I take this to the extreme and second guess even things that I intimately know, so I’ll often fact check before saying anything just to feel secure saying it at all even if it’s like something I’m very sure about. But I think that’s the self worth trauma so not sure if that’s a good thing
And that is why the best way to really learn something is to try to teach/explain it to someone else. You'll find the holes and many don't like potholes in their beliefs.
@@sylva5359 I've done exactly this, only to find that what I was about to share was, in fact, made up. Thankfully, my friends group is incredibly smart and informed, and it makes me double check myself before embarrassing myself.
The point about feeling weird only when putting maybe-wrong things into other people's brains resonated a lot. That's usually when I have a moment of "hmm, perhaps I should fact-check this...", when I suddenly find myself relaying some tidbit which didn't feel worth checking when it was 'just' me hearing it.
Same here. Although I was gaslit a lot growing up, so I think I'm now a bit obsessive when it comes to verifying facts. Note: that has necessarily stopped the gaslighting attempts, but they do get a bit flustered now, when I bring facts.
That feels somewhat ok, though. Like, we may not have time to fact check every claim we hear, but we can prevent the spread of misinformation by at least fact checking the claims we share. And if we don't have time to fact check the information we share, maybe that's a sign we're sharing too much.
For once, I wish for something to become a bigger trend on the internet. Publicly admitting to having believed in lies and misinterpreting things would do us a lot of good. Thank you for the video!
There's about 600 thousand homeless people in the US and about 16 million vacant homes. Not the issue he is spreading misinfo for his own false belief.
@@MrWhateverfits I do feel it is a bit more complicated, given that if all the vacant houses are in different locations than high rates of homelessness i could still see it being related to availability of houses but specifically locally
@MrWhateverfits not for the reason your statement implies. It's not a malicious falsehood, it's a problem we all fall to, including yourself just now, over simplification of the facts. How many of the 16 million homes are "actually available and usable"? How many are priced in a fair and equitable manner that people on the lower income bracket can afford? How many of these are then located close to where the people who need them can access them and still get to where they work?... Complex issues have Complex solutions, I hate over simplification as it's the most insidious misinformation, because it is truth, wrapped up in bias and prejudice.
@@MichaelOKCi think the point is that there is adequate material and labor available to have constructed all those currently existing houses. I seriously disbelieve most people who own multiple houses have done enough important work to justify so much hoarding of resources. Too many incompetent and niche people being overpaid just for being charismatic. But you can't argue that the majority is fine with giving millions to sports, entertainers, and upper managers. So how to say anyone deserves a house if homeless are that way just for a lack of charisma (insanity, laziness, disability all lacking charisma to earn big paychecks)?
It takes not only a deep desire to know and spread the truth, but integrity and humility to do this, which is what you can expect from Hank. That's why I follow him. It's good to find people you can trust, but always a good idea to double check for yourself, too.
When an honest man discovers he is mistaken, he either ceases being mistaken or ceases being honest. Thank you for being the man who ceases being mistaken!
This could be taken another way entirely from how you meant it. For instance it could mean that the honest man no longer tells the truth. Rather perpetuates the lie to save face...
ooOoo catchy. though, I'd replace the "or ceases being honest" with "or enters into denial". that seems to me more common. but then, suddenly, not so catchy. what can you do
@@Masteretel I think that's exactly how it's intended to be taken. You either amend your understanding so as to not be mistaken, or you stop being honest (with yourself and others) by continuing to hold the mistaken belief.
Fact Checkers are great, however for social media platforms we need education. People need to be taught that just because somebody made a video on tiktok or youtube doesnt mean its the truth and very well could be an outright lie. This is only getting worse as deep fakes and AI are getting better by the day.
Well, I am immune to propaganda. I have managed to objectively look at the content I come across and understand what is true or not, without any error or judgement. My mind is an encyclopedia of objective truth. It can not be debunked, for the truth can not be debunked. When I look at others with a different view on things, I laugh to myself, then I stop up and feel sorry for the ignorance they display. Because what a wonderful world it would be if everyone had the right opinions about everything, like me? I am truly a genius.
@@mism847 youre falling into your own propaganda now, be careful. always be humble, fellow dispenser of truth and facts, because one day, our veiw on reality could be shattered by something as simple as a flower.
There's some conversation about the lack of homes being a cause of homelessness, specifically some talk about how there are plenty of vacant homes for people in cities where there are homeless people. The people I've talked to who work in housing or homelessness agree that this is a distraction that stops us from confronting the reality of the obvious and clear connection between limited housing stock and homelessness. When there is less housing available, rents go up. Search for "vacancies are a red herring" if you want to read more on this!
I've always heard there's plenty of houses and housing alternatives (apartments, condos, house boats, mini homes, mobile homes, etc) in the US to house every person / family unit (because not all people live alone), but the people either don't live where these vacancies are, or they do but the places are priced too high for them to be able to afford them. And, if you're already homeless, being able to afford a place to live becomes an overwhelming task for many because it's hard to get a job that pays well if you don't have an address to put on the application. There's a lot that goes into it. But regardless, if you're going to ask for more housing to be built, ask for *affordable* housing to be built, not million dollar homes.
I mean this is true due to capitalism in general, your never going to utilize 100% of a thing because if you did prices would change. so unless we started giving away houses for free "vacant homes" existing isnt the problem. but in a weird idealistic no money world those homes should count against homelessness but pretending thats the world we live it is just a really easy way to ignore the true problems
As a housing econ nerd, I explain it like hermit crabs. Not all vacant shells are the right size for a given crab and you need lots of empty shells so that every crab can find the one that fits them!
Then why are there empty units I can see from my apartment? Why have some of these units sat empty for over a year? Why are new luxury apartments built every day and it doesn't solve the housing crisis? People aren't sitting outside because there are no available housing units, it's because they cannot afford the housing that is available.
15 million empty homes in America. Homeless population in America(according to H.u.d.) : axp. 650,000 How exactly is our problem not enough homes. We have roughly what, 23-24 homes per homeless person.
"I will run to fact check something I disagree with and I will not do that with stuff that aligns with my previous conception" powerful human nature. I need to fact check my beliefs as much as I need to fact check my doubts.
@@roaaoife8186 I think that is a good rule actually. I need to marinate on this. Ofc it is a bunch of going out of my way... but being accurate is important to me. But initiating tasks is also challenging. Oof
@@xGodofAtheistsx it's more specific than that, hence why it was written as it was written. There are many different things you can associate with being human, this is just one part
I cannot emphasise enough how important I think a video like this is. Over the last few years there’s been a phenomenon of people holding beliefs, being presented information which shows that belief is incorrect and then doubling down hard on that belief anyway. For someone to hold up their hands and say ‘yes I was wrong, and this is why’ is just so important. Believing something only to realise it wasn’t factual or true isn’t the end of the world, but learning from it and being honest about it crucial. Nicely done!
Notably, this was not really an example of being wrong about a belief, just being wrong about certain facts. I believe that in all four cases, Hank's underlying beliefs persisted. Not that they shouldn't have, it's just that this isn't an example of someone re-examining their beliefs.
This is aggravated when certain "truths" or "questionings" correlate with political "sides" somewhat, which is weirdly common. I think being more careful with accuracy works as a preemptive patching of some vulnerabilities that can be exploited to arguments that use this kernel of truth of one's side misconception, to try to push for something more questionable. Such as people just attributing some exceptional storms randomly to climate change, when it could be that something like El Niño or La Niña are more well-established factors for the observed pattern -- which AGW deniers can then exploit to paint a picture/strawman of "climate alarmists" who don't know the basics of climatology and just assume everything is AGW. When unfortunately those attributing the anomalies to AGW at least are more correct in "ballpark," big-picture terms.
yeah like the COVID mandates, which exiled millions of innocent Americans from society because they refused to virtue signal about pretending to protect 80 year olds from the same risk of flu they've always faced. That's the big one, the people who were completely wrong went insane and hurt others very badly. Now that they caught up with reality and got tired of their filthy face rags, they want to move on and not apologize. But we're going to have to punish them totally for what they did.
Not only did you start with humility, but you then went on to educate us about why being wrong is ok as long as we are willing to learn. I can't stress enough that this is what we all need to move forward as a society. Your humor and joy about learning the facts behind the misinformation help to drive it home. Keep it up, we appreciate it! Being wrong is ok, learning from it is better!
Unfortunately, this may not work much longer. It may be too late for us. Who can say which information is accurate. Was the video footage of Jane Goodall real? How can we find reality and know that we've found it?
That last one is so much of science in popular perception. Almost every time people think scientists as a group are "lying" it's because someone unqualified misinterpreted what scientists said and the people who are mad are just hearing that interpretation second or third hand.
When they said the vaccine would prevent transmission, that was a made up lie that did not even appear in any published studies. I could describe to you a dozen lies during the pandemic coming directly from corrupt scientists, they had a big opportunity for profit and political power, and so they lied. I don't call them scientists though since they are imposters.
Here, I'll give you an example of a lie. When the COVID mandates started they said the vaccine would reduce transmission (that was the fallback justification since it predictably didn't prevent illness). But at the time of the mandates, no studies had been done on transmission, and there was no reason (other than wishful thinking and arrogant fantasy) to think it would reduce transmission, and it in fact didn't. So the COVID mandates were a big intentional lie. Society can't move on until the midwits and imposters come back to reality.
Clickbait article 1: "eggs are bad for you! Study says eating more than three per week is harmful" Clickbait article 2: "eggs are good for you! Study says up to three per week is perfectly safe" People who don't read good: "goddamn scientists, why can't they make up their minds and stop contradicting themselves?"
This is def a dynamic, but there are also other important factors. Academics aren’t always incentivized to tell the truth or to not willfully misinterpret results, and while peer review can ameliorate misinterpretation it does almost nothing to protect against falsified data. Scientists actually do lie, and if recent scandals are any indication it’s quite widespread. That said, many studies finding the same thing and academic consensus should normally be believed. But skepticism is healthy and warranted for anything you read
Two that I see quoted a lot are "the 15 biggest ships pollute more than all the cars in the world" and "100 companies are responsible for 71% of carbon emissions" The first one is not true about carbon emissions, although that's what most everyone thinks of when they hear "pollution". The original paper only says that 15 ships emit more *sulfur dioxide* than all the cars. Sulfur dioxide is not a greenhouse gas, it is bad to breathe, but it only lasts about a day before it gets converted to sulfate, so it's only a local pollutant. The only reason those ships emitted so much is because we let them, because we thought sulfur dioxide didn't matter way out in the ocean. But since then we've changed the laws and the ships hardly emit any SO2 anymore. So the fact is both out of date, and doesn't say the thing most people claim it says. The second one comes from a paper that counts all downstream emissions as belonging to the fossil fuel mining companies. So if an oil company drills some oil, sells it to a refiner, who sells it to a gas station, who sells it to me, and I burn it in my car, only the oil company counts as having any emissions. People quote this paper and then say "see, me driving my car doesn't matter", but your car *is* part of that 71%, and so is -all- the electricity you use at home. The paper doesn't say that 71% of the blame goes to those companies, because that's so much harder to determine. Whose fault is it when my car emits CO2? The oil company's fault? My fault? My boss's fault for not letting me work remote? My city's fault for not building more transit? The car company's fault for not making it more efficient? Yes, probably all of these. I wanted to believe both of these because I do think big companies need to be held responsible for climate change, and putting the blame on individual consumers is problematic. But I don't like how the quotes get used to say something they don't actually say (probably not on purpose).
I’m confused where the “all the electricity you use at home” part came from? Yes, a lot of electricity is generated from fossil fuels, however lots is also generated from hydro, wind, solar, etc.
Its region dependent. My understanding is that fossil fuels still provide 50% or more of electricity worldwide, though obviously there are probably some areas where no power is fossil fuel based. My region is about 60% fossil fuels @@anyalpine
"Whose fault is it [...] ? Yes, probably all of these" This sums up how I feel about so many things. We're all so divided over who is to blame, but the answer is (to varying degrees) all of us*, so we might as well each try to contribute as much to the solution as we can. And yes, voting is one way we can contribute to the solution (or the problem!), but it's only one way, and stopping at voting is a cop-out. *"us" here means the population of the industrialized world. Tribal villages or foraging societies bear negligible blame, and as a bonus, tend to suffer the worst of the effects.
