Getting Views with Science and Rhetoric | An Analysis of Veritasium

[@MedlifeCrisis]

As a science communicator that spends a lot of time thinking and talking about science communication, I found this really interesting. Many thanks 🙂

[@WritingwithAndrew]

Glad to hear it--thanks!

[@charltonrodda]

Just a comment fairly early in the video: A lot of people, like myself, watch longer essay-like videos like this without our eyes glued to the screen, and the skull's text bubble, while a cool idea, required me to pause and go back multiple times because I missed what the skull said. Watching this way may not be something you want to cater to, but I thought I'd mention it in case you didn't consider it.

[@BatteryCoverMissing]

Yes it wouldn't be too difficult to have the skull's speech rendered with text to speech. Great idea for those just listening.

[@vincenttavani6380]

Totally agree! Maybe make the skull sound like Geoff on Craig Ferguson.

[@chrisdsouza8685]

Agree with you most heartily. I watched for about 3 minutes and found the skull business unbearable. Just for the record, I have never given up on a Veritasim video, even if I couldn't understand it.

[@lemoncholly]

Seconding this. I generally didnt find it worth going back to anyhow. The content before and after was much batter, anyway.

[@Wyattporter]

Having information presented _only_ as text on screen is also terrible accessibility for blind users!

[@joeeeee256]

Tom Nicholas's video on Veritasium's Self-Driving Cars video is when it all clicked for me. "An Element of Truth" has never been a more apt channel slogan haha!

[@AndreAlforque]

I'm completely awestruck by your analysis, especially since I've followed Derek @Veritasium for such a long time. Thank you for the rhetoric that rhetoric plays such an important role of the success of educational content!

[@WritingwithAndrew]

Thanks a lot!

[@eqwerewrqwerqre]

I want to personally thank you for making this channel. I hadn't until recently considered why there was so much more science than humanities on KZbin. I kinda figured it was just my taste but i went looking and rarely found and comparably large channels. There's a couple history people beginning to arise but i know near nothing about rhetoric, literature, uhhh and the other stuff. So i really appreciate you making such a good video about this. This is the perfect bridge video to bring in those science people to learn something about rhetoric. Also, the real wonder i got from the taste of what is undoubtedly a vast body of rhetorical knowledge is just how much more you must know about the words I've just written than i do. It makes me want to know more and be a more informed communicator. Thanks, subscribed.

[@WritingwithAndrew]

Thanks so much! I discovered rhetoric by chance, and I almost immediately asked, "Why isn't everyone talking about this all the time?!" It's a fascinating (and useful) discipline, and there's always room for more curious minds!

[@trismegistus3461]

In other words, you were in an algo bubble.

[@ムャlechat]

i would love to see analysis of numberphile development as a channel which isnt on the first glance moved from professor with nonspecialist approach. with such little difference the difference we able to notice is the most important one i guess

[@WritingwithAndrew]

Ooh, that would be interesting--thanks for the idea!

[@graf_paper]

As a math teacher who loves your channel, this would make my year. ​@@WritingwithAndrew

[@WM-ln4dz]

This is a fantastic analysis. This is the first video I've seen of yours but it sums up a lot of scattered thoughts I've had about channels I used to enjoy, like Veritasium. Honestly, I've actively tried to train the algorithm to stop showing me these cynical, newer videos. My academic background is in economics and I've been trying to watch hard science content on here (e.g., Sean Carroll) and it becomes somewhat difficult as these channels get Mr Beastified. Excitement is such an important thing in presentation, I find even MIT open course content is really digestible *if* the presenter is genuinely excited about the topic.

[@WritingwithAndrew]

Thanks! It's interesting to think about how creators and platforms evolve (maybe my next major project...someday 😅)

[@zachklopfleisch8501]

I've noticed that knowledgeable people talking about stuff they're excited about really seem to do well no matter how esoteric their topic. Now I'm wondering if that's just a subset of "application" and "wonder"? For example, C&Rsenal will spend an hour going into elaborate detail explaining the history and mechanics of a pistol that was used by 200 members of the Romanian Gendarme in WWI, and it's fascinating because you can tell they're really invested in it and took the time to understand how all those boring details fit together. I also recently spent 10 minutes entranced by a a disembodied voice explaining _one_ facet of a seam ripper.

