biases." This also falls in line with peer reviewing, comparing notes, etc. My full thoughts on this are available in another comment on this video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/e2mshK2jd6eHrNE&lc=Ugz_OR_S9xVWshJwNDZ4AaABAg

[@farrex0]

@@henriquepacheco7473 Well disclosing first that I do not know the specifics of the methods in which science circles operate today nor what the collective bias of today could be. But I love history, and I know how a hundreds and more years ago there was no rigor on peer review, while today there is. For example, in Victorian times, peer review was based on circular logic started by the biases of the collective. The collective bias of that time, was that they were the peak of humanity and the humans of before (even their own race and location) were uneducated savages. So they had the "facts", which was the physical findings they found through archaeology, but they wanted to fill the gaps, so "X" historian would make an assumption, "We have this armor, which is apparently heavy, so there was no way knights could get on top of a horse on their own, so they must have used a sort of crane to mount a horse" (actual thing they believed) but there was no proof for that claim. But a second historian, would make another assumption, and cite that first historian as the source, and then a third, and so on and on. Until it was believed as fact because it was the consensus, but it was all circular logic. There was never any proof for knight having to use a crane to get on top of a horse. Today's historians use several methods to test their hypothesis, including experimental archaeology which is them trying it with the tools they know they had on those times. So now people having armor tailored for the person, they know that a well fitted armor barely restricts any movement, and they can even do acrobatics on said armor. That plus the fact that there is no depiction of a crane ever used to assist a knight, we can be sure they mounted their horses on their own without much trouble. So the point I am trying to make, is that the more we test the hypothesis through multiple angles, people, studies from different cultures and geographical location, we can achieve a more objective view. But true, our biases can still affect the interpretation of those results. So not saying that using only those studies is a good thing, but I am saying that those studies are now more objective than those of the past, thanks to more rigorous methods and peer review. Again not perfect, just better.

[@farrex0]

@@henriquepacheco7473 That being said, we have to work to further remove bias as much as possible via avoiding self imposed echo chambers. We should always listen to as many varying views as we can, specially to those we disagree with, and compare our beliefs, not to find where they are wrong, but to see where we are wrong.

[@harshtorane3520]

That is true. In one of our physics textbooks from high school (I am from India by the way), one quote was "There is no final theory in science and no unquestioned authority among scientists" I still remember that quote to this day, particularly because if I cannot join the military or police because of possible medical unfitness, I am going to try my best to become a scientist. There is glory in medical research too. pages.cs.wisc.edu/~markhill/science64_strong_inference.pdf Anyway, I've copy-pasted a link to a pape by Platt (1964) which was a sort of meta-analysis of the then-trends of science, which still apply today. Please take a read through the example of "Professor X" and the conversation of a student in the paper. Some people will politicize science, make scientists look like Gods among men. No they aren't, we as students of science aren't, everyone should know this. Elitism and certain POLITICAL organizations challenge equality of men among men and before nature, BUT they forget that politics does not take a back seat in the presentation, investigation and etc. of facts. Ironic.

[@bartholomewthundercatiii3484]

“Facts don’t care about your feelings.” ~ Ben Shapiro, a very religious person who believes in an omnipotent deity that says being gay is wrong

[@bruh-zw9hx]

@@FirstnameLastname-my7bz first, religion does not make society more stable.. there’s no evidence for that. the most stable places today are places with liberties to chose your religion. and a lack of theism is a choice made in these places. plus it is not more logical to fall into the god of the gaps myth. something being “likely” or easier to believe does not make it true. “facts don’t care about your feelings!!! unless you worship a space man who created everything, then they do because you feel like he’s real!”