I just respect you so much doing this. I will say, as a former small town journalist, regarding culpability for Scientific American, thinking two steps ahead of the reader is kind of their job. This was something I would harp on about until my editor wanted to gag me, but any graph, graphic or other standalone element has to be evaluated out of context for how people might take it, because people don't read articles, they cue off visuals.
A good example was the actual total tax graph that John used to show that he was misrepresenting tax data. That graph stopped at 50%, making it look like France was paying close to 100% of its income in taxes when, in reality, it was around 48%.
My father talked to me about how everyone is prejudiced, including himself, and he was a Superior Court Judge. He said you just have to examine your thoughts to work through that, and make adjustments. That has stayed with me my whole life
Thanks for sharing that that’s pretty cool. I’m guessing he’s a great dad, and it sounds like a great judge too. I got to say how funny the image is of him deciding something at work, and then double checking himself for prejudice: “wait, nope that’s racist” “dang it, no that’s xenophobic” 😂😂😂😂 it’s so endearing that he was fair on that level and it’s just so funny to imagine
Hank is the one who taught me that anything that confirms my bias online is something I should always check data and refine before sharing. I engage with things that confirm my bias, but dismiss and ignore the extreme ones that seem flawed automatically.
Intelligence begins with "I don't know", and it flourishes with "I was wrong." (Paraphrased from Lore's brother) th-cam.com/video/8eDYVtPwWiM/w-d-xo.htmlsi=BY4g-8amxW5a4umR
Not exactly. Intelligence begins with curiosity, open-mindedness and judgment developed through careful comprehension of what's received and critical thinking about it. Intelligence isn't just a storage of information and gathering of more information but a matter of thoughtful exploration, sound judgment, receptivity to new ideas, and critical thinking skills that allow us to assess what we hear and read, eliminate what proves baseless or "wrong," etc.
... and #reichWing theists try to scam us into thinking that scientists and especially EVOLUTIONARY scientists claim to be infallible... just like their gawd does. They try to religionize science. So they can ignore it like Hinduism or Jewish beliefs.
My favorite quote is, “This is how humans are: We question all our beliefs, except for the ones that we really believe in, and those we never think to question.” - Orson Scott Card
Hence why I have very *FEW* beliefs, period. Why "believe" something when you can simply (most of the time) ding into the actual data and *KNOW* instead.
You touched upon a good point, that we should think “would I be comfortable sharing this without fact checking” I think have peer groups that keep us ‘in check’ is one solution to this.
wow i was just looking at that rent/income graph just a few hours ago! i had seen it before but i looked more closely this time and went "wait a minute..." it caused me to reflect more on the fact that i don't question things that look right, even when they're surprising. how serendipitous!
All that changes from the graph is the y scale is wrong. You could make the exact same graph by scaling the y scale to emphasize the differences even with correct data.
@@kenhensch3996This is incorrect, the two trend lines are on two DIFFERENT y-scales and thus have no business being on the same chart. You could either graph income and rent prices both unadjusted for inflation or both adjusted for inflation (i.e. in real terms), but the graph did neither despite its claims.
Actually homelessness isn't just a lack of homes. It is a lack of affordable homes. Literally hundreds of thousands of homes stay empty because people(and corporations) are not willing to sell them at a loss.
A town I lived in required luxury developers to also build a percentage of affordable homes as part of the construction approval process… and ‘somehow’ many of these projects managed to weasel their way out of it or didn’t build the amount required. IF they built them, they were built poorly and would fall into disrepair. So I definitely agree it’s way more complicated than a ‘lack of homes’ when we have greedy, psychotic developers, investors, and politicians who do anything but make sure affordable housing is built. Plus you can’t talk flippantly about ‘building more houses’ without also thinking about gentrification. The more building and development in my town, the more poor people and PoC got pushed from their historic neighborhoods and communities. What’s it matter if there’s more homes built if we’re forcing people out of their historic neighborhoods? Or when people are being economically pressured to relocate and now have larger commutes in order to avoid homelessness (god forbid your car breaks down now). Like it’s such a complicated issue. Don’t even get me started on zoning…
Where I live there is so many condemned and abandoned houses that are unable to be sold because of the cost of the property. I am getting ready to be homeless and the best option me snd my family have currently is a 50,000$ trailer. This is how bad the housing has gotten
Not to mention communities with a big tourism business (for this example I'm thinking cities on Hawaiian islands), people owning and operating airbnbs can have a chokehold on local housing that bars local residents from housing
Yep. Vancouverite here. Thousands of empty expensive condos plague this city while we in the underclass struggle to find an affordable rental unit in the outskirts of the suburbs.
So refreshing to see a trusted source say they believe what their bias presents, but check that with which they disagree. Then turn around and say they were deceived by their bias, and gracefully allow themselves to be corrected. And then make a frenetic TH-cam video that is awesome. DFTBA EVERY DAY
This is probably one of the most important videos you’ve put out. We can’t begin to solve problems effectively without first assessing these problems truthfully.
It's actually not, though. If you are interested in being correct when asserting something, then you will find yourself verifying (or attempting to) what you think to be true on a regular basis. Recognizing that we are not infallible and are actually often incorrect or outdated in our thinking is the key; the rest comes naturally.
The haircut looks GREAT!! I feel that people need to avoid adding to misinformation whenever possible. I've been through 1000+ hours of education, and after all of it, I've learned that you need to take everything*** with a grain of salt... (at least until you can corroborate that information with another independent source). There have been so many times over the years since my education, I found out I learned my professor's opinion vs. what is a proven fact. Sadly, I no longer just take things at face value, I look for proof whenever possible. Keep up the great work Hank!! I love the honesty and humility. Very HUMAN : )
I hear arguments for fighting confirmation bias all the time as I'm in a psychology undergrad program, but hearing the process from start to finish from a source I trust is impactful. Thanks for this, especially the reshoot. Correcting ourselves is worth the effort.
Lmao. College students literally think they know everything and do nothing but lecture the rest of us. And you can't even do basic math. Keep your mouth shut.
So Hank, as a librarian, we often have conversations about misinformation and bias and even data (explaining it, finding it, working with researchers to curate adn store it, etc). But I don't think we have a grasp on how "the public" - especially on social media - use internformation and data. It's a qustion some library folks are looking into, but understanding the information needs of the public and also how information is used on social media are both very new conversations. This video is a fascinating example of how complex these topics are! Thank you
I love having other librarians pop up in the wild. :) One area I think is key is building stronger skills in information and media literacy from a very early age within the school curriculum. It should be developmentally appropriate to each age, but be a consistent element in our education throughout schooling - and include social media as a big component. When I was in school, the examples were often newspaper articles, but we need to make sure the curriculum addresses the relevant information landscape students are actually trying to navigate.
@@AVspectre Absolutely. For a bunch of years, people got the unsupported idea that kids from then on were all "digital natives" who just inherently knew how to use online resources appropriately, which was obviously never true.
people are very lazy. Sometimes, in politics, I see someone make a totally false rebuttal to a factual post, and the person after is like "fine but that person is still a poo poo head!" no, not fine. the rebutting statement was total bs and not at all true! you literally just took the word of your opponent, who also is some rando on the web! 😅😅😅😪😪😪@@rwalden00
I think I'm still a conservative, but since conservatives aren't really conservatives anymore, I think I've accidentally become a libertarian. I heard something about cookies? =) I just wanted to add my support to the comment above. This is a crazy complex problem that's made worse because information brokers are incentivized towards drama and extremism in their reporting. It doesn't really matter which side you're on, you'll be getting your information sans context and often grossly misrepresented. BTW Hank, I would challenge this idea that the Right is exposed to more fake news than the Left. I have an obvious bias, but I'm very confident that false information is far more agnostic than you suggest. I do think it manifests a little differently between the sides as the Right tends to get information that's just not true, where the Left tends to misrepresent data or actively work to suppress data that conflicts with their positions. The net result is relatively equal levels of ignorance, imo.
Depends what taxes we're looking at... Unless that one income is over about 80k a year, chances are you pay $0 toward federal taxes used to actually fund the federal government, with all of the federal taxes you do pay going to social security and medicare taxes. On the other hand, if you include all the various levels of taxes, you likely spend nearly half your income on taxes.
@@cricri7066you are not taking everything into account. Remember less than half the people in New Zealand are working taxpayers. Therefore more than half don’t pay income tax. Anyone receiving any kind of Government rebate counts as ‘negative’ tax. The wealthy pay almost no tax. There’s an old saying, if you pay tax, you need a new Accountant. Yes gst is 15% (I think), but anyone who owns a business can claim most of that back. I’m no expert, but I suspect that average 7% may well be true.
1:55 homeless is not a lack of homes, it is caused by the theft of homes. Mostly so they can be 'repossessed' by banks or so they can be airbnbs. Houses sit empty all over the country. I would know I've seen them with my own eyes as I travel for work. In my experience, not numbers in any way here, but cities with the most 'empty' homes have the most homeless people.
How is the repossession of a home for the lack of fulfilling the contractural agreements you voluntarily committed to follow, theft? Remember the people who lent you the money are the stockholders of the bank. Much of it is the retirement and insurance funds of millions of middles class people.
It's especially bad in Australia there are a ridiculous amount of empty homes due to a process called negative gearing I’m not 100% sure exactly how you do it but it basically makes it super easy if you already own a home to buy another house making it practically impossible for young people to get a foothold in the market
It's so bad (this is a pretty dodgy anecdote because I love in a place that is full of holiday houses) that my neighbours to the left are a holiday house my neighbours to the right are a holiday house and my neighbours in front of me are a holiday house absolutely ridiculous
The haircut threw me off and I had to rewind and rewatch because it distracted me from the content, lmao! Also, the fact that it's curly now distracted me from the first three minutes! (I've missed a bunch of videos)
@@pistachoo. yes apparently chemo can make your hair grow back curly and/or change the color slightly for a year or so after treatment (he had cancer in case you missed it). Never knew that until Hank mentioned it. I think it suits him but I imagine its a weird feeling to see yourself with a different type of hair.
It’s great that you’ve taken stock. I started actively fact checking as I watch anything, “trusted source” or not, a few years ago. Especially if someone is quoted or telling me what someone said in a speech or whatever I’ll just look up the source material and watch it for myself. Sins of omission are everywhere and there’s so much twisting of facts and findings. “A new study shows” is treated as if all “studies” are on par with one another and the newest one just cancels out everything that came before it. If I’m talking with someone and I heard something that contradicts what they’re saying but I haven’t looked into it I’ll tell them exactly that rather than run the risk of spreading falsehoods.
I'm obsessed with this video. In my social psych seminar, we've been talking a lot recently about these types of biases and how we can avoid them and, more than that, how HARD it is to avoid them. Everyone makes them. No one likes to think that they do. This is a great example of how to admit to our biases and learn from them.
I think if more people just understood this aspect of humans they'd be more empathetic and patient with others. I don't think most people really understand how bad it is, so to say how easy it is for an individual to get the wrong idea.
As someone who was homeless for over a year, there were dozens of homes where we lived. Our condo was sold, the new owners canceled our lease and paid us the penalty. None of the homes available were in a price range we could afford. Prices went up far more than 30% of our income. We made about 85k a year, we were paying 1850 a month when we lost our place, and couldn't find anything less than 4200 a month. Price now is, four years later, 6500 a month on average. We were homeless for a year before we finally landed in a place we could find something we could afford. Keep in mind that having no home makes it very difficult to maintain your job. There is no lack of housing where we were, just lack of places anyone could afford. We weren't the only ones, there were hundreds of people who couldn't afford rent increases, or had their places bought out and they ended up unable to afford it. Most of those homes sit empty right now, for whatever purpose that serves. You can't look at some numbers and think you understand the homeless problem. Everyone I knew when we were homeless, that were also homeless, weren't drug addicts or alcoholics, they didn't have a mental illness. They were 40 hours a week or more workers like my wife and I were.