[@WritingwithAndrew]

Ooh, I bet there is--seeing someone else's fascination can be infectious. Their enthusiasm becomes a kind of argument for the value of the subject

[@Lickmuffin]

Was that seam ripping video Sew Anastasia? Nobody watches Sew Anastasia for her rhetorical skills.

[@grantdraus7449]

If you want the epitome of this, you should check out @Esoterica!

[@MatthewPherigo]

It's interesting how this video is mostly praising how effective Veritasium's techniques are, while most of the comments are saying "this validates why I stopped watching Veritasium!" I wonder what percentage of these comments come from people who understand the praise but are legitimately being poorly served by his content, versus people who just have a grudge against the vibe of popular science.

[@WritingwithAndrew]

Indeed it is. There does seem to be a thread of "science popularizing isn't science" in some of them (which, minus the implicit hierarchy, is more or less my point), but it's interesting, either way, to see the evidence of how a shift in rhetorical strategy brought in more of one kind of viewer while also causing a consequent loss among other viewers

[@wjrasmussen666]

Over time, I felt I was getting less value per unit of time watched.

[@waiterminute]

Your channel is just a gem, and I am a huge fan of the rhetoric related series and now also having watched Veritasium before, this video is a welcome surprise, and well articulated too! I find your videos on rhetoric thought provoking and honestly my favorite, hope to put them into practice one day also today's back and forth was hilarious! Thanks for your good work✨

[@WritingwithAndrew]

Thanks for the kind words--good to know you're enjoying the rhetoric stuff!

[@Wyattporter]

I stopped watching Veritasium after he was exposed for accepting money from Google to do undisclosed promotion

[@kmoney10101]

Wait what? When! I tried looking it up but couldn’t find anything, but would love to learn more if you’ve got a lead :o

[@anonymes2884]

Must admit, i'm actually _less_ of a fan of the more recent Veritasium material partly _because_ of the presentation (and partly because I think Dr Muller actually _does_ cross the line into misrepresenting topics more often than i'd prefer). But then I have an undergrad degree in physics so i'm clearly not the target audience - the numbers tell us his content is way more popular now than when it was drier and less well produced but (i'd argue) more accurate and even more representative of real science (a lot of which is, much as I love it, carefully _un_ spectacular, incremental and yep, even boring :). I agree though that in general, a lot of science communication on KZbin actually _isn't_ communicating science and is more "science cheerleading". And I guess if pro-science entertainment with a dash of inspiring future scientists is the point then it may succeed. But if increased science literacy or greater understanding is the aim, I highly doubt the effectiveness of most KZbin content (mostly it's "factoid" heavy and skates off the surface IMO. I doubt for instance that most viewers of e.g. an average Veritasium video - not to single the channel out, plenty are similar - could recall any newly encountered scientific principles presented within it even a day or two later).

[@WritingwithAndrew]

Interesting thoughts--and I can sympathize with unspectacular, incremental, and boring: I ended up in writing and rhetoric precisely because I realized I even liked the boring parts of it 😅 But I think I'd agree that a lot of this kind of content is probably more about cheerleading in a sense. Maybe not all of them, but I know some popularizers/communicators see themselves as either inspiring people to pursue science (rather than teaching them to do it) or bolstering public support for science

[@InforSpirit]

This is one of those when you know more than KZbinr and can count all mistakes of one video. It's really creates the question, what else is wrong when topic is not your main intrest? Last one for me was number 37 where there was too much of hand waving to fit math to 37 (0.37 is not same as 0.367879... it is saying 37 = 37/100 ) Or misreading the context of that one hacker culture paper (37 was conversational substitute for random number, so much not random that everyone would know it is surrogate.) I would pass it if it was mainly about human pattern recognation and psychology, but it wasn't. Cheerleading is best when it's correcting some common misinterpretations. Like cold goes to heat but it really is other way. (human experience vs. reality). Or topic marketing: "Did you know origami, Have you heard of infinity?" But there is content production problem of limited unique items of certain level (Tom Scott-dilemma: In next year we need to invade area 51 to go place you never seen...)

[@garrettrinquest1605]

As someone who doesn't have any sorry of science degree, I feel the same about things being dumbed down. I like simplification, but not at the expense of losing it

[@matthewglenguir7204]

This video has gotten slowly but surely becoming one of my favorites in this platform.