[@elijahrestrepo6929]

@@FirstnameLastname-my7bz I was gonna go on about how you choose instead to blindly follow words from a book designed solely for the purpose of controlling the masses, simply cause its easier to follow the herd rather then challenge your beliefs and expose yourself to new ways of thinking in order to find the real answers to your questions. but that would require real effort

[@FirstnameLastname-my7bz]

@@elijahrestrepo6929 I am not devoted believer, nor even a Jew or Judaism follower. I just saw glaring mistake in this Last Jedi fan's comment and went on to correct it. There always should be truth. I personally have my own share of doubts about anything written by someone be it about god or other matter simply for how much lies I saw in recent times from people that suppose to adhere to best interests of everybody and tell the truth as part of their job. But when someone is mocking someone's beliefs they have to take in consideration actual notions of those beliefs instead of just picking something random and mocking it, just because it is popular. That's stupid.

[@雷-t3j]

@@FirstnameLastname-my7bz It's not more logical, it's more intuitive, and humans want to be special, so it makes sense that they would intentionally delude themselves.

[@FirstnameLastname-my7bz]

@@雷-t3j even if it is all "delusion", the placebo effect is real and what most important it is effective It's like newspapers were laughing at prince Charles for talking with plants, and now actual professionals play music in gardens, because it supposedly helps.

[@adriancarrillo9918]

I’m late to the party, but I always found it annoying when people pull out the most biased statistic they found on Google from some sketchy website to fit their argument, but never check how that result came to be. They formed a conclusion that fits their narrative, but could care less how it was studied. Even more, but the whole story is always hidden, because “clearly” the results are what matter in the end

[@B-Roll_Gaming]

Well they don't actually care about sources, is the thing. They use them as a bludgeon because they themselves felt like they hit a brick wall when someone online hit them with sources they disagree with. So they want to do the same thing, without understanding the point of sources.

[@samgladiator3257]

Facts literally don’t care about your feelings because want to know what they are they are facts like murder is bad that’s a fact

[@armorclasshero2103]

​@@samgladiator3257 is it?

[@samgladiator3257]

@@armorclasshero2103 yea

[@-GordonFreeman]

So where do you pull out your sources from? Your ass? At least they have some source

[@FirstNameLastName-cu9uw]

Facts were there to care for me when no one else did 😔😔😔😔

[@OpqHMg]

That's heartwarming

[@daniknispel]

I hear you 🤗 I have an illness where the feelings of my doctors impacts my care WAY more than the facts. If you have a severe pain disorder, celebrities OD’ing can even impact you. It’s REALLY dangerous and frustrating. I have a Schwannoma inside my spinal cord that has caused nerve damage. I have a rare condition where I will die if my pain isn’t kept under control. So, we are talking hard facts on my side, but I have had many close calls due to the hyper protectionism inherent in the system. It’s meant to keep meds away from people. If you need it to live, like I do? You are kind of screwed.

[@axisboise]

I suddenly remember ContraPoints' words in her J.K Rowling video: "Fact on its own, doesn't mean very much usually when we discuss facts, we're using those facts to tell a story and facts can be used to tell bigoted stories" At the end of the day they use these "facts" to support bigotry, homophobia, etc.

[@thefuturist8864]

Good point, but regardless of how bigoted the story may be, if it's supported by facts, it's true (or, to be more precise, the story is sound inasmuch as it appears to match up to what we know about the world). If, for example, we are telling a story about how sex is a biological phenomenon, then however 'bigoted' this may appear to some, it remains sound up until the point where the facts themselves can be questioned (which any science should encourage, as we can only ever know how good our understanding of the world is by testing it). If someone can either show that another story can be told that is at least equally as sound, or if they can show that we have a poor understanding of the facts, they can begin to try and tell a different story. However, if they simply don't like what the facts are and what they say, this has nothing to do with whether or not they are true.

[@darkstar2874]

@@thefuturist8864 You’re kind of missing the point, wether or not sex is a biological phenomenon has nothing to do with questions like “should trans people be allowed to be who they see themselves as instead of how they were born?”, we have facts but they don’t tell us what to do with them, we have to interpret the facts, and *that* can be done in a bigoted way. Knowing that sex is biological we can take that fact and either say “okay well that’s nice but gender is a separate social construct and changing one’s gender is completely fine” or “that means that the biological division of gender is the empirical one and the one we should enforce”. Neither one is more factual and we can’t choose the “correct one” based on that, they use the same underlying facts and choose to interpret them separately.