It seems to me that those who don't care to fix the issue use stereotypes to imply their situation is somehow their fault, when in fact it's mostly greed.
When he got to the part about homelessness caused by not enough homes I thought "that's 5 lies you believed". lack of *affordable* housing, yes, but that is not solved by simply building more.
@@TigerLily61811 I suspect that in many markets the value of the land is increasing rapidly enough that, over the long term, it alone will justify the initial investment. If the investor is wealthy enough to be able to afford that and ride it out, then they don't necessarily need the immediate rental income to make the investment work (ie pay the mortgage if they even had to have one). (Also, the investor/landlord may not be an actual person, but a large and well-funded real estate investment firm.) Furthermore, if the rent is higher but not ridiculously higher than comparable units, they very well may be able to find someone who will pay it due to other considerations (distance from work, neighborhood, or harder to quantify human preferences). And although a nice place could be rented instantly for less, the landlord may very well decide the risk of renting to the "wrong kind" of people is not worth a small short term loss--especially if the renter's rights in that place are strong and it's difficult to evict. All that, however, is just my speculation.
Thank you for making this video. I recently came to my own “can’t believe I believe these lies” moment and I felt so ashamed. Not only had I just believed those stories as facts but also I had spread them afterwards. I feel so seen by your video Hank. Thank you for helping me come to terms with the fact that everyone can be wrong, it doesn’t make you any less smart. We just have to be more vigilant.
It makes me more empathetic, when someone is wrong. I haven't called anyone the standbys for a long time because we all have our weakness, humanity's strength is the way we can balance each others' strengths and weaknesses). (You know how everyone can't wait to send clown emoji or call someone stupid in creative ways)
One psrt that really resonated with me was when you said you only thought to check a fact after imparting the information to someone else. I think, much like learning, sometimes only when you explain to other people do things really click in your brain and that can solidify your understanding of the subject matter, or in this case make you doubt and need to confirm the information. I have also done this too many times, and often immediately said, "hang on, let me check that!" As it sounds weirder or less true when spoken out loud somehow than when it just nestles in your brain, especially when its part of any preconceived personal biases. Great video, always worth reminding people to be open to checking facts with proper institutions and reliable sources. (ie, not some mad uncle on Facebook).
You denigrate a source that may be viable. Source bias can be just as bad as not being fully informed. If a mad uncle says it's sunny out, many will say "ignore him, my TV hasn't told me it's true". I can't understand that type of thinking. Take in everything and do a proper deep critical assessment of the information.
As a math instructor, I completely agree. I almost wish I could take my Masters again. I understand concepts now much more clearly than I did then. Simple things that I just regurgitated back then make much more sense. Things that would have made everything else make more sense.
@@Brigadier_Beauif it makes you feel any better: I'm soon to matriculate with an NA on Development Studies and... everything makes me angry nowadays. People just love acting against theirs and others' best interest *at all times* no matter what.
Hey man, thanks for this. It's really reassuring knowing even the smartest people fall victim to misinformation all the time. I think critically examining even those ideas you agree with is a skill everyone needs to work on, especially in this age.
This reminds me of the phrase, “It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.” Funny, because the quote is often attributed to Mark Twain, though Google tells me there's no evidence of this. He did, however, state in his autobiography, "How easy it is to make people believe a lie, and how hard it is to undo that work again!" Your video is a great reminder that none of us are immune to lies and propaganda, and that we'd do better to verify our sources and beliefs with an open mind.
This is not the first time Goodall has been the victim of false reporting. When the Gary Larson’s Far Side released a comic calling Goodall a Tramp her organization wrote a cease and desist notice. When Jane got back she loved the cartoon and made the lawyer drop the notice. Gary licensed the cartoon to Goodall’s organization to use as a fundraising and they became friends because of it.
That's funny! When I looked it up, I realized I saw that one before about a chimp finding a blonde hair on another chimp! The first one in the search also had a signature from J.G.
Making a second comment to say I really appreciate this form of video and accountability! Its what I wish more people realized is how we grow and WHY we have discussions. Not to convince the other party but to challenge and grow both sides. If we confront someone with an opposing view it forces us to refine to the point that even if we didn't convince them our argument and fact base has gotten stronger. Especailly in this day and age critical thinking and questioning what you see is VERY important and that does not happen if we're so afraid of being wrong we stop trying. I genuinely appreciate you pointing these out and acknowledging I may have believed things I shouldn't have too hastily but I looked into them and grew from it. This is how humans learn and its the fear of being wrong which prevents us from growing or finding the truth. Appreciate you a lot Hank and great idea for a video! Misinformation awareness needs to be spread more and people educated on the types of ways people will mislead or change statistics.
Loved the coversation about the data from NOAA! As an emergency manager working primarily in mitigation and preparedness it's actually really important to see how data in relation to disasters is talked about and understood!
Good stuff, and thanks. I deeply respect this. What helped me in this area is adopting the following guidelines, and specifically believing they are true from the evidence: 1) Anything other people tell me is a hypothesis. 2) If the validity of the hypothesis is important I must evaluate it first by reviewing all available evidence for and against the hypothesis. As a starting point, what are people supporting it claiming and what are people opposing it claiming? 3) Everything claimed is wrong at some level of detail. It's important to understand what details are important or not when applying a claim to a situation. A half-truth is fine if the true part is what matters, but not if the untrue part matters. 4) I am an "other people" to everybody else, so I should also expect others to scrutinize what I claim in the same way.
#3 is extremely dangerous. It lays a foundation for cherry picking truth based on what you feel matters. "Well, this study is a half truth, but it supports the side of some controversial subject I think is true, so the truth is what matters." No.
@@Ranstone Maybe "wrong" is not the right word, but not fully correct, or correct from one context or perspective but missing something significant at another. Like "lies told to children", true enough at one level, but also thoroughly missing necessary information at another. Yes, study one did find A, and it may be true, but it doesn't support the conclusion they think it does and is missing information from study two that gives a fuller understanding of the issue and context that shows how study one can be misunderstood or construed. At least that was my understanding/thinking.
You are not wrong but I have a much simpler approach. Titles of information often don't actually display what the title says it does. My approach is simple: Question Everything. :) If someone says, "here, this graph shows the tax burden of individuals across different nations", I will say, 'does it? How does it do that? The values are % Share of GDP. That doesn't look like a personal tax burden measurement. That's an internal number relating to a country's taxed vs non-taxed industries, and I'm sure a lot of other factors too.' Essentially reading the full information, the details, is often where the 'ruse' lies. Maybe along the lines of your half-truths.
@@nowandrew4442 I like the idea of 'lonely numbers' from the book 'Factfulness'. Once I read it, I noticed that articles often rely on one attention-grabbing number that don't tell the whole story. “If you are offered one number, always ask for at least one more. Something to compare it with. Be especially careful about big numbers.”
Always weird but awesome when one of your favourite TH-camrs comments on another of your favourite TH-camrs... Just rewatched a classic of yours right before this: the hypoxia video with Don Pettit. Keep on making the world a little bit better everyday through your work!
@@memememe908Australian here. Some of the houses and flats "available and affordable" are actually dangerous and unlivable. For many reasons including , no safe electricity, missing flooring, all plumbing severely damaged, roof parts missing no heating and so on and on.
My son often reminds me often to check the source of something new I hear and am excited about. However it is not always easy to find reliable sources to check each perticular items. And it takes work to stay vigilent and skeptical!
I love the idea of “having an alliance to the truth”. The hard part is accepting truth as it is, and not the truth as you want it to be. Hank, thank you for being an example to us all.
I think having an alliance to the truth has always been important, but rarely so important as it's going to be this year. There's already so much misinformation flying around (from everyone, as Hank points out) and being able to question not only your opposition's points but your own preconceptions of how "the truth" looks is going to be what gets us through it.
I don't actually, I think trying to adhere to the truth puts you in an extremely vulnerable position of trying to decide whether things are true or false and that being the only thing that matters. In many ways the truth does not matter, I don't care what you think of me, if you have false perceptions. But when we talk I want you to be nice to me and I nice to you. Truth is not a social value, it's a way for people who cannot be virtuous to represent their subjective views with reason... I don't think i explained that perfectly but you get the point. Humans don't operate on truth. We operate. We operate on what we feel like operating in the moment.
@@connorking984 I understand why you feel this way and that it may not be your experience, but it is possible to be nice and tell the truth at the same time. Finding the truth, even if it means questioning your own beliefs, is valuable...I would even say it's the only way we can achieve a common understanding. But yes, I'm with you on being nice. I think you can do both.
One of the things I discuss with students I teach at the High School level is the burden of proof, with whom does the burden of proof lie. And what I teach, biased though it may be, is that the burden of proof is on the speaker. Whomever is presenting the argument should, 100%, be responsible for the the fact checking, the proof, AND evidence of the contrary. In the psat, I've heard arguments that claim we should check up to 3 sources to verify claims we hear; but in today's internet age, we need to check 5 or more. Considering the wealth of sources, it is very ironic and mixed-up that we have to check so much more.
I agree with you except for the part where I don't agree with you lol. Let me explain. Of course the speaker is responsible for what they say and must do their due diligence, and if they are lying, then it is 100% on them morally and it is not your fault you were lied to. However, as individuals, we must also be responsible for what enters and makes a home in our brains. We cannot merely be passive receptacles of knowledge (Which I don't think you are advocating for) but must curate the library of our minds as best we can. So Morally I agree with you, the person presenting the information is 100% responsible for the quality of said information, but practically I disagree when it comes to listening to others speak.
Jonathan Haidt said it best. He described people as "born lawyers". We don't use our cognitive abilities to come to rational conclusions but instead use our brainpower to JUSTIFY our belief in the things we already want to be believe. He says we ask ourselves two questions: 1) When a statement aligns with what we already want to believe, we ask "CAN I believe it?" meaning we'll take the tiniest bit of sorta kinda circumstantial evidence and say "Aha! Confirmed! Case Closed!" 2) When a statement confronts us with something we do NOT want to believe, we ask "MUST I believe it?" meaning we'll look for any scrap or ghostly hint of evidence that the statement is false and cling to it for dear life.
@regolith1350 , Remind me which of Haidt's books this is in? I read the first two some time ago but haven't read the Anxious Generation yet. I want to share this quote with someone and would like to be able to attribute it.
@@amynrob621 It's been a long time since I first heard it, and can't pinpoint it to a particular book. I clearly remember hearing him discuss the concept in interviews & presentations so you might find a clip on TH-cam of him talking about it. Sorry I can't be more specific.
If only everyone was this honest and open about things they've gotten wrong! "The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn." - A. Toffler
"I would use this ring from a desire to do good... But through me, it would wield a power too great and terrible to imagine." The metaphore is far from perfect but I cant help but feel like hank is gandalf and twitter(or social media) is the one ring. You can try to use it to spread the truth but ultimately the algorithm doesnt care and even truths slowly turn into lies online.
This is what they were always on about in all those media literacy classes! You're setting such a great example, showing that absolutely no one is immune to falling into the comfortable trap of our own biases
I think it is so important to talk about how easy it is for inaccurate information to make its way into our brains, even for those of us who consider ourselves conscious of how much wrong information is out there. I also really appreciate you being honest about bias, and it will certainly make me try and fact check more often before I share information that may have been misconstrued or edited to appear a certain way (ie. Always read the fine print on statistics and graphs as often they are done in very narrow margins so the data aligns with expectation).
Thank you so much for your authenticity. I try to adhere to my Gen X mentality of "Question Everything!" and this video is a great example of why one should. When we don't, our brains take short cuts (we all do it!) and can be mistaken. Cheers to being curious and aiming to understand the facts vs the spin!
The topic of Information Literacy is what deals with ALL of the things you are talking about here. I teach this subject at an academic library, and I constantly use the Crash Course series on Digital Information for this, but you better believe I'm adding this video to my teaching arsenal!! Awesome vid Hank!