[@AsuraSantosha]

I suspect that many of your subscribers found your channel via your poetry content, which seems to get more views than your more academically focused content, such as tips for writing good essays. And I, of course, love the poetry content, but I also really like these kinds of videos where we get to see the application of knowing your audience, or crafting your argument a certain way which can be applicable in other fields and even everyday life situations. I say keep it up! And thanks for the enlightening video!

[@WritingwithAndrew]

Hey thanks--I really appreciate it!

[@fredrickcampbell8198]

​@@WritingwithAndrewActually, kind of proves this video's point, doesn't it?

[@Abhishek_78]

That was quite an insightful observation. I have watched several videos from Derek, but never realized the underlying theme of "wonder" was pulling me in. Makes me wonder if I would have continued to watch his videos, if he did not present his videos the way he does now. And by the way, this WAS fun !!

[@WritingwithAndrew]

Thanks a lot--I'm glad to hear I wasn't the only one having fun 😆

[@gever]

Andrew, I particularly enjoyed the way that your video is itself epideictic, but we only see that once you give us the lens to look back to when you shared a sense of wonder and application. A technique that I use (and abuse) in my best talks is "plant and payoff". I learned about this watching movies with my father and then in more detail in screenwriting classes. Your video got me wondering if "plant and payoff" is one of a whole class of rhetoric structural elements that I'm not aware of. Also, thanks for introducing me to the term "epideictic" that is a new way of looking at communication.

[@WritingwithAndrew]

Hey, thanks--we're all having fun when we get to use words like epideictic 😉 But, yeah, I think setting up and managing expectations is a major rhetorical concern, and it certainly shows up a lot in storytelling circles (often via Mr. Chekhov)

[@NondescriptMammal]

The biggest problem with science content on KZbin lately, is that there is a recent proliferation of AI generated "science" channels, most of which are created simply to generate income. Many of these videos contain intentionally sensationalized misinformation for the sole purpose of luring viewers who don't know enough to realize they are being misinformed.

[@WritingwithAndrew]

Oof, yeah, that's a real concern

[@foobarf8766]

I call it shitfluencing: when the content is about making cash and the rest becomes secondary. KZbin rewards the behaviour. Can't watch Veratasium it makes me feel pain, an element of deception with all the acting. Descartes' reductionism can be taken too far, another word that that might describe Veratasium is condescending. His '96 million ' comment completely inane, ignores the scales often encountered in physics and microbiology too. But there is also great content here, yours included! A video on the nuance between sarcasm and cynicism could be good!

[@2nd_ntr]

I have been trying my hardest to figure out how to pass on my knowledge of commercial real estate investing and this just opened the flood gates! Thank you!

[@quakeknight9680]

I was expecting you to have a British accent. Now you're like someone who worked on Manhattan project

[@jammysmears4077]

This is very interesting. I've gone off Veritasium in recent years. There is a feeling of cynicism and smugness I get from him. Also, I stopped taking him at face value around the time of his dandruff shampoo ad masquerading as science and that one about bacteria on dishcloths.

[@WritingwithAndrew]

Interesting--when I did the project initially, I think he was just starting to pivot again. I'm less familiar with his most recent content, but it sounds like there's a shift in the way it frames his relationship with his audience

[@NondescriptMammal]

When he titles a video "Why You Should Want Driverless Cars On Roads Now", and it turns out that he is being paid for that video by Waymo, a company who is trying to implement driverless taxi services in major cities, I no longer felt I could rely on his sense of objectivity.

[@jammysmears4077]

@@NondescriptMammal yes! That one too. That's a really clear example.

[@1TieDye1]

@@NondescriptMammalthat’s disappointing. Dang

[@hwithumlaut8288]

I like this video because you are a analysing social media figure you are looking at something really significant to real people’s life. How rhetoric actually takes place in the world.

[@WritingwithAndrew]

Thanks!

[@zac666]

I love a good analysis and I feel like there’s not much content out there that is doing what you have in this video!

[@WritingwithAndrew]

Hey thanks!

[@El-Mobtade2]

Extremely great video I honestly cant remember the last time I saw a great video like this really great analysis Like this was just extremely entertaining to hear ❤

[@WritingwithAndrew]

Thanks, that's very kind!

[@derenou]

I can't express all my thoughts about this video in all completeness because of lack of english language knowledge, so I decided just to leave this comment in order to support this suddenly discovered (god praise the algorithms) wonderful channel.