[@ekki1993]

@@thefuturist8864 "Sex is a biological phenomenon" is such an useless "fact", though. It's merely describing a part of biology as part of biology. No commentary on how someone should dress, what genitals they should have, what pronouns to be used when referring to them. People don't like the implied interpretation of those "facts" because those interpretations have zero evidence to support themselves. It's all about avoiding as many disprovable facts as possible. You yourself jumped to bash someone for saying believing in a particular god has no logic behind it even though it's a fact that you can't disprove. You did so because you understand that there's more behind the phrase that just stating facts.

[@seekerandthinker]

I'm curious how you define homophobia or transphobic. If I'm gay and I say "I'm not attracted to transman because they are not man" is it transphobic?

[@Kaebuki]

@@seekerandthinker My thought is that the statement itself feels like it’s not accepting the transmale’s identification, even if that’s not your intention. Perhaps worded better it’d be less worrisome. Say, maybe, “I’m only interested in the male sex”? I don’t know. More crass way would be saying “I like (insert male genital word here)”. No ambiguity at all! Ultimately though, I think if you fell in romantic love with a transgender male, you might not be concerned as much with what’s in their pants. Maybe you might not be as sexually attracted because of that, but you can still fall in love with other things that make up them. A male or female genital (and everything in between) is one part of a human. There is also a possibility in the future that your transgender male partner could undergo surgery to have their sex reassigned, meaning changing their female genital for a male one. If you really can’t stomach the thought that your partner has a female genital this is one way that might placate your worries (and is probably the goal of the transgender male anyways!).

[@gabriellam3525]

You are right in the sense that everyone can interpret the same data in different ways. But that does not mean that all of those interpretations are equally correct and should be treated the same. So facts are not facts because they are 100% objective but because they are the best interpretation of data we have. And without that there is no way to build a world that makes sense.

[@LEON-Cyborg]

I like that viewpoint. Data varies from person to person. Furthermore, data of any kind is continually updated. Like for example, a new software update to a phone must be downloaded in order to get the latest features/patch.

[@chakritlikitkhajorn8730]

Interpretation is not fact thought. Fact should be just raw data without any interpretation. What is “the best” interpretation is very subjective. And yes, without interpretation there is no way to build a world that make sense. We should be aware that the world we are building in our head might be inaccurate from the get go. I suggest we accept that rather than lying to ourselves that we can build a world that both make sense and timelessly correct.

[@azraphon]

"Interpretation" is the key word, and interpretation requires perspective.

[@shamanictour]

Love this KZbinr. Not just because I feel she’s on my side. But that she throws nobody under the bus making her point. That’s a special talent. That’s the future I want.

[@Thkaal]

Anyone who brings up IQ studies is not a learned person, especially those who make claims about what they signify.

[@Thkaal]

@Shimmy Shai Laugh

[@thiagozlin]

But why? I mean, I do understand that they have many limitations. But there are lots of studies associating them with many things, from life expectancy, to income...

[@nukiradio]

@@thiagozlin But you ought to remember that life expectancy and income are only two axises when the brain itself has hundreds

[@robertroesch770]

@@thiagozlin Yes, but if you take a group of high-income people with access to good health care, then test them on things that are particular to that specific group of people, you'll get really high scores from the high income group. There's a famous (if not urban-legendy) example of an IQ test with yachting terms sprinkled in. Guess who knows about sailing and who doesn't? Guess who scored highest on the "intelligence" test?

[@nonegiven5589]

@@robertroesch770 What is the name of the IQ test with yachting terms? I would like to use it.

[@poposterous236]

let's say, hypothetically, feelings are relevant

[@ikarikid]

So let’s say Ben had some cats, let’s say two or, well let’s say three…

[@fleur5782]

@@ikarikid Let's also say, that in a hypothetical situation the cats are good boys...