You teach information literacy? Can you describe to me what you know about ribosomal frameshifting or antibody class switching? Of course you can't, because you've done nothing but sneer at "antivaxxers" in between your multiple booster shots without bothering to learn anything.
I worked closely with the homeless for years. I've been homeless myself. My family helped get many off the streets, off drugs, into jobs and into housing. And we fed 100's more every weekend sending them away with enough for the week. And having tackled this issue from every angle. I can tell you with absolute certainty that homelessness is not a housing problem. That narrative is what allows governing bodies to get away with awarding people who have them in their pocket with development and redevelopment contracts that ultimately help almost none of the people they were intended to. Even taking the most cursory numbers it simply doesn't add up. Ignoring homes built before 1975 (of which there are millions but it's hard to quantify an exact number), there is 1 home for every 2.3 people. Considering that most housing is between single family occupancy (3-5) and single occupancy unit complexes (which is actually 1-2 per). There is more than enough living space. Even after you account for derelict dwellings you have to consider functional housing which isn't accounted for fully. Such as non-subdivided ADU's, RV's, and places not zoned as residential being used residentially. Like an old industrial building being turned into college dormitories without rezoning or changes in use on unrestricted land. Homelessness is a multifaceted issue. Building a house doesn't help the guy who will strip it for copper to pay for a habit. It doesn't help the woman who won't sleep inside because bees live in the walls. And most of the people who it could actually help will never see the inside of one because of the red tape that stands between them and it. People who need housing the most often do not meet housing program requirements. For one thing they have no way of identifying themselves officially much of the time. Birth certificates, ID's Driver's license. Hell even a library card. For a lot of them that was all lost, expired or stolen years ago. And to renew most of it...to get the ball rolling on getting into housing, you know what you need? Proof of physical address. On top of all that they often have to find a way with no money, poor hygiene and physical appearance to get from a to b several times a day to get things regarding all that done. They have to do that with all their worldly possessions to. because if they leave it somewhere. They'll be lucky if it's there when they get back. So you better have a buddy when you're homeless. Another homeless person who will watch your shit while you do things if you watch theirs while they do. And that relationship is based off mutual benefit. Once one of you takes too long or is getting something not being shared equally and it's known (like the possibility of one of you getting housing and the other not). That relationship and your only thing resembling a safety net is dissolved. Then you have to explain yourself to a lot of people on the street. Because if you flake or do anything that's perceived as trying to do better for yourself without raising the position of those around you as well, you will be excluded from a lot of circles. You're only going to find 1 person in a 100 who even meets whatever parameters were stipulated by those who actually made "free" housing happen (the program that develops out of the idea will not resemble the initial concept once it's made it's way through the bureaucratic grinder). And maybe every 4 of those people you'll get 1 to go along with it. And if their lucky. That system setup to "help" them won't chew them up and spit them out. Putting them in a worse position than they were before. It's easy to say we just need more houses, problem solves, and dust your hands off. But that doesn't even dig in the direction of the root of the problem. And that's why housing first has never put a dent in this issue. Because it's not a housing problem it's an economic classism problem. So much so that people of too high a station in life relative to the on the ground issue don't even understand the problem and are therefore incapable of helping it.
This! Homelessness is going up here in Las Vegas, and it's not a lack of housing it's literally rent, and owning a home is too expensive. 36,000 WORKING people were evicted last year, and we have 6,000 evicted just this year. Going and asking the courts to put ahold on the evictions ultimately doesn't help because they give them 30 days to pay back what they owe. They couldn't pay the price hike to begin with, and now you expect them to pay that back to get an eviction off their record AND find a new place to live, when that was the only place they could afford before the price hike?! We have entire apartment buildings that are empty, new houses that can't be sold, and forget about getting housing help. The people in power have worked so hard to drag affordable housing through the mud that the people vote against building any, and landlords would rather have properties empty than take a government insensitive to make their properties more affordable. They also would rather pump money into Catholic Charieties than take on the responsibility of helping people! We have so many empty hotels and motels that it wouldn't be hard to convert them into housing, but they let them sit and rot.
I really resonate to striving towards having a very strong alliance with the truth. I've recently realised that truth and authenticity are core values of mine and it sometimes shocks me that not everyone shares these values. That said, as you highlighted, caring about the truth is not enough and confirmation bias is really tricky to successfully avoid. I heard a quote once that had the sentiment of "always fact check, especially when it aligns with your pre-existing beliefs".
I'm usually the last to notice haircuts and such, but I found myself curiously examining Hank's hair somewhere between 5:47 and 7:41 without knowing _why_ my eyes were drawn to it. So I'm glad he mentioned the haircut - it explained why my brain was suddenly interested in his hair 😹
Thanks for doing this! When I was a kid, the old people would say "don't believe everything you hear on TV". This should go extra for social media, but those companies profit heavily from engagement, not education. So you're incentivized to share faster than you can/should think. And there's barely any accountability, since the people that will call you out are generally the people that disagreed with your world view already! Regarding viral videos, "a lie can be halfway around the world before the truth gets it's pants on" 😬.
Thank you for making this. This is exactly what we need. We need to teach people to recognize misinformation, but we have to stop framing it in a way that makes people shut down because it goes against their believies. This is a problem i am actively working on and your video was very inspiring
Hank. Holy moly. This is awesome. (I could literally feel myself thinking more complexly when you played that full Jane Goodall context.) Thank you for sharing it with us. I saw on Twitter that the meme review got put off for this - WORTH IT. (now we can all look forward to the meme review #teamJarrod)
@@alexandergutfeldt1144 ya idk why the mistakes are in the papers I read. It's not like I met the people who wrote them. But there's definitely a lot of mistakes based on assumptions and biases. Of course, this could be sampling bias as well because I was studying sociology and criminology at the time. So, there could be more mistakes and misrepresentations in those papers than others. I don't know and I'm not planning on reading every paper that was ever published to find out. Lol
This is such a massive problem online. I was almost duped yesterday by a headline declaring that a local politician on the other side of the political spectrum said something absurd and outrageous. The only reason I didn't fall for it was because the image of the headline contained a few sentences from the body of the article that sounded kind of weird, and reading more of the article and watching the original statement made it clear that the statement was taken out of context. But if I had only read that headline, I would still believe that this politician said that absurd thing.
And these types of videos are so important for everyone. One, to remind us we don't always understand, remember, or translate something accurately and all have potential for bias, and b) to let the other side know that we understand this is a failing of all humans, and not just one side. Even of one side is a lot more likely to have it than the other Thank you for being brave, and hopefully help us to be brave and admit when we're wrong, or at least reexamine our closely held beliefs every so often
Misinformation is a real problem that goes beyond political biases. We need to think of our biases when receiving information. And imo it’s even more important that we become more comfortable with realizing we were wrong. This video will most likely be stripped of its nuance and broader message by those who don’t like you. But for those that do like your content, this video is a reminder that it is not just okay to be wrong, it is NECESSARY to be okay with being wrong. That is the only way we can grow. People who perceive you as intelligent and well-informed maybe will feel less embarrassed about being wrong sometimes. This video actually reminds me a lot of a quote from Hank he said a while ago, “You have to be open to the idea that your beliefs might be false because that’s the only way that holding onto them can really mean anything”
This is my favorite vlogbrothers video in recent memory. As a medical student, I also strive to be someone with an alliance to the truth. It’s so important to critically analyze how our own inherent biases color our perception of the world. Thank you, Hank, for doing the hard work and trying to increase awareness of bias, even if it felt embarrassing!
Have you heard about how Florence Nightingale purposely used a confusing graph to convince people to use infection control measures? There's a fascinating episode on it on the podcast Cautionary Tales
But be aware that if the number of vacant homes is below 5%, there isn't much that legislation can do to unlock this (because the vacancy is temporary, or unlivable, or whatever). In that case, you just have to build more homes.
It's due to a lack of AFFORDABLE homes. We could house every unhoused person in the country right now many times over if it were just an issue of available properties.
Stop allowing corporations to own homes! Homes are for people! There are plenty of vacant houses around me because goldman sachs bought them as investments and refuses to make them livable, or sell them for a fair price. We don't need more homes, we need less corporate ownership.
The easiest solution I can think of: reduce the number of rented residential properties a person can own down to something like 5 and prevent corporations from owning rental properties outright.
Thank you for your honesty, Hank, and an even bigger thank you for the reminder. We all need to remember that not only do we have assumptions and biases, we need question and check them. And, above all, we need to be open to changing them. Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to do some spot checks of the ol' mental frameworks...
1:26 I used to live in a state where rent could be increased by no more than 3% annually. During the pandemic there was an increase and eviction freeze in place. The increase freeze expired in early 2022 along with a "hardship" clause (not sure exactly what it was called) that allowed landlords to increase rents without a cap for a short time. They took advantage and even hit people with new leases in the middle of their lease terms so they could increase rent by as much as 11.4% (in the case of my former neighbor, who sent me a photo of her letter) and possibly more. [She didn't take the new lease, opting instead to finish her actual lease term and then move back to her home state where that wasn't happening.]
The misinterpretation of online information is a major problem. We’ve all done it. Thank you Hank, for setting some things straight and keeping us better informed. I wouldn’t mind seeing a lot more of this, I think it’s great
i guess in big part is our ability to be critical has not caught up with how powerfull social media has become to our perception of the world. we easily take information for granted if its presented in a compeling way. but we constantly need to exercise the idea that things are always more complex than they seem social media is engineered to catch your atention, and in doing so it incentivises dramatic takes that are often not true. it's the TikTok version of a Clickbait Clickbait and misinterpretation will NEVER go away. we must learn to be more critical of what we watch. as a rule of thumb, dont take to heart anything that you see in Reels or in TikTok. its simply not a source made to inform. its made only for entretainment.
Yes like the "corrected' tax graph he showed here - it's still wrong, or at least, it isn't showing anything meaningful. 'Tax burden as % share of GDP', what?? That's entirely dependant on the nature of the GDP and internal export/import etc relationships. In no way does that give a concrete indication of *individual* tax burdens.. just saying.
Hank is famous for having a channel of politically biased Sciunce "factz". Now he is realizing that he was spreading a lot of nonsense under the mantle of Science. And you're saying he should make a channel about it... How about he makes a channel debunking his own SciShow episode lies?
@@odiousghoul I am not Hank. How could I be Hank debunking his own SciShow nonsense? this video is about Hank realizing that he has many beliefs that he used to think were true and unassailable, but as soon as he actually examined them, he realized his belief system is full of shit. His SciShow was heavily based on belief systems that were full of shit. Many people pointed this out many times over years. I think the channel is dead now, but millions upon millions of hits spreading misinformation. He has a responsibility to correct the lies he made a fortune spreading.
This man is an example of what every teacher should strive to be. "2 types of teachers in this world; those who teach subjects and those who teach students".
Many years ago (I think it was 1990), I realized I didn't have a justification for most of what I believed, so I discarded all of it and started over. Ever since then, I have been acutely aware of the danger of drawing a conclusion in the absence of conclusive evidence (because once an opinion is held it introduces confirmation bias), and I have believed almost nothing.
Similar thing happened to me. But take note: if you question everything, you must also question the premise "Should I question everything?". If you want the best guess from a suicidal broken human, I think the answer is "No".
@@Claire-tk4do Given that Decartes never meaningfully questions hi religious faith, I dispute whether hebever actually questioned anything. His arguments read more like an attempt at rationalizing his preconceived notions.
This is so important to share!! I've been reading and watching a lot lately about critical thinking and a lot of declines in good faith questioning etc. In our media bubbles we get primed to easily just believe stuff that aligns with our worldview (the rent example is a great one) without asking, well, is this true? Callout culture also really discourages us from questioning stuff that people in our communities say. Knowing that others who we respect are able to admit they were wrong, or show their process of learning, is good, actually.
This is such a great format, cause it really reminds everyone to be open to having their minds changed and also that its okay to be wrong sometimes, by just being open to new information. And also a reminder to check your facts no matter how reputable it seems.
@@Idefilms I can attest that poorly insulated homes are more expensive to live in. And that rental property landlords have no financial interest in insulation beyond making sure pipes don't freeze in the walls.