[@WritingwithAndrew]

You're very kind--thanks!

[@kipper1668]

This was such an interesting video and our introduction to the field of rhetoric, which we suspect might be a new favorite subject of ours! We've always been enthralled by communication in its many forms, and we have many ideas that we really want to share but have so far struggled to communicate with other humans, so it seems like rhetoric has much in the way of both wonder and application for us ^_^ we'll definitely be watching more of your videos and looking forwards to what you make next! -A

[@WritingwithAndrew]

Thanks--glad to hear it!

[@TheCommaChameleonLit]

Wow. Just wow. Epideictic. Thank you so much for this. This is gold mine :)

[@WritingwithAndrew]

Hey, you bet! Thanks!

[@TristoMegistos]

I loved that you used rhetoric to analyse a real world down to the earth example.

[@WritingwithAndrew]

Thanks--that's more or less the goal!

[@Joblerone]

This is my first time on the channel, but I gotta say, I wish more people were doing your line of work. As a fiction writer specializing in fantasy and scifi, I find myself in the same situation as science communication, but I feel compassion for science, because they can't just put boobs on a cool physics concept and call it a day. Nonetheless, I hope to learn and improve while I peruse your channel, as lord knows the listicle format is aimed at someone other than me

[@WritingwithAndrew]

Hey thanks--I've certainly got more writing stuff than science stuff to peruse (believe it or not 😆)

[@bearcubdaycare]

And a good way to pull people in to a video about rhetorical strategies is to reference their use in a popular channel that the viewer may have seen, or heard about. Nicely done.

[@WritingwithAndrew]

Hey thanks!

[@ajcossey]

This is the first video ive seen from this channel, but 1 minite in and i trust this absolute nerd with my life.

[@WritingwithAndrew]

Thanks--I'll try to honor that trust 😆

[@muscovyducks]

This was great - should be day one viewing for science teachers!

[@bensyversen]

Thank you for this video. I really appreciate the analysis and I'll be thinking about how to apply it to scripting my math videos. There's something else that jumped out to me in the examples that you highlighted: the relationship between the viewer and the host is different. In the early videos, Derek is positioned as either the knowledgeable grad student or the "teacher on the street" -- in both cases, he is a character who is NOT a "stand-in" for the audience. He knows more than the audience and is trying to "teach" them something. In the later videos, he says things like "I had a lot of questions..." and recites a list of questions that are presumably similar to questions the audience themselves might have. So he's found a way to make himself a guide or even a proxy for the audience instead of appearing to be the expert (despite the fact that he in fact is "an expert"!).

[@WritingwithAndrew]

Yes! This is something else I noticed in the larger project (but didn't really mention here): a lot of popularizers step away from the "expert" role and instead work as a guide or go-between, giving the audience access to other experts. It's an interesting pattern (and may explain why so many academics are uncomfortable doing it 😆)

[@bensyversen]

@@WritingwithAndrew Yes. It's occurred to me that the audience is much happier if the structure helps them feel "smart" or "in the know," instead of feeling that they are being "taught to." Movies and narrative fiction do this kind of thing all the time ... for example when the audience knows something that a character doesn't know, and they delight in watching the character figure it out. Making the host a stand in for the audience rather than a teacher-like character can probably promote a similar kind of experience. But you're right that for many academics it's likely not a comfortable role to embody.

[@Huwbacca]

I'm a scientist and have a long-standing interest in storytelling both fictional and science comms. This is fascinating. I would *love* to learn more about this. It's such an engaging problem, how to grab people and pull them through the story you want to lay out. I always try to use fiction writing properties, like... literally like Chekhov's Gun type principles where the findings I want to end with, are presented early on, but it's always a fun task.

[@WritingwithAndrew]

Very cool! Look at Chekhov and his gun showing up all over the place 😆 There's a lot of good stuff out there on science comms--and probably some more from me on the way, too

[@Huwbacca]

@@WritingwithAndrew excellent! Re:checkovs gun, haha yes it does! Before I got into more formal ways of describing story telling I used to teach it to my students as the following "three act" structure to presenting or writing science: Tell them what youre going to tell them Tell them it Tell them what you told them. Always feels like it goes better if the audience are expecting what you're about to say. Sometimes I get questions of "what about X" that are my very next slide/section and I adore when that happens, means it's working.