[@mbdg6810]

they are in some ways

[@mikhailvasiliev6275]

REEEEEAAALLLYYY hypothetical.

[@ridlr9299]

"Your output is dependant on your input." well said

[@evada4144]

"Sh** in, Sh** out!" is a less sophisticated way to phrase what is hammered in young data scientists.

[@Wabbelpaddel]

Well, can't make gold out of shit.

[@isabelsy]

@@Wabbelpaddel with enough pressure maybe 😅

[@javantm1676]

"Facts don't care about your feelings" Religious, climate change deniers, creationist: "I'm just gonna pretend i never heard that"

[@shloprop4751]

the irony that all the people who say "Facts don't care about your feelings" believe in religion (no offense to religious people btw)

[@lucashardy4481]

@@shloprop4751 what is irrational about being religious?

[@shloprop4751]

@lucashardy4481 nothing irrational. It's just not based on facts. I entirely understand how one is religious. My grandma lost her 2nd kid when my dad was only in high-school. She needs to believe she will see hom again.

[@lucashardy4481]

@@shloprop4751 If something isn’t based on facts it is obviously irrational. Why do you say religion is not fact-based?

[@shloprop4751]

@@lucashardy4481 not necessarily. Music taste is not based on facts, yet it's not irrational

[@artinua4091]

Probably an unintentional detail, but I love how your books are organized by color. It's not the standard way of organizing things, but it's not wrong, and in fact, it looks better for display purposes. Excellent way of illustrating your point.

[@nutelllla_]

hehe pride

[@theaveragecomment1014]

YES, I NOTICED THAT AND IT MADE ME SO HAPPY

[@kapilbusawah7169]

I too order my items by colour using ROYGBIV

[@OurHourglass]

I deeply dislike that system, but I can't really judge... I organize mine by size, which makes about as little sense. You focus on color aesthetic, whereas I focus on ease of book-ending.

[@james-russellgause4735]

He. I saw that, too.

[@CarmenBrunnaDuarte]

Feelings are like cats: They will get in the way, do you like it or not, and you can do little or nothing about it, just acknowledge they are there and try to do you best.

[@nobbynoris]

Love it!!!

[@RegisteredHuman-pk3ed]

And maybe pet the cat too

[@GorbonM]

You don't have to have cats though :p

[@supergobgoblin424]

I preffer dogs. Cats are for women and affeminate males or leftists scum

[@fleur5782]

@@supergobgoblin424 "fellas is it gay to have a small domesticated feline as your companion?"

[@tre12432]

"waaaa facts don't care about your feelingssss" well it's a fact that mask saves lives but the people using this phrase will always complain about wearing one because of their feelings, just saying

[@legendofrandomness2522]

And mEdiCal cOndiTIONSSS

[@natalienatz1903]

@@legendofrandomness2522 AnnNd tHe trrrrRRRRRrrRRrrRRACkiNg dEVIceSs

[@xhantTheFirst]

Not saying that Ben is right, but dude, discrediting what someone says based on something entirely different that, according to you, "the same people also say" is one of the worst way I've heard to discredit someone's words Lose the habit of discrediting people and start discrediting ideas

[@badlydrawnturtle8484]

Facts don't care about your feelings, or my feelings, or anybody else's feelings. I still wear a mask whenever I go out even though I'm fully vaccinated, and Ben Shapiro is a hypocritical idiot who can't follow his own advice to separate feelings from facts. I hope this gives you a second to think about your own biases in connecting completely unrelated ideas and attempting to dismiss one by pointing to something that isn't relevant at all, but I'm not getting my hopes up, because someone who thinks facts care about their own feelings, like you OR Shapiro, aren't going to even consider any information that makes them uncomfortable or upset.

[@tre12432]

@@badlydrawnturtle8484 wait im so confused who this is aimed at

[@stevenricks1703]

"Everywhere we go, everything we do, everything we experience, is touched by human fallibility." That is beautiful and now I want that on my wall.