Currently finishing up my b.a. in psychology and it has made me wish that all high school students were taught about research methods and statistical literacy. Thanks, Hank!
I absolutely love this video. Not only did you actually bother to fact check things that aligned with your believes but you admit publicly that you were wrong AND teach us how biases can seriously influence our perceived reality. I think this not only really takes courage to do but is also extremely helpful to teach us to keep a scientific approach to what we believe to be true. Thanks man!
This is an AMAZING idea. We need a couple thousand intelligent and honest people doing these videos. We all know (well some of us know) that it's more difficult to convince us that we have been fooled than it is to fool us, and we all need to be eager to find our misconceptions or whatever. Thank you.
Great video and a useful reminder for us all. The older I get the more I realize that being right (or at least less wrong) often isn't about BEING RIGHT at all … it's about being aware of the many ways you can easily be wrong … and the unpleasant, time consuming & ego bruising effort of diligently checking yourself.
Admirable! I’m certainly right leaning, and like you I see the sway of group think and my own biases enhanced by the scale and volume afforded by the internet. I’m always looking for voices unlike my own to weigh in (which is why I’ve been following you for over a decade). I’m thrilled to hear that you are putting in the effort required to do the same. ♥️
Great video. Like you, I have no problem adjusting my understanding, beliefs, opinions, and assumptions when I discover that information I have ingested to support those things is incomplete, erroneous, cherry picked, or taken out of context. Now if only more people could learn this one simple trick. Caveat: Of course I get annoyed with myself when this occurs and I haven't conducted my due diligence; however, that discomfort is miniscule compared to the upset I feel towards individuals, organisations and governments that intentionally deceive with lies and misinformation.
I really, really appreciate this. I often feel really ashamed to notice I believed something incorrect, and it's good to be reminded everyone does that, and all we can do is try.
Great video. One lesson the army taught me was "If it's important, they're lying.*" There are more "regulations" than can fit inside the Library of Congress, what is actually in print could fit on about 30 feet of book shelves. (That's regulations, not Field Manuals.) Turns out a lot of soldiers are also a Barracks Lawyers that knows all the unprinted regulations that happen to align with what they want that moment. My favorite: "The army pays you not to eat." (Great! Give me more money so I don't have to sleep.) Why? Because stripping and waxing the floor was more important then something as useless as eating. And, it wasn't even for an inspection. It was just a whim. * I've since amended this with "... until proven otherwise."
This is a little scary. Not being able to be sure that some famous person is telling the truth or knows what they're talking about. Thinking critically about all of the info we take in is a lot of work. It's a lot of work to double check that everything we are told is true. Maybe because we are all told a lot of things over the course of even just one day? This is an interesting video, Hank. Thanks for sharing.
I've often wondered how people believed fake news and made up quotes so readily. "I'm going to be less skeptical of stuff that aligns with my worldview". What a great distillation of why!
I appreciate you making this video. In the past two years I've also had to come to terms that a lot of my biases impacted how I received or rejected information, and I've been working hard to improve on this front. I think the graph at 8:35 actually demonstrates this point pretty well, honestly. There are a ton of questions that come with it, like: 1. The scale on the bottom is logarithmic, which over inflates the skew. It does show that maybe the top 20% of the right saw significantly more fake news than on the left or center, but the majority of people on the right saw roughly the same amount of fake news as the center and left, around 1%. 2. We don't know what the source is, so we don't know who is defining "Fake news" and "Real news," or what their criteria is. Did they choose institutions that they felt were less or more trustworthy? Did they pick specific facts that they deemed real or fake? Was the way the information was conveyed to the viewer part of it? 3. How did the researcher ensure their own bias didn't affect the aforementioned criteria? 4. How were the data collected? How did they select their participants? How holistic was it? Was it from a specific website where the results might be different from the general population? Self selected or random control? Did they account for the fact that people on the right tend to trust polls and surveys less, and so respondents tend to be the most fervent in their beliefs, which aligns with the super consumer/super sharer results? None of this means that the graph is incorrect, but it does lend itself to the idea that the information we consume requires much more scrutiny than the environment we consume it in tends to encourage.
Something else I'd like to point out about the graph. It specifically is documenting how many people SAW misinformation before the 2016 election. Based on the data in this graph, Hank comes to the conclusion that misinformation is more problematic on the right than on the left, and while I would agree with that based off of my own preconceptions and beliefs, that isn't what this graph is showing. It shows how many people SAW misinformation, but not how many people BELIEVED it. This ties back to what you said about what type of misinformation is defined as such, because nobody is going to believe misinformation such as "all trees are all red," while they might believe something such as a misleading graph. In short, because this graph is showing only the prevalence of misinformation and doesn't include how effective it is, we can't, based off of just this graph alone, come to any meaningful subjective conclusions such as he has. Also this graph only includes information pertaining to before the 2016 election, and given that this data is being used to judge misinformation nearly 8 years later, ahead of another, very different election, then it could be out of date. The misinformation landscape could be radically different than what it once was in 2016. Just some extra thoughts I'd pitch in.
Thank you, Hank, for speaking about this, and also for underscoring how much more likely we are to accept information when it aligns with our views and preconceived opinions. The unfortunate truth in my experience, as someone who used to do a lot of fact and data checking for a couple of previous jobs, is that as soon information is used to convey some sort of opinion or political point, the probability of it being shared truthfully and without manipulation tends towards zero. Hell, it doesn't even have to be the press people, the influencers, or the political types messing with it. Just as often it's straight up the studies that are of such low quality that using them as a source is a joke. Which is why I got tired of checking things (and invariably learning that what I'm reading is at least somewhat wrong), and I am now selling pretty boxes. Boxes, of course, also lie, because they're a marketing tool, but at least I guess they aren't lying about anything important.
About Hank's closing statement on "homelessness is a problem created by the lack of homes": My city (Montreal, not American, but I think it will also apply in the US) actually has a lot of unused housing. Many landlords prefer not to rent than to rent at a lower price. The reason for this is that we have relatively pro-tenant laws, which makes it hard to raise the rent while keeping the same tenant, and hard to evict them too. I'm very happy these policy exist as it makes the rent sometimes cheap, but it also means greedy landlord can take housing effectively off the market. So there ya go, more housing would certainly help, but it's not the entire story
Vancouver/BC is trying to deal with the masses of unused housing by scrapping "no rental" strata bylaws, creating empty homes / vacancy taxes, and adding a newly implemented house flipping tax to cool the market as well. It is indeed very complex.
Yeah, my city has more empty homes than homeless people. The number of homes doesn't matter when they aren't being made available and affordable, and there's a lot of capitalist pressure to keep those homes empty or used as overpriced Air B&Bs or something.
yeah, Australia too. There are a lot of houses that investors buy, wait a year with it empty and sell at a higher price in a year or two. If we simply "built more houses" the supply/demand would not make the price fall it would just mean the exact same investors could buy more houses even though yes we do need more and better quality houses built. The rent and house price wouldn't change, which sounds like absolute nonsense but unless we also change the rules around investing, negative gearing, and availability of social housing it won't increase the affordability or availability of housing.
Depending on place, "renters" side ruleset might give too much headaches to even try renting. ROI of renting isn't too high (most times) so even few troublemakers (mindset of some renters is literally insane) can cause one to simply avoid this market at all and just have empty property as investment "hold".
the solution for that is pretty simple, you tax properties that aren't in use cause they're a drain on the economy. its a problem with a very elegant solution, which is pretty lucky all things considered
Thanks so much for sharing this. The way I've thought about it for years is we need to be taught to be better evaluators of information rather than just consumers of it. I taught my kids a little doubt goes a long way, always be willing to think you have it wrong and try to understand what's really going on. Same with folks I disagree with, I don't ask them to change their minds, I ask them to be skeptical and look for the evidence that supports what they want to believe. Only YOU can prevent confirmation bias! :)
"I was alright with someone putting it in my head, but turns out I was not alright with putting it in someone else's." Good line. Good man
I have done that! It’s great to question something when I start sharing it.
I take this to the extreme and second guess even things that I intimately know, so I’ll often fact check before saying anything just to feel secure saying it at all even if it’s like something I’m very sure about.
But I think that’s the self worth trauma so not sure if that’s a good thing
And that is why the best way to really learn something is to try to teach/explain it to someone else. You'll find the holes and many don't like potholes in their beliefs.
@@sylva5359 I've done exactly this, only to find that what I was about to share was, in fact, made up. Thankfully, my friends group is incredibly smart and informed, and it makes me double check myself before embarrassing myself.
I feel like this
The point about feeling weird only when putting maybe-wrong things into other people's brains resonated a lot. That's usually when I have a moment of "hmm, perhaps I should fact-check this...", when I suddenly find myself relaying some tidbit which didn't feel worth checking when it was 'just' me hearing it.
+
Same. 🤦🏼♀️
Same here. Although I was gaslit a lot growing up, so I think I'm now a bit obsessive when it comes to verifying facts. Note: that has necessarily stopped the gaslighting attempts, but they do get a bit flustered now, when I bring facts.
I’d never seen that rent graph before today, but even though I know it’s incorrect, I do find the image is more sticky in my brain.
That feels somewhat ok, though. Like, we may not have time to fact check every claim we hear, but we can prevent the spread of misinformation by at least fact checking the claims we share. And if we don't have time to fact check the information we share, maybe that's a sign we're sharing too much.
For once, I wish for something to become a bigger trend on the internet. Publicly admitting to having believed in lies and misinterpreting things would do us a lot of good. Thank you for the video!
There's about 600 thousand homeless people in the US and about 16 million vacant homes. Not the issue he is spreading misinfo for his own false belief.
@@MrWhateverfits I do feel it is a bit more complicated, given that if all the vacant houses are in different locations than high rates of homelessness i could still see it being related to availability of houses but specifically locally
@MrWhateverfits not for the reason your statement implies. It's not a malicious falsehood, it's a problem we all fall to, including yourself just now, over simplification of the facts. How many of the 16 million homes are "actually available and usable"? How many are priced in a fair and equitable manner that people on the lower income bracket can afford? How many of these are then located close to where the people who need them can access them and still get to where they work?... Complex issues have Complex solutions, I hate over simplification as it's the most insidious misinformation, because it is truth, wrapped up in bias and prejudice.
@@MichaelOKCi think the point is that there is adequate material and labor available to have constructed all those currently existing houses.
I seriously disbelieve most people who own multiple houses have done enough important work to justify so much hoarding of resources. Too many incompetent and niche people being overpaid just for being charismatic. But you can't argue that the majority is fine with giving millions to sports, entertainers, and upper managers. So how to say anyone deserves a house if homeless are that way just for a lack of charisma (insanity, laziness, disability all lacking charisma to earn big paychecks)?
It takes not only a deep desire to know and spread the truth, but integrity and humility to do this, which is what you can expect from Hank. That's why I follow him.
It's good to find people you can trust, but always a good idea to double check for yourself, too.
When an honest man discovers he is mistaken, he either ceases being mistaken or ceases being honest. Thank you for being the man who ceases being mistaken!
I’m writing this down.
This could be taken another way entirely from how you meant it.
For instance it could mean that the honest man no longer tells the truth. Rather perpetuates the lie to save face...
ooOoo catchy. though, I'd replace the "or ceases being honest" with "or enters into denial". that seems to me more common. but then, suddenly, not so catchy. what can you do
@@phillystevesteak6982yeah but it breaks the poetic aspect of the quote, which utilizes the two adjectives stated prior, e.g. “mistaken” and “honest”
@@Masteretel I think that's exactly how it's intended to be taken. You either amend your understanding so as to not be mistaken, or you stop being honest (with yourself and others) by continuing to hold the mistaken belief.
....This is why we have fact checkers...
You mean they have a reason other than for the Right to hate?
That's a joke.
Fact Checkers are great, however for social media platforms we need education. People need to be taught that just because somebody made a video on tiktok or youtube doesnt mean its the truth and very well could be an outright lie. This is only getting worse as deep fakes and AI are getting better by the day.
Fact checkers for your own videos you produce are great.