[@WritingwithAndrew]

Ha, you gotta love when it's on the next slide--very nice

[@tripwire202]

I would love to read more about the neuroscience of story. One thing is strange - stories that try to capture my attention as forcibly and early as possible rarely do. They feel like a product or an advertisment more than a story to me. I end up bored due to lack of investment even though plenty of things are technically going on. Would love to know the mechanics behind that. I love action heavy, even frenetic books but if every chapter feels manufactured to be a cliffhanger at the expense of character, satisfaction, and plot, I'n out. Cheap tactics.

[@tripwire202]

You might enjoy Trope Talks as a fun avenue of idea exploration! They have many examples of recurring patterns in stories.

[@pinecubes]

awesome video :) i hadnt heard of rhetorical analysis since an age 9 persuasive speech assignment, but this video got me really interested to learn more, especially as a mathematician with no end of troubles sharing the joy with peers who haven't studied it! for a couple of the quotes i had to pause and exit the video to look up definitions for epitomize, exigence & epideictic, so maybe flashing definitions would help a layperson like me in those rare cases, but otherwise this was very engaging and accessible. thanks!

[@WritingwithAndrew]

Hey, thanks--for kind words and the suggestion. I'll keep it in mind

[@doodoo66]

I stopped watching veritasium after he was wrong like 3 times in a row. Then he handled being wrong badly.

[@32rq]

The Poynting vector video... he picks up a second order effect and treats it like it's the only thing happening, and everyone who disagrees is wrong. Off-putting, and I unsubscribed, haven't seen any of his videos since.

[@TlalocTemporal]

​@@32rq-- That and claiming physical, electrical, and hydraulic systems aren't good enough representations of each other despire the math being *identical.* It's incredibly rare that the math agrees at such a large scare, but that's not good enough for even a demonstration? If Derk from Veristablium can be so confidently wrong, how can I trust anything he says?

[@MrKrtek00]

Good video. I like how superficial your knowledge about science and you fully embrace it.

[@WritingwithAndrew]

Gee thanks lol... 😅

[@AdrianBoyko]

16:04 It’s very rare for you to see 2.15x10^25 of anything

[@harrisbinkhurram]

Not sure how I ended up here, but I am hooked, subscribed.

[@WritingwithAndrew]

Me neither, but I'm glad you did--thanks!

[@nuance9000]

Same here. The algorithm is absolved (prolly high like to views, also hits my science + writing KZbin habits)

[@parksideevangelicalchurch2886]

Is it a good rhetorical strategy to ask viewers to split a dialogue by reading one half (in thought bubbles coming from a golden skull) and listen to the other half in normal speech? Personally, I found it much more difficult to follow the flow of thought in those sections and found them irritating rather than amusing.

[@demos113]

Thanks for explaining why i ended up hating Veritasium and stopped watching his work. 😁👍

[@agranero6]

4:00 It was Rutherford that "came with the idea" specially if you mention that the nucleus us far smaller than the atom.

[@Broken_robot1986]

Veratasium did a video where he called Mr Beast to ask for advice, and it sounded to me like he suggested not having any shame and to do anything for views so i stopped watching him. Thanks for explaining better what actually has happened with the channel, makes a lot of sense. It's not for me but at least I can understand why it's gone in the direction it has without being cynical.

[@randall.chamberlain]

I stopped following Veritasium 3 years ago when it was evident he shifted his content from mostly science to just basically media circus.

[@luizuccc]

I would disagree with you. I used to not enjoy his videos a lot, but somewhat recently I saw the one on Shor's algorithm and, as someone who is currently doing his PhD on quantum information theory, was blown away by how good it was. I swear that it still is the only good explanation of quantum computation I've ever seen anywhere that doesn't require knowing years and years of mathematics (and I've seen plenty). His video was so deep that even I, someone working on the field for 3,5 years, learned a few things. If you take who his main public is, it is extremely impressive.

[@EricSchmidt-m7s]

I hope you recognize that this video does not denigrate veritasium. It's just a critique of the rhetorical methods used which is so successful.

[@preussischblau]

There is some valid criticism to be levied here regardless of the way Randall put it. Watch his video on self-driving and the obvious conflict of interest.

[@tomkoziol141]

As a mathematician, I found his explanation of Godel's Incompleteness Theorems to be a disappointing but common misinterpretation.