[@Densoro]

The ‘models’ argument is so important, but the worst part is that opponents will trot out reductive nonsense like, ‘So now NUMBERS are racist???? You’re the real racist! You think they can’t do MATH!!!’

[@MrCmon113]

When you talk about "white" or "western" maths, then yes, you are racist and you think they (non "whites") can't do maths.

[@Densoro]

@@MrCmon113 good job not watching the video

[@satoshinakamoto7253]

she's speaking from a female perspective of instinct, emotion, then reason. ffs

[@maxwibert]

As a pure mathematician, the type of work I'm interested in is quite insulated from the real-world uses and abuses you tend to see in adjacent STEM fields(at least for the foreseeable future). That said, I would say that in my narrow experience in applied math, a lot of the problems you described in this video are not a symptom of math and models, so much a symptom of bad math and naive models. So much of my job is scrutinizing the assumptions I'm making about a problem in exorbitant detail, so if someone is not questioning the data they're feeding their model, they're probably not really doing their job.

[@michamikoajczak9070]

I agree with u, but this video is not about the bad models. It's about people who interpret the data that the objective models give.

[@piotrtoborek2442]

@@michamikoajczak9070 That would be pretty much everyone on mainstream media + 90% of politicians :D EDIT 99% of politician seems more correct ;)

[@Yentzie]

Piotr Toborek That’s everyone. The whole point is that facts cannot speak for themselves they must be interpreted even if that just means deciding which ones are relevant. You aren’t discrediting the media by saying 99% of them interpret data you’re just identifying the biggest challenge and job of being a journalist

[@piotrtoborek2442]

@@Yentzie Yeah, and more often than not they fail miserably (assuming they are even trying). In my eyes they did good job discrediting themselves for the last 10 years. I would love to see that everyone is able to interprate facts with logic and reason while keeping balance between reason and emotions. We need both of these to keep the humanity last and improve.

[@eduardoh.m2072]

I believe this is one of the most dangerous sections of the current Machine Learning Era. Companies should never allow employees who have not been properly trained to deal with data make decisions based on data and mathematical models. I belive only Mathematicians, Physicists and Statisticians have the proper training to actually question not only the data they're working with but also their conclusions to maximum extension. I'm using Machine Learning on my Master's Degree in Physics to model Cancer Cells Methastasis using Statistical Mechanics and I've spent all of my time learning how to question my conclusions. If someone asked me to use my models in a Hospital right now, I would decline right away, because at least I KNOW I'm not ready yet.

[@mitchboland9591]

I used to be yet another one of those “anti-sjw” Shapiro fanboys. I cringe every time I think about that embarrassing part of my life 😔

[@ashsusjsjekwek8282]

Even tho I hate Ben Shaprio I can agree with a lot of things he says & also fuck SJWs

[@magk2524]

@@ashsusjsjekwek8282 if you agree with what he says you're not any better than him

[@remo27]

Did someone hit you over the head with a baseball bat? I mean I would think that would need to happen for you to 'cringe' about being Anti-SJW

[@magk2524]

@@remo27 not anti-sjw, but "anti-sjw" as in "any feminist bad pronouns dumb!!!" type of person

[@Segen_Bell]

Don't worry we all have those times. I was the same with J Peterson. Sheesh I don't know why I even started watching him.

[@CaptainFishEye]

that cat on your chair is the most distinguish gentlemen ive ever seen

[@blackswan1983]

Louder for those in the back!! I have an intersex condition and am so tired of being told to "cry about it" by activists only caring about people like me when we're disposable arguments. Sorry, medical conditions aren't identities.

[@lychen5359]

"medical conditions aren't identities" I disagree. Why can't conditions be part of someone's identity. let's use something like cancer for example, don't you think it's beneficial for patients to build support networks with each other so they don't feel alone in their conditions and for stuff like making their conditions more well known to the general population so they aren't just seen as "broken"

[@theforgetfulalchemist]

@@lychen5359 I have Mosaic Turner's Syndrome and it has definitely informed my identity for good and bad. Some of my best memories are going to the children's hospital with my mother to manage it. On the other hand I still remember the burning shame of being being 14 and denied my HRT by a pharmacist. But good or bad it's part of who I am

[@elodin857]

then why are trans identitarians all around eh?