Fact checkers in social media are a propaganda tool and are bias.
@@aminorityofone education requires understanding context that we almost entirely shun on these here internets.
Hank trying to build engagement here by using his alt account.
When I hear "you are not immune to propaganda" I think of stuff like this.
Well, I am immune to propaganda. I have managed to objectively look at the content I come across and understand what is true or not, without any error or judgement. My mind is an encyclopedia of objective truth. It can not be debunked, for the truth can not be debunked. When I look at others with a different view on things, I laugh to myself, then I stop up and feel sorry for the ignorance they display. Because what a wonderful world it would be if everyone had the right opinions about everything, like me? I am truly a genius.
@@mism847 youre falling into your own propaganda now, be careful.
always be humble, fellow dispenser of truth and facts, because one day, our veiw on reality could be shattered by something as simple as a flower.
@HYpr1337time They are obviously joking.
@@HYpr1337time it's not that hard to detect hyperboles in text form.
@@ryno4ever433 meh.
i was high.
plus its text, sometimes tone doesnt exactly come across when people are genuinely like that.
There's some conversation about the lack of homes being a cause of homelessness, specifically some talk about how there are plenty of vacant homes for people in cities where there are homeless people. The people I've talked to who work in housing or homelessness agree that this is a distraction that stops us from confronting the reality of the obvious and clear connection between limited housing stock and homelessness. When there is less housing available, rents go up. Search for "vacancies are a red herring" if you want to read more on this!
I've always heard there's plenty of houses and housing alternatives (apartments, condos, house boats, mini homes, mobile homes, etc) in the US to house every person / family unit (because not all people live alone), but the people either don't live where these vacancies are, or they do but the places are priced too high for them to be able to afford them. And, if you're already homeless, being able to afford a place to live becomes an overwhelming task for many because it's hard to get a job that pays well if you don't have an address to put on the application. There's a lot that goes into it. But regardless, if you're going to ask for more housing to be built, ask for *affordable* housing to be built, not million dollar homes.
I mean this is true due to capitalism in general, your never going to utilize 100% of a thing because if you did prices would change. so unless we started giving away houses for free "vacant homes" existing isnt the problem. but in a weird idealistic no money world those homes should count against homelessness but pretending thats the world we live it is just a really easy way to ignore the true problems
As a housing econ nerd, I explain it like hermit crabs. Not all vacant shells are the right size for a given crab and you need lots of empty shells so that every crab can find the one that fits them!
Then why are there empty units I can see from my apartment? Why have some of these units sat empty for over a year? Why are new luxury apartments built every day and it doesn't solve the housing crisis? People aren't sitting outside because there are no available housing units, it's because they cannot afford the housing that is available.
15 million empty homes in America. Homeless population in America(according to H.u.d.) : axp. 650,000
How exactly is our problem not enough homes. We have roughly what, 23-24 homes per homeless person.
"I will run to fact check something I disagree with and I will not do that with stuff that aligns with my previous conception" powerful human nature. I need to fact check my beliefs as much as I need to fact check my doubts.
Honestly, I've tried to teach myself to be MORE skeptical of things that conveniently align with my world view. The cognitive bias is strong.
I also believe that that is the importance of discourse between people analyze each others beliefs, then listening to each other
this whole sentence read as. 'I am Human and I understand that"
@@roaaoife8186 I think that is a good rule actually. I need to marinate on this. Ofc it is a bunch of going out of my way... but being accurate is important to me. But initiating tasks is also challenging. Oof
@@xGodofAtheistsx it's more specific than that, hence why it was written as it was written. There are many different things you can associate with being human, this is just one part
I cannot emphasise enough how important I think a video like this is. Over the last few years there’s been a phenomenon of people holding beliefs, being presented information which shows that belief is incorrect and then doubling down hard on that belief anyway. For someone to hold up their hands and say ‘yes I was wrong, and this is why’ is just so important.
Believing something only to realise it wasn’t factual or true isn’t the end of the world, but learning from it and being honest about it crucial. Nicely done!
Notably, this was not really an example of being wrong about a belief, just being wrong about certain facts. I believe that in all four cases, Hank's underlying beliefs persisted. Not that they shouldn't have, it's just that this isn't an example of someone re-examining their beliefs.
It really important, I hope more people see this.
This is aggravated when certain "truths" or "questionings" correlate with political "sides" somewhat, which is weirdly common. I think being more careful with accuracy works as a preemptive patching of some vulnerabilities that can be exploited to arguments that use this kernel of truth of one's side misconception, to try to push for something more questionable. Such as people just attributing some exceptional storms randomly to climate change, when it could be that something like El Niño or La Niña are more well-established factors for the observed pattern -- which AGW deniers can then exploit to paint a picture/strawman of "climate alarmists" who don't know the basics of climatology and just assume everything is AGW. When unfortunately those attributing the anomalies to AGW at least are more correct in "ballpark," big-picture terms.
yeah like the COVID mandates, which exiled millions of innocent Americans from society because they refused to virtue signal about pretending to protect 80 year olds from the same risk of flu they've always faced. That's the big one, the people who were completely wrong went insane and hurt others very badly. Now that they caught up with reality and got tired of their filthy face rags, they want to move on and not apologize. But we're going to have to punish them totally for what they did.
NO!, SANTA IS REAL AND NO1 CAN COONVINCE ME OTHERWISE!
Oh you weren't talking about Santa??
Not only did you start with humility, but you then went on to educate us about why being wrong is ok as long as we are willing to learn. I can't stress enough that this is what we all need to move forward as a society. Your humor and joy about learning the facts behind the misinformation help to drive it home. Keep it up, we appreciate it!
Being wrong is ok, learning from it is better!
As long as you are willing to learn from a mistake, it will help you grow into a better person.
Unfortunately, this may not work much longer. It may be too late for us. Who can say which information is accurate. Was the video footage of Jane Goodall real? How can we find reality and know that we've found it?
Thank you for this. My motto is, "I would rather look stupid today, than be stupid tomorrow."
That last one is so much of science in popular perception. Almost every time people think scientists as a group are "lying" it's because someone unqualified misinterpreted what scientists said and the people who are mad are just hearing that interpretation second or third hand.
When they said the vaccine would prevent transmission, that was a made up lie that did not even appear in any published studies. I could describe to you a dozen lies during the pandemic coming directly from corrupt scientists, they had a big opportunity for profit and political power, and so they lied. I don't call them scientists though since they are imposters.
gonna borrow this comment...frequently
Here, I'll give you an example of a lie. When the COVID mandates started they said the vaccine would reduce transmission (that was the fallback justification since it predictably didn't prevent illness). But at the time of the mandates, no studies had been done on transmission, and there was no reason (other than wishful thinking and arrogant fantasy) to think it would reduce transmission, and it in fact didn't. So the COVID mandates were a big intentional lie. Society can't move on until the midwits and imposters come back to reality.
Clickbait article 1: "eggs are bad for you! Study says eating more than three per week is harmful"
Clickbait article 2: "eggs are good for you! Study says up to three per week is perfectly safe"
People who don't read good: "goddamn scientists, why can't they make up their minds and stop contradicting themselves?"
This is def a dynamic, but there are also other important factors. Academics aren’t always incentivized to tell the truth or to not willfully misinterpret results, and while peer review can ameliorate misinterpretation it does almost nothing to protect against falsified data. Scientists actually do lie, and if recent scandals are any indication it’s quite widespread.
That said, many studies finding the same thing and academic consensus should normally be believed. But skepticism is healthy and warranted for anything you read
Touching grass isn't going to cut it for me this year, Hank. I need to be absorbed into a wetland by strange and wonderful algae.
If this person doesn't listen to Hozier I'll be very surprised 😉
@mariannetfinches oh great now I got a song about foxes getting their taste lodged in my head xD
This comment is tumblr codded i love it
That's because you need to mow the grass to cut it
become the bog witch you want to see in the world
Two that I see quoted a lot are
"the 15 biggest ships pollute more than all the cars in the world"
and "100 companies are responsible for 71% of carbon emissions"
The first one is not true about carbon emissions, although that's what most everyone thinks of when they hear "pollution". The original paper only says that 15 ships emit more *sulfur dioxide* than all the cars. Sulfur dioxide is not a greenhouse gas, it is bad to breathe, but it only lasts about a day before it gets converted to sulfate, so it's only a local pollutant. The only reason those ships emitted so much is because we let them, because we thought sulfur dioxide didn't matter way out in the ocean. But since then we've changed the laws and the ships hardly emit any SO2 anymore. So the fact is both out of date, and doesn't say the thing most people claim it says.
The second one comes from a paper that counts all downstream emissions as belonging to the fossil fuel mining companies. So if an oil company drills some oil, sells it to a refiner, who sells it to a gas station, who sells it to me, and I burn it in my car, only the oil company counts as having any emissions. People quote this paper and then say "see, me driving my car doesn't matter", but your car *is* part of that 71%, and so is -all- the electricity you use at home. The paper doesn't say that 71% of the blame goes to those companies, because that's so much harder to determine. Whose fault is it when my car emits CO2? The oil company's fault? My fault? My boss's fault for not letting me work remote? My city's fault for not building more transit? The car company's fault for not making it more efficient? Yes, probably all of these.
I wanted to believe both of these because I do think big companies need to be held responsible for climate change, and putting the blame on individual consumers is problematic. But I don't like how the quotes get used to say something they don't actually say (probably not on purpose).
I’m confused where the “all the electricity you use at home” part came from? Yes, a lot of electricity is generated from fossil fuels, however lots is also generated from hydro, wind, solar, etc.
Its region dependent. My understanding is that fossil fuels still provide 50% or more of electricity worldwide, though obviously there are probably some areas where no power is fossil fuel based. My region is about 60% fossil fuels @@anyalpine
Thank you for writing this up! This was really great additional content
"Whose fault is it [...] ? Yes, probably all of these"
This sums up how I feel about so many things. We're all so divided over who is to blame, but the answer is (to varying degrees) all of us*, so we might as well each try to contribute as much to the solution as we can. And yes, voting is one way we can contribute to the solution (or the problem!), but it's only one way, and stopping at voting is a cop-out.
*"us" here means the population of the industrialized world. Tribal villages or foraging societies bear negligible blame, and as a bonus, tend to suffer the worst of the effects.
IIRC SO2 in the atmosphere cools the planet.
Maybe the opposite of a greenhouse gas.
Thanks for the transparency and showing how easy it is to get tangled up by misleading info sometimes. 😊
I just respect you so much doing this. I will say, as a former small town journalist, regarding culpability for Scientific American, thinking two steps ahead of the reader is kind of their job. This was something I would harp on about until my editor wanted to gag me, but any graph, graphic or other standalone element has to be evaluated out of context for how people might take it, because people don't read articles, they cue off visuals.
true
A good example was the actual total tax graph that John used to show that he was misrepresenting tax data. That graph stopped at 50%, making it look like France was paying close to 100% of its income in taxes when, in reality, it was around 48%.
My father talked to me about how everyone is prejudiced, including himself, and he was a Superior Court Judge. He said you just have to examine your thoughts to work through that, and make adjustments. That has stayed with me my whole life
Thanks for sharing that that’s pretty cool. I’m guessing he’s a great dad, and it sounds like a great judge too. I got to say how funny the image is of him deciding something at work, and then double checking himself for prejudice:
“wait, nope that’s racist” “dang it, no that’s xenophobic” 😂😂😂😂 it’s so endearing that he was fair on that level and it’s just so funny to imagine
THERE ARE! FOUR! LIES!
Aye captain
This video can go on as long as it has to. No one is coming to save you. All you have to do to escape is admit the truth.
How many lies are there?
By the end, I believe there were five lies
There are five lies
@@maxsalmon4980 I love this conversation.
Hank is the one who taught me that anything that confirms my bias online is something I should always check data and refine before sharing.
I engage with things that confirm my bias, but dismiss and ignore the extreme ones that seem flawed automatically.