[@asilap]

⁠​⁠@@tomkoziol141 Care to elaborate? What was the disappointing part? Could you describe the common misinterpretation? I like reading comments but your comment was cut short

[@HumanFellaPerson]

A bit of critique would have been welcomed here. Can someone go to extreme with the rhetorical spectacle?

[@nuance9000]

This is a great video. Well done. Going to need to watch your backlog to brush up on my rhetoric. Somewhat coincidentally, I see these problems with scientific communicators and conspiracy theorists. It's like a meme when there's another video about flat earth, the moon landing, aliens, the electric universe, etc.. But it all comes down to rhetoric, conspiracy theorists and scientists use the same rhetorical styles. It can be a huge problem when scientists get caught in their own dogma, and worship a pseudoscience (alchemy is an ancient art of science), but their rhetoric is the same--

[@WritingwithAndrew]

Thanks a lot! It's like the ancients said: Learn rhetoric so that you don't end up the victim of (bad) rhetoric

I haven't finished your video but I'm going to comment now before I forget: I used to be a Veritasium fan, loved the videos, but one day in a video something happened in the way he was phrasing something, the way he said it was I felt it like: "No, you are stupid!" After that he played the music he always plays like in a sense of wonder and discovery, after indirectly saying that the public watching is an idiot but not him! After that I haven't been able to watch any of his videos, his rethoric doesn't work with me because I feel a subtle dumb treatment of his public, I suddenly began to notice that all his videos are this way and that he always presents himself like having a scientific high ground above everyone else. The fact that you showed (unbeknownst to me) a video where he treats people this way and then the audience points that to him and then he tries to do some damage control, just makes me feel that I was not wrong about how I perceived him from that moment. I felt cheated. I now watch other science and math content (Stand Up Maths, Computerphile) where the presenter doesn't have that cadence with its public.

[@Cameron606]

this is great content, very fitting for the platform and overall fun stuff. I would like to try making some educational videos of my own and applying some rhetorical devices to them, so I was wondering if there are any books / authors you could recommend that are fitting for this general direction of KZbin / social media rhetoric. I know you cover some stuff on Burke, who I have been wanting to get into, so would any his writings that would be useful here? Regardless, thank you for the vid.

[@BAGELMENSK]

A trillion facts surround you in any given moment of your life, determining which of those matter could be considered the exercise of conciousness itself.

[@kipper1668]

It's deliciously ironic that rhetoricists have apparently done a poor job at rhetorically communicating their own ideas, HAH! -Ayekko

[@WritingwithAndrew]

Ha, isn't it?

[@TommyMedal]

I write for the purpose of teaching music. Veritasium is informative writing for entertainment, but I'm doing informative writing to solve the audience's problems, and make them feel like they know which way to go. I'd love your rhetorical analysis on that.

[@WritingwithAndrew]

I'll put it on the list! Teaching and popularizing are similar, but they're different in meaningful ways too

[@flipina]

​@@WritingwithAndrew That would be excellent! There's been discourse on Twitter about how journal and research articles are written, revealing a misunderstanding of objectives for certain types of writing.

[@Cameron606]

this is great content, very fitting for the platform and overall fun stuff. I would like to try making some educational videos of my own and applying some rhetorical devices to them, so I was wondering if there are any books / authors you could recommend that are fitting for this general direction of KZbin / social media rhetoric. I know you cover some stuff on Burke, who I have been wanting to get into for a little bit, so would any his writings be useful here? Regardless, thanks for the vid!

[@WritingwithAndrew]

Thanks! I think part of the difficulty (which I briefly get into here) is that I haven't seen a lot of good rhetoric-based stuff out there beyond academic work. So do I think Burke's stuff would be helpful? Yes--but Burke's actual writing can be a chore to get through sometimes. And, of course, there's all kinds of stuff out there about KZbin and social media, but most of it isn't connected to rhetoric. And that's at least part of what got me to start making videos--I wished (and wish) there were more rhetoric resources out there!

[@iamdigory]

Are you a popularization popularizer? That's awesome, as long as you don't become a populist.

[@WritingwithAndrew]

Ha! Maybe I am--I like the sound of it 😆

[@beangobernador]

he became science mr beast 👍 very original I know

[@garrettrinquest1605]

I would love to see you compare Veritasium style "science is cool" videos to some content that's more genuinely educational like the stuff on engines from Driving4Answers

[@WritingwithAndrew]

The short answer is that I think we'd see something more like early Veritasium--but I've got more to say about this topic, so I'll this in mind going forward

[@Sugar3Glider]

I've been wanting to take a deck of cards and turn it into a means to discuss politics. Wanna help?