[@sav2050]

@@lychen5359 Identity should be a choice. Your medical condition, whether it's cancer or whatever, should be something for you to decide whether is or isn't apart of your identity. Not other people.

[@Pingviinimursu]

@@lychen5359 I believe it's a very different thing to say "medical conditions are identities" than "medical conditions can be part of identities", or that "identities can be based on medical conditions". Wheels are most definitely parts of a bike, but wheels aren't bikes. One should not try to build a bike of only wheels. My analogy fails here, but I also believe any possible conditions don't have to be part of one's identity. Even if bikes tend to be more useful with wheels.

[@Purple_Lilith]

"Facts don't care about your feelings," said the man cherry picking facts.

[@timothymclean]

Facts might not care about your feelings, but your feelings don't seem to care much about the facts either.

[@AaronCMounts]

"cherry picking" Big accusation for someone who has presented zero facts.

[@jacobhafar538]

@@AaronCMounts oh, i didn't realize we were in the context of a formal debate or talk show with millions of followers and not a fucking youtube comment section. their bad if they didn't throw in some facts for effect lmao.

[@Darth_Bateman]

Cherry picking facts to support his racist worldview on black people.

[@jacobhafar538]

@Lianhua Xin it’s a comment section. if you genuinely think people are obligated to fully 100% explain their ideas so dumbfucks who don’t know what they’re saying already can understand, it’s not my nor their problem. again, if this were an actual debate, you’d be right, but unfortunately it’s social media.

[@mauchkimberly]

You: I'm going to be looking at a particular set of words... Me: I'm going to be looking at your cat.

[@W3Rn1ckz]

"facts don't care about your feelings bro" (starts spouting blatant misinformation)

[@ComradeLavender]

I love that Rave Dubin is so silly that he's not even worth mentioning.

[@eminatorstudios]

i mean he can't even read properly so trying to argue him or his audience is trying to talk to a wall

[@Colobustaco]

A friendly reminder that illiterate is not an insult (even if someone's ideas are objectionable and their arguments are poorly formed).

[@1900spotato]

Dave Rubin is a literate idiot. I’m sure he can read. I doubt he does read.

[@basementmadetapes]

Dave Rubin is that jar of mayo in the back of the fridge. Half the time u forget he's there, and when u do remember, u also remember u don't even like mayo and who bought that mayo anyway? How does it still exist?

[@JenniferShaoandstuff]

@@halmalcom7382 Don't you mean he reads but grossly misconstrues his "facts" to feed a certain narrative to his audience? Then yes, he technically reads.

[@jacktheflying]

Ben Shapiro D E S T R O Y E D with Empathy and Critical Reading

[@timinator20o0]

Ben Shapiro lectured by fallacy. 😂🙌

[@martinpiekarski1512]

Yeah, such conceited dorks as Shapiro are so annyoing. The moron has the gall to act like he knows it all and all he does is using simple to understand concepts and religious ideas that resonate with right-leaning people.

[@Anasumi]

“Facts don’t care about your feelings” Also Ben: Proceeds to just overwhelm his “debate opponents” with random bullshit that is never facts and just his attempt at looking smart.

[@autobotstarscream765]

That would be the #GishGallop for $500, also nice faun pfp.

[@andu1854]

He talks super fast

[@MEGATONHAMMA]

That’s called gish galloping

[@Anasumi]

@Iron Reagan Ben Shapiro dickrider mad in the comments lmfao, cope & seethe

[@goazer2]

Ah yes the I'm not smart enough to understand what Ben is talking about so he must be lying and wrong argument.