Intelligence begins with "I don't know", and it flourishes with "I was wrong." (Paraphrased from Lore's brother) th-cam.com/video/8eDYVtPwWiM/w-d-xo.htmlsi=BY4g-8amxW5a4umR
My mum is confused about me getting excited to share when I was wrong. I think I need to share this quote with her
Not exactly. Intelligence begins with curiosity, open-mindedness and judgment developed through careful comprehension of what's received and critical thinking about it. Intelligence isn't just a storage of information and gathering of more information but a matter of thoughtful exploration, sound judgment, receptivity to new ideas, and critical thinking skills that allow us to assess what we hear and read, eliminate what proves baseless or "wrong," etc.
Well I must be a god damn genius then because I don't know shit and I'm always wrong.
@@reignman30 Nah, it means you're still at the starting line and have yet to move on.
... and #reichWing theists try to scam us into thinking that scientists and especially EVOLUTIONARY scientists claim to be infallible... just like their gawd does. They try to religionize science. So they can ignore it like Hinduism or Jewish beliefs.
My favorite quote is, “This is how humans are: We question all our beliefs, except for the ones that we really believe in, and those we never think to question.” - Orson Scott Card
That's hiliarious considering what a giant piece of trash it's coming from.
“The worst person you know just made a great point.”
@@PaulMDavidson OSC really is, isn't he? Thanks for making this comment, so I don't have to.
Coming from Orson Scott Card, that's probably more of a self-criticism than he intended it to be.
Hence why I have very *FEW* beliefs, period. Why "believe" something when you can simply (most of the time) ding into the actual data and *KNOW* instead.
You touched upon a good point, that we should think “would I be comfortable sharing this without fact checking” I think have peer groups that keep us ‘in check’ is one solution to this.
That's how the scientific community has done it for hundreds of years.
You just have to be vigilant that the peer group doesn't turn into an echo chamber.
wow i was just looking at that rent/income graph just a few hours ago! i had seen it before but i looked more closely this time and went "wait a minute..." it caused me to reflect more on the fact that i don't question things that look right, even when they're surprising. how serendipitous!
All that changes from the graph is the y scale is wrong. You could make the exact same graph by scaling the y scale to emphasize the differences even with correct data.
@@kenhensch3996This is incorrect, the two trend lines are on two DIFFERENT y-scales and thus have no business being on the same chart. You could either graph income and rent prices both unadjusted for inflation or both adjusted for inflation (i.e. in real terms), but the graph did neither despite its claims.
Actually homelessness isn't just a lack of homes. It is a lack of affordable homes. Literally hundreds of thousands of homes stay empty because people(and corporations) are not willing to sell them at a loss.
A town I lived in required luxury developers to also build a percentage of affordable homes as part of the construction approval process… and ‘somehow’ many of these projects managed to weasel their way out of it or didn’t build the amount required. IF they built them, they were built poorly and would fall into disrepair. So I definitely agree it’s way more complicated than a ‘lack of homes’ when we have greedy, psychotic developers, investors, and politicians who do anything but make sure affordable housing is built. Plus you can’t talk flippantly about ‘building more houses’ without also thinking about gentrification. The more building and development in my town, the more poor people and PoC got pushed from their historic neighborhoods and communities. What’s it matter if there’s more homes built if we’re forcing people out of their historic neighborhoods? Or when people are being economically pressured to relocate and now have larger commutes in order to avoid homelessness (god forbid your car breaks down now). Like it’s such a complicated issue. Don’t even get me started on zoning…
Thank you! That's what I was thinking at Hank while watching
It would be nice if homelessness was that simple but unfortunately it is not
Where I live there is so many condemned and abandoned houses that are unable to be sold because of the cost of the property. I am getting ready to be homeless and the best option me snd my family have currently is a 50,000$ trailer. This is how bad the housing has gotten
Not to mention communities with a big tourism business (for this example I'm thinking cities on Hawaiian islands), people owning and operating airbnbs can have a chokehold on local housing that bars local residents from housing
Yep. Vancouverite here. Thousands of empty expensive condos plague this city while we in the underclass struggle to find an affordable rental unit in the outskirts of the suburbs.
So refreshing to see a trusted source say they believe what their bias presents, but check that with which they disagree. Then turn around and say they were deceived by their bias, and gracefully allow themselves to be corrected. And then make a frenetic TH-cam video that is awesome. DFTBA EVERY DAY
This is probably one of the most important videos you’ve put out. We can’t begin to solve problems effectively without first assessing these problems truthfully.
It's like how arguments/debates are destined to go nowhere unless the people involved agree on the definitions of what they're arguing about
To self evaluate something you already believe tobe true and discover is false is very difficult
Practice makes progress!
If we challenge ourselves the same way Hank does, the world will be a much more empathetic place.
And it's so important!
It's actually not, though. If you are interested in being correct when asserting something, then you will find yourself verifying (or attempting to) what you think to be true on a regular basis.
Recognizing that we are not infallible and are actually often incorrect or outdated in our thinking is the key; the rest comes naturally.
To admit mistake publicly is a sign of maturity.
It's something I wish more of us were better at
The haircut looks GREAT!! I feel that people need to avoid adding to misinformation whenever possible. I've been through 1000+ hours of education, and after all of it, I've learned that you need to take everything*** with a grain of salt... (at least until you can corroborate that information with another independent source). There have been so many times over the years since my education, I found out I learned my professor's opinion vs. what is a proven fact. Sadly, I no longer just take things at face value, I look for proof whenever possible. Keep up the great work Hank!! I love the honesty and humility. Very HUMAN : )
I hear arguments for fighting confirmation bias all the time as I'm in a psychology undergrad program, but hearing the process from start to finish from a source I trust is impactful. Thanks for this, especially the reshoot. Correcting ourselves is worth the effort.
Lmao. College students literally think they know everything and do nothing but lecture the rest of us. And you can't even do basic math.
Keep your mouth shut.
So Hank, as a librarian, we often have conversations about misinformation and bias and even data (explaining it, finding it, working with researchers to curate adn store it, etc). But I don't think we have a grasp on how "the public" - especially on social media - use internformation and data. It's a qustion some library folks are looking into, but understanding the information needs of the public and also how information is used on social media are both very new conversations. This video is a fascinating example of how complex these topics are! Thank you
I love having other librarians pop up in the wild. :) One area I think is key is building stronger skills in information and media literacy from a very early age within the school curriculum. It should be developmentally appropriate to each age, but be a consistent element in our education throughout schooling - and include social media as a big component. When I was in school, the examples were often newspaper articles, but we need to make sure the curriculum addresses the relevant information landscape students are actually trying to navigate.
@@AVspectre Absolutely. For a bunch of years, people got the unsupported idea that kids from then on were all "digital natives" who just inherently knew how to use online resources appropriately, which was obviously never true.
people are very lazy. Sometimes, in politics, I see someone make a totally false rebuttal to a factual post, and the person after is like "fine but that person is still a poo poo head!" no, not fine. the rebutting statement was total bs and not at all true! you literally just took the word of your opponent, who also is some rando on the web! 😅😅😅😪😪😪@@rwalden00
Without addressing the root cause, nothing will improve and, people will keep complaining blindly 👉The Connections (2021) [short documentary] 🔥
I think I'm still a conservative, but since conservatives aren't really conservatives anymore, I think I've accidentally become a libertarian. I heard something about cookies? =)
I just wanted to add my support to the comment above. This is a crazy complex problem that's made worse because information brokers are incentivized towards drama and extremism in their reporting. It doesn't really matter which side you're on, you'll be getting your information sans context and often grossly misrepresented.
BTW Hank, I would challenge this idea that the Right is exposed to more fake news than the Left. I have an obvious bias, but I'm very confident that false information is far more agnostic than you suggest. I do think it manifests a little differently between the sides as the Right tends to get information that's just not true, where the Left tends to misrepresent data or actively work to suppress data that conflicts with their positions. The net result is relatively equal levels of ignorance, imo.
I was about to say, we’re a married, one income household with two children and our tax burden is DEFINITELY not only 8%!
Depends what taxes we're looking at... Unless that one income is over about 80k a year, chances are you pay $0 toward federal taxes used to actually fund the federal government, with all of the federal taxes you do pay going to social security and medicare taxes. On the other hand, if you include all the various levels of taxes, you likely spend nearly half your income on taxes.
@@johngaltline9933 No.
@@Threedog1963 I don't think half for the average person, but I 100% agree there are many taxes built into many things that go unnoticed.
And New Zealand is NOT 7%, our sales tax is 15% all on its own. our real tax burden is more like 50-60% or more when all the taxes are added up.
@@cricri7066you are not taking everything into account. Remember less than half the people in New Zealand are working taxpayers. Therefore more than half don’t pay income tax. Anyone receiving any kind of Government rebate counts as ‘negative’ tax. The wealthy pay almost no tax. There’s an old saying, if you pay tax, you need a new Accountant. Yes gst is 15% (I think), but anyone who owns a business can claim most of that back.
I’m no expert, but I suspect that average 7% may well be true.
1:55 homeless is not a lack of homes, it is caused by the theft of homes. Mostly so they can be 'repossessed' by banks or so they can be airbnbs. Houses sit empty all over the country. I would know I've seen them with my own eyes as I travel for work. In my experience, not numbers in any way here, but cities with the most 'empty' homes have the most homeless people.
How is the repossession of a home for the lack of fulfilling the contractural agreements you voluntarily committed to follow, theft? Remember the people who lent you the money are the stockholders of the bank. Much of it is the retirement and insurance funds of millions of middles class people.
It's especially bad in Australia there are a ridiculous amount of empty homes due to a process called negative gearing I’m not 100% sure exactly how you do it but it basically makes it super easy if you already own a home to buy another house making it practically impossible for young people to get a foothold in the market
It's so bad (this is a pretty dodgy anecdote because I love in a place that is full of holiday houses) that my neighbours to the left are a holiday house my neighbours to the right are a holiday house and my neighbours in front of me are a holiday house absolutely ridiculous
Yep
I didn't catch the haircut until you mentioned it.
The haircut threw me off and I had to rewind and rewatch because it distracted me from the content, lmao! Also, the fact that it's curly now distracted me from the first three minutes! (I've missed a bunch of videos)
@@pistachoo. yes apparently chemo can make your hair grow back curly and/or change the color slightly for a year or so after treatment (he had cancer in case you missed it). Never knew that until Hank mentioned it. I think it suits him but I imagine its a weird feeling to see yourself with a different type of hair.
@@Steph-zo5zk yes, I knew about the cancer, and about the chemo effect but it's weird to see it "IRL" so to speak! It's a different colour, too! Wild!
@@pistachoo.I ran into him downtown a few days ago and it was surreal seeing it in person.
Vaguely early 2000 Timberlake perm-like
It’s great that you’ve taken stock. I started actively fact checking as I watch anything, “trusted source” or not, a few years ago. Especially if someone is quoted or telling me what someone said in a speech or whatever I’ll just look up the source material and watch it for myself. Sins of omission are everywhere and there’s so much twisting of facts and findings. “A new study shows” is treated as if all “studies” are on par with one another and the newest one just cancels out everything that came before it. If I’m talking with someone and I heard something that contradicts what they’re saying but I haven’t looked into it I’ll tell them exactly that rather than run the risk of spreading falsehoods.
I'm obsessed with this video. In my social psych seminar, we've been talking a lot recently about these types of biases and how we can avoid them and, more than that, how HARD it is to avoid them. Everyone makes them. No one likes to think that they do. This is a great example of how to admit to our biases and learn from them.
I think if more people just understood this aspect of humans they'd be more empathetic and patient with others. I don't think most people really understand how bad it is, so to say how easy it is for an individual to get the wrong idea.
As someone who was homeless for over a year, there were dozens of homes where we lived. Our condo was sold, the new owners canceled our lease and paid us the penalty. None of the homes available were in a price range we could afford. Prices went up far more than 30% of our income. We made about 85k a year, we were paying 1850 a month when we lost our place, and couldn't find anything less than 4200 a month. Price now is, four years later, 6500 a month on average.
We were homeless for a year before we finally landed in a place we could find something we could afford. Keep in mind that having no home makes it very difficult to maintain your job.