[@McConnor28]

I've thought you my ideas, let me know if you received them.

[@WritingwithAndrew]

It's been a little cloudy today, so that may contribute to some delays. I will keep a neuron out for them, though

[@axelanderson2030]

I love analysis of rhetoric!

[@Bussysaka]

My question about these type of content creators is: do they know about this like..? are they aware that rhetoric plays a role in their viewership..

[@WritingwithAndrew]

I don't know for sure. My best guess would be that they do have a sense of techniques that work better than others, but I would surprised if they were familiar with the rhetorical theory behind why they work (since rhetoricians haven't been as proactive as the science crowd about sharing what they know)

[@mostunicorn]

I think youtubers start their videos like that because they need to hook the audience within seconds. It's hard to say weather they present in such a way because they know the theory behind making an engaging lecture or because they just iteratively optimised for attention/retention rates on the backend of youtube dashboards. Your observations could save someone a lot of time. Are you planning to use these strategies? It seems you didn't use them for this video.

[@MT-hy6pr]

Well, that was unexpectedly enjoyable.

[@WritingwithAndrew]

Well, I'm glad to hear it. Thanks

[@jordanwardan7588]

the malicious skull is my goat

[@kaputmortuum]

As I should be...as I should be...

[@jonathanlevy9635]

Your explanation is very thoroughly done but it's hard to claim what specifically leads to more views. one view of a video is just another person who looked at the thumbnail and found it interesting enough to press it. another thing to take into consideration is that it is mainly proportional to the number of people already subscribed to the channel, and this number is is raising most of the time. when not having "bad performing" videos from similar times or statistics on when people stop his videos, you miss the important part of the proof. another important part is the evaluation of success. I can say for myself that I stopped watching Veritassium videos since he began focusing mainly on the clickbaits and the rhetorics of his videos and and less of the actual level of science presented. did he suffer any decline in views because of that? of course not! even the opposite has happened! those tools help attract viewers, especially younger viewers, and the facts talk for themselves but I would argue they lead to further less information being transmitted to the audience. this is why maybe on paper Veritasium has done miracles but in reality he probably lost the most of his core audience along the way.

[@WritingwithAndrew]

All the variables that go into the numbers add complexity to the issue for sure, but there's an unmistakable shift in rhetorical strategy that's at least correlated more broadly with the growth of Veritasium (and other channels). I can't help but wonder, to your point, whether the change is a loss of the core audience or a clarification of rhetorical purpose that comes with experience (creating less textbook-y and more personality-driven content). Where the goal may be (thinking of popularizers generally) to turn people onto science, is losing the "core" audience of people who are already invested not a loss but exactly the point--in order to find a broader and even less specialized audience? Do viewers who initially watch because a channel makes them feel smart then tune out when a channel loses that intellectual exclusivity and broadens its appeal? (Some of the comments on this video seem to provide some initial evidence that that may be the case...) I don't have the answers, but it's interesting to think about

[@Sugar3Glider]

8:30 Mr. Bean, essentially?

[@Shadow05eth]

I used to love Veritasium and this channel is one of the things tvat inspired me to become a physicist. But sadly, a few years ago I stopped watching Dereks videos especially because of how he presents his information now... This channel was "Mr.Beastified" into oblivion and instead of being more entrtaining it feels really condesending. I don't need to see Derek getting buried in concrete to be intersted in what he says. It feels like key jangling of some sort... Another big problem for me is his constant change of thumbnails and titles for his videos. For me it shows that his channel is no longer about science and only about maximizing views.

[@WritingwithAndrew]

Interesting--I've seen a few comments about his more recent pivot, which I briefly mentioned only because I think it was just starting to happen when I was doing my research (and after that I had to take a good long break from science KZbin in general 😅) Maybe something to look into

[@David-qs7yv]

Very interesting

[@zyansheep]

6:54 HEGELIAN DIALECTIC DETECTED (well, not a perfect match, but same spirit :)

[@WritingwithAndrew]

Close enough for rhetoric! 😜

[@ThomasFawkes]

Academics saying that the masses won't understand them? "A clown circus of self congratulation?" ... Sounds like my English department where I got my English degree!