[@maddiemae73]

Things I’ve realized in my short 16 years on this earth: 1. Realism and true objective facts likely exist. We can all agree on that. But it’s what you do with that information that makes us all different 2. There is no reason to have facts without feelings and vice versa. Both are necessary and should be considered. Like that one line from the Barbie Movie. My dad raised me constantly worrying Ben Shapiro’s “facts don’t care about your feelings” and it is such a damaging ideology. Not only for the people the facts are about, but also for the people believing it.

[@chocokittybo]

Ben Shapiro is much like a predictive model: Garbage in, garbage out

[@Savageviking120]

This whole video is garbage

[@ulrikahaggard9923]

@@Savageviking120 bruh

[@MrZauberelefant]

I have a rule: If someone says something that Ben Shapiro says as well, I assume it's incorrect, biased or otherwise unuseable data.

[@JaniHorvat1]

@@MrZauberelefant good rule.

[@tarielkaroldan4106]

@@Savageviking120 someone's feelings got hurt

[@naomiwallace3658]

Thank you, this was an excellent explanation. I recently finished my PhD in Neuroscience and it's so hard to talk to people about how it changed the way that I view science. I still value science, but... it's not the thing that I thought it was before I had to actually do it. Every step of the way, from getting into a grad program, to getting grant funding, to publishing in a journal, etc. etc. is riddled with biases of every kind. Yet when I talk about this with some people, they will decide that science is utterly useless, and miss the nuance. I'm so excited for your next video! I've spent a lot of time learning about science communication, and I'm a big proponent of telling stories. It's amazing the pushback you will get from scientists when you say that, as if the word "stories" was the same as "lies". A lot of researchers have an extremely myopic view of what it means to communicate science, essentially like you should beam a list of facts out of your head and into someone else's. This just causes the gap between science and the public to grow, because the best communicators and the best scientists are rarely, if ever, the same people. I'm so happy that the eyeballs helped me find you, keep up your amazing work!

[@A_Box]

As a graduate student in STEM, I can tell you that at least to me the reason I roll my eyes when somebody uses the word stories is not because of lies but because of baggage, as in unnecessary filler.

[@al.the.]

people who forget there's this *science* called psychology tend to do that... some people do study how we communicate, and there are findings that can help who's genuinely interested... (but in general - different people react to different ways differently, so we need variety of good! approaches) Sure, there are people who :seem: to be talented, but still, some people will find them annoying :) (Neil DeGrasse Tyson type for me)

[@A_Box]

@@al.the. Still, you were saying that telling stories is off-putting because people assume that lies are being told. I am just stating that is indeed off-putting but rather because there is a lot of added baggage.

[@javi7636]

@@A_Box I think that's a great point, and I'm sure many others feel that storytelling as a communication method is inefficient. Personally, my experience has shown that people need to be able to relate information to their personal lives in order to internalize it, and presenting information in the context of how it affects people (like events in a story) makes it memorable and easy to empathize with--assuming it's a good story! I'm very much looking forward to what Ms. Zoe Bee has to say on the matter.

[@HaganeNoGijutsushi]

> Every step of the way, from getting into a grad program, to getting grant funding, to publishing in a journal, etc. etc. is riddled with biases of every kind. Honestly, I see that more as a problem of politics than of science. Scientific research that was still organised a lot more loosely produced incredibly useful results, so capitalist-minded politicians decided "wait, but then if we add more incentives, more competition, more monitoring and short term goals and evaluation metric and every other bullshit you'd use in every other work environment, it'll surely churn out even more useful results!". And so they did, and instead as a result they got a system that does worse, because now everyone has to worry only about the short term, and the metrics have become the goal. Peter Higgs said that by today's standards he would have not been productive enough, and he won a Nobel Prize. By which I don't mean there is not a possible problem or question in terms of how the scientific method itself works, but most of the bullshit we get in academia right now is pushed first from people who don't know jack about science and simply think that alienation and competition somehow make people more productive rather than simply stressing them the fuck out. Same problem with the arts, by the way, both are in some way creative endeavours and both suffer a great deal from the attempt to turn them into reliable money machines putting out finished products at a constant rate.

[@thesoundchalkmakes]

bread shapino is just a cherry picker who dunks on young people who have less confidence than him

[@a.m5909]

@98 bread sharpie

[@thonk7611]

bend shampoo

[@nevergonnagiveyouup1180]

@@thonk7611 Bed Torpedo

[@cockroach1968]

@@nevergonnagiveyouup1180 Beth Tostito?

[@wiiabee]

@@cockroach1968 breath incognito

[@b0t3141]

Ever since I thought of myself as a critical thinker, I believed that emotions and feelings were on the way for me to become a impartial, "better human being", and that facts mattered the most even before knowing these dark web guys defended not only this but a whole bunch of nonsense narratives. At first it really attracted me. Thankfully tho seeing the counterparts of it, especially on this video, really helped me see the full picture, and all the stuff i know frightening little that honestly makes even more interested in learning (somewhat hard to happen with a standard high school student). You're the best teacher i never had, hope you see this, thanks!

[@PolitikPolitik-fh2qc]

She's a provably terrible teacher. Her examples are of obviously wrong examples. That if Ben ever used would be torn apart. And people smarter than her providing a real debunking of been is leftist coping.

[@daridgely]

"Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them." -- David Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature (1739)

[@GorbonM]

Never read any of his work, but this Hume guy got it real close to how I see this. Ie. Reason is merely a tool that allows us to achieve our desires. Emotions are not irrational in of themselves, they shift your desires around and therefore act differently. It is just that people generally train their faculties of reason in the "neutral" emotions. In my case, I have trained it most in the state of "Serendipity". It is the state which I inhabit most of the time when I am by myself and is my favorite state. When people engage in emotions they haven't trained their rationality in, they often feel as if they aren't able to act as proficiently as they would. This is similar to trying to switch hands on a guitar or painting with your teeth if you haven't trained for this specifically. The brain can transfer ability between tasks, but this is limited. To get the best results you would need to train yourself in different emotional states. This would in effect, allow you to master being effective while also employing different emotional states. That being said you will probably still disagree with yourself in a different emotional state (as that state will necessarily have different goals from whatever state you consider your ground state)

[@daridgely]

Life is too short to read Hegel.

[@simonpetrikov3992]

@@thotslayer9914 that's an interesting concept

[@Ailun__]

Wonderfully put. Anyone worth their salt in any scientific field knows that biases must always be factored and taken into account. “Facts don’t care about your feelings” really is rich coming from the people who constantly promote pseudoscience that goes against all scientific consensus though.

[@morgannyan2738]

Water is wet, You: No! Thats Pseudoscience!

[@emmakane6848]

@@morgannyan2738 If you think a fact is self evident and do not express reasoning behind it, it doesn’t matter if research bares it out. What does is if that research takes into account assumptions and biases, first. They said people that use the phrase above often also use pseudoscience, because they do not care to put in the time and effort to think about internalized biases. Funny how you heard that and immediately implied that, unilaterally, there is no one that is using those tactics instead of saying how the other commenter was generalizing too much. You could have said that some people do that while others, possibly like yourself, don’t. But no, you made a joke that says they do not comprehend reality while not addressing their other points. Which reduces the credibility of your logical reasoning skills.

[@morgannyan2738]

@@emmakane6848 Yo chill Karen, it aint that deep it was just a joke, why you gotta write an entire book? Who hurt you?

[@duetopersonalreasonsaaaaaa]

@@morgannyan2738 you: hey stop don't write all of that it proves me wrong it was just a prank bro :(

[@morgannyan2738]

@@duetopersonalreasonsaaaaaa cringe

[@hylexia]

As someone that has been an avid Ben Shapiro disliker for many years, I've always had a hard time with that statement of his, and you've actually done a great job at adding nuance that makes his argument less infallible.

[@966aAad]

There was this joke my dad tells that goes: A person goes to a mathmatican , an engineer and a statistician and asks the same question, "what is 2+2" Mathmatican: it is 4 Engineer: it is somewhere in between 3,99 and 4,01 Statistician: what do you want it to be?