[@natheyshiro4119]

You just made a cross road video. Using another youtuber name in your video title made you discoverable and the algoritme want more.

[@Zackzickel]

8:51 well they don’t have the time, do they?

[@pacificatoris9307]

Thank you for the very informative piece. But, it seems to me that more scientific approach is needed, like cognitive or neuroscience, instead of just rhetorics.

[@azertyQ]

Nice Skull... V... is so insufferable... I stopped even considering watching his videos after the "speed of electricity" series.

[@kaputmortuum]

You know, I am a nice skull...

[@raptor4916]

>not alot of humanities content There's a ton of humanities content on KZbin if you consider history to be humanities, id say I watch more humanities than I do science, which is odd considering I'm a STEMlord.

[@jseales86]

Can I do a PhD with you? I already have one in science...

[@WritingwithAndrew]

Let's do it! 😆

[@eaglebald]

The host of Veritasium, backed by a team of producers and writers, is a science communicator, not a scientist - his PhD is in science education. Like many science communicators, Veritasium engages in storytelling, because it’s little more than a business motivated by profit-making. Veritasium viewers are deluded into thinking they’ve gained knowledge, which they find emotionally comforting. Storytelling is a net negative for society; it’s a clever way to commodify a natural resource, while manipulating and indoctrinating a populace into compliance in order to maintain hierarchies. From the Bible to advertising, storytelling is an effective weapon of dominance for those in power.

[@2o3ief]

What natural resource?

[@waterfallfaerie]

Storytelling is not inherently oppressive or violent in the same way that metals are not inherently oppressive or violent-a story can be made to be abusive or dehumanizing in the same way that metal can be made into a sword or bullets; however, a story can also be made to be liberating, informative, and illuminating in the same way that metal can be made into a cooking pot or a musical instrument. It's humans who turn _things_ into _weapons_ , but we also have the ability to turn those _things_ into _valuable assets to humanity_ . I agree that story can be dangerous, as it is with religious myths which are combined with moral codes which compel humans to mistreat others, but story can be, has been, and is currently a valuable asset used to invoke new persepectives and to encourage humans to question the oppression and structures of power around them and around the world-it would be an ignorant travesty to suggest that all storytelling and the entire history of world literature has only been an effort to assert dominance by those in power. There is a whole realm of writing and storytelling that exists to illuminate historical and contemporary abuse of humans and the timeless human susceptibility to various commonly agreed upon evils and various commonly agreed upon goods. Some of these texts were written explicitly to open minds to perspectives that are not presented in hard science, which very often has its own way of keeping those in power in power without even using storytelling. Google, "stories about questioning the status quo" or "stories about abuse of power" and you'll find a treasure trove of stories that are absolutely net positives for society.

[@MDNQ-ud1ty]

Maybe just bots?

[@konLVdon]

seus vídeos são cringe dum bom jeito

[@WritingwithAndrew]

Que generosidade! Obrigado

[@marvin.marciano]

​@@WritingwithAndrewvocê sabe português ou traduziu a mensagem anterior?

[@nts4906]

I was going to watch this but the lack of catchy rhetoric lost my interest.

[@deliciousvegans4505]

Humanities content takes effort to understand whereas science content can just blow your mind with random facts that you think you understand but actually do not.

[@NondescriptMammal]

Unfortunately, a lot of science content presents hypotheses and theories as if they are scientifically established facts, which can be a bit misleading to the general public.

[@sturrum5250]

@@NondescriptMammal I'm not sure I agree. From my experience it is usually the opposite: century old and well-established theories are presented as "mind-blowing" or cutting edge. As a result, science communicators talk about general relativity the same way they do string theory.

[@NondescriptMammal]

@@sturrum5250 You're right, I've seen both actually. As far as string theory goes, there is no empirical scientific evidence to support it, but they hate to give up on it at this point.

[@sturrum5250]

@@NondescriptMammal It's not really accurate to say that physicists "hate to give up on" string theory. It comprises a near negligible portion of modern research, especially as compared to several decades ago. There's nothing wrong with doing string theory research, but the well is fairly dry and most physicists moved on to more interesting fields. You would never guess this was the case from pop science though.

[@NondescriptMammal]

@@sturrum5250 Oh yeah it's accurate, at least for the theoretical physicists who wrote books about it and invested their careers in it and staked their reputations on it and hyped it up beyond its actual value.