There is no lack of housing where we were, just lack of places anyone could afford. We weren't the only ones, there were hundreds of people who couldn't afford rent increases, or had their places bought out and they ended up unable to afford it.
Most of those homes sit empty right now, for whatever purpose that serves.
You can't look at some numbers and think you understand the homeless problem. Everyone I knew when we were homeless, that were also homeless, weren't drug addicts or alcoholics, they didn't have a mental illness. They were 40 hours a week or more workers like my wife and I were.
It seems to me that those who don't care to fix the issue use stereotypes to imply their situation is somehow their fault, when in fact it's mostly greed.
When he got to the part about homelessness caused by not enough homes I thought "that's 5 lies you believed". lack of *affordable* housing, yes, but that is not solved by simply building more.
I'd honestly like to understand why owners would rather have their apartments sit empty than simply lower the rent. what's that about?
@@TigerLily61811 I suspect that in many markets the value of the land is increasing rapidly enough that, over the long term, it alone will justify the initial investment. If the investor is wealthy enough to be able to afford that and ride it out, then they don't necessarily need the immediate rental income to make the investment work (ie pay the mortgage if they even had to have one). (Also, the investor/landlord may not be an actual person, but a large and well-funded real estate investment firm.) Furthermore, if the rent is higher but not ridiculously higher than comparable units, they very well may be able to find someone who will pay it due to other considerations (distance from work, neighborhood, or harder to quantify human preferences). And although a nice place could be rented instantly for less, the landlord may very well decide the risk of renting to the "wrong kind" of people is not worth a small short term loss--especially if the renter's rights in that place are strong and it's difficult to evict. All that, however, is just my speculation.
Thank you for making this video. I recently came to my own “can’t believe I believe these lies” moment and I felt so ashamed. Not only had I just believed those stories as facts but also I had spread them afterwards. I feel so seen by your video Hank. Thank you for helping me come to terms with the fact that everyone can be wrong, it doesn’t make you any less smart. We just have to be more vigilant.
It makes me more empathetic, when someone is wrong. I haven't called anyone the standbys for a long time because we all have our weakness, humanity's strength is the way we can balance each others' strengths and weaknesses). (You know how everyone can't wait to send clown emoji or call someone stupid in creative ways)
There's SO much information out there, sadly. Even the smartest and better resourced among us can be taxed for time to fact check EVERY single claim.
One psrt that really resonated with me was when you said you only thought to check a fact after imparting the information to someone else. I think, much like learning, sometimes only when you explain to other people do things really click in your brain and that can solidify your understanding of the subject matter, or in this case make you doubt and need to confirm the information. I have also done this too many times, and often immediately said, "hang on, let me check that!" As it sounds weirder or less true when spoken out loud somehow than when it just nestles in your brain, especially when its part of any preconceived personal biases. Great video, always worth reminding people to be open to checking facts with proper institutions and reliable sources. (ie, not some mad uncle on Facebook).
You denigrate a source that may be viable. Source bias can be just as bad as not being fully informed. If a mad uncle says it's sunny out, many will say "ignore him, my TV hasn't told me it's true". I can't understand that type of thinking. Take in everything and do a proper deep critical assessment of the information.
As a math instructor, I completely agree. I almost wish I could take my Masters again. I understand concepts now much more clearly than I did then. Simple things that I just regurgitated back then make much more sense. Things that would have made everything else make more sense.
@@Brigadier_Beauif it makes you feel any better: I'm soon to matriculate with an NA on Development Studies and... everything makes me angry nowadays. People just love acting against theirs and others' best interest *at all times* no matter what.
can’t believe he exploded at the end of this video
I do not get this joke!!
@@vlogbrothersshhhhhhh if this is the top comment it'll grow retention
It certainly made me watch to the end!
It was an obvious lie, but still funny nonetheless
@@vlogbrothers I don’t get it too bestie
Hey man, thanks for this. It's really reassuring knowing even the smartest people fall victim to misinformation all the time. I think critically examining even those ideas you agree with is a skill everyone needs to work on, especially in this age.
This reminds me of the phrase, “It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.” Funny, because the quote is often attributed to Mark Twain, though Google tells me there's no evidence of this. He did, however, state in his autobiography, "How easy it is to make people believe a lie, and how hard it is to undo that work again!" Your video is a great reminder that none of us are immune to lies and propaganda, and that we'd do better to verify our sources and beliefs with an open mind.
This is not the first time Goodall has been the victim of false reporting. When the Gary Larson’s Far Side released a comic calling Goodall a Tramp her organization wrote a cease and desist notice. When Jane got back she loved the cartoon and made the lawyer drop the notice. Gary licensed the cartoon to Goodall’s organization to use as a fundraising and they became friends because of it.
That's funny! When I looked it up, I realized I saw that one before about a chimp finding a blonde hair on another chimp! The first one in the search also had a signature from J.G.
That's awesome! But now, thanks to this video, I'll need to fact check that story! 😂
"I had no reason to question" is a very unscientific and very human perspective to carry. Love the honesty in this video, mate.
Making a second comment to say I really appreciate this form of video and accountability! Its what I wish more people realized is how we grow and WHY we have discussions. Not to convince the other party but to challenge and grow both sides. If we confront someone with an opposing view it forces us to refine to the point that even if we didn't convince them our argument and fact base has gotten stronger. Especailly in this day and age critical thinking and questioning what you see is VERY important and that does not happen if we're so afraid of being wrong we stop trying. I genuinely appreciate you pointing these out and acknowledging I may have believed things I shouldn't have too hastily but I looked into them and grew from it. This is how humans learn and its the fear of being wrong which prevents us from growing or finding the truth. Appreciate you a lot Hank and great idea for a video! Misinformation awareness needs to be spread more and people educated on the types of ways people will mislead or change statistics.
Loved the coversation about the data from NOAA! As an emergency manager working primarily in mitigation and preparedness it's actually really important to see how data in relation to disasters is talked about and understood!
Good stuff, and thanks. I deeply respect this.
What helped me in this area is adopting the following guidelines, and specifically believing they are true from the evidence:
1) Anything other people tell me is a hypothesis.
2) If the validity of the hypothesis is important I must evaluate it first by reviewing all available evidence for and against the hypothesis. As a starting point, what are people supporting it claiming and what are people opposing it claiming?
3) Everything claimed is wrong at some level of detail. It's important to understand what details are important or not when applying a claim to a situation. A half-truth is fine if the true part is what matters, but not if the untrue part matters.
4) I am an "other people" to everybody else, so I should also expect others to scrutinize what I claim in the same way.
3 is a big point on its own, also the cause of a lot of "well actually..." as shown in this very video
#3 is extremely dangerous. It lays a foundation for cherry picking truth based on what you feel matters. "Well, this study is a half truth, but it supports the side of some controversial subject I think is true, so the truth is what matters." No.
@@Ranstone Maybe "wrong" is not the right word, but not fully correct, or correct from one context or perspective but missing something significant at another. Like "lies told to children", true enough at one level, but also thoroughly missing necessary information at another.
Yes, study one did find A, and it may be true, but it doesn't support the conclusion they think it does and is missing information from study two that gives a fuller understanding of the issue and context that shows how study one can be misunderstood or construed.
At least that was my understanding/thinking.
You are not wrong but I have a much simpler approach.
Titles of information often don't actually display what the title says it does. My approach is simple:
Question Everything. :)
If someone says, "here, this graph shows the tax burden of individuals across different nations", I will say, 'does it? How does it do that? The values are % Share of GDP. That doesn't look like a personal tax burden measurement. That's an internal number relating to a country's taxed vs non-taxed industries, and I'm sure a lot of other factors too.'
Essentially reading the full information, the details, is often where the 'ruse' lies. Maybe along the lines of your half-truths.
@@nowandrew4442 I like the idea of 'lonely numbers' from the book 'Factfulness'. Once I read it, I noticed that articles often rely on one attention-grabbing number that don't tell the whole story. “If you are offered one number, always ask for at least one more. Something to compare it with. Be especially careful about big numbers.”
Fantastic video.
Always weird but awesome when one of your favourite TH-camrs comments on another of your favourite TH-camrs...
Just rewatched a classic of yours right before this: the hypoxia video with Don Pettit. Keep on making the world a little bit better everyday through your work!
i agree, however for the intro, its not only construction of houses, but mainly creating affordable housing, there is loads of empty real estate
@@memememe908Australian here. Some of the houses and flats "available and affordable" are actually dangerous and unlivable. For many reasons including , no safe electricity, missing flooring, all plumbing severely damaged, roof parts missing no heating and so on and on.
My son often reminds me often to check the source of something new I hear and am excited about. However it is not always easy to find reliable sources to check each perticular items. And it takes work to stay vigilent and skeptical!
I love the idea of “having an alliance to the truth”. The hard part is accepting truth as it is, and not the truth as you want it to be. Hank, thank you for being an example to us all.
I think having an alliance to the truth has always been important, but rarely so important as it's going to be this year. There's already so much misinformation flying around (from everyone, as Hank points out) and being able to question not only your opposition's points but your own preconceptions of how "the truth" looks is going to be what gets us through it.
I don't actually, I think trying to adhere to the truth puts you in an extremely vulnerable position of trying to decide whether things are true or false and that being the only thing that matters. In many ways the truth does not matter, I don't care what you think of me, if you have false perceptions. But when we talk I want you to be nice to me and I nice to you. Truth is not a social value, it's a way for people who cannot be virtuous to represent their subjective views with reason... I don't think i explained that perfectly but you get the point. Humans don't operate on truth. We operate. We operate on what we feel like operating in the moment.
@@connorking984 I understand why you feel this way and that it may not be your experience, but it is possible to be nice and tell the truth at the same time. Finding the truth, even if it means questioning your own beliefs, is valuable...I would even say it's the only way we can achieve a common understanding. But yes, I'm with you on being nice. I think you can do both.
One of the things I discuss with students I teach at the High School level is the burden of proof, with whom does the burden of proof lie. And what I teach, biased though it may be, is that the burden of proof is on the speaker. Whomever is presenting the argument should, 100%, be responsible for the the fact checking, the proof, AND evidence of the contrary. In the psat, I've heard arguments that claim we should check up to 3 sources to verify claims we hear; but in today's internet age, we need to check 5 or more. Considering the wealth of sources, it is very ironic and mixed-up that we have to check so much more.
I agree with you except for the part where I don't agree with you lol. Let me explain. Of course the speaker is responsible for what they say and must do their due diligence, and if they are lying, then it is 100% on them morally and it is not your fault you were lied to. However, as individuals, we must also be responsible for what enters and makes a home in our brains. We cannot merely be passive receptacles of knowledge (Which I don't think you are advocating for) but must curate the library of our minds as best we can.
So Morally I agree with you, the person presenting the information is 100% responsible for the quality of said information, but practically I disagree when it comes to listening to others speak.
Jonathan Haidt said it best. He described people as "born lawyers". We don't use our cognitive abilities to come to rational conclusions but instead use our brainpower to JUSTIFY our belief in the things we already want to be believe. He says we ask ourselves two questions:
1) When a statement aligns with what we already want to believe, we ask "CAN I believe it?" meaning we'll take the tiniest bit of sorta kinda circumstantial evidence and say "Aha! Confirmed! Case Closed!"
2) When a statement confronts us with something we do NOT want to believe, we ask "MUST I believe it?" meaning we'll look for any scrap or ghostly hint of evidence that the statement is false and cling to it for dear life.
see also motivated reasoning.
@regolith1350 , Remind me which of Haidt's books this is in? I read the first two some time ago but haven't read the Anxious Generation yet. I want to share this quote with someone and would like to be able to attribute it.
Thank you for sharing this. There's so much unsettling truth to it.
@@amynrob621 It's been a long time since I first heard it, and can't pinpoint it to a particular book. I clearly remember hearing him discuss the concept in interviews & presentations so you might find a clip on TH-cam of him talking about it. Sorry I can't be more specific.
how dare you accuse me of being a lawyer, I'll sue you for that
If only everyone was this honest and open about things they've gotten wrong! "The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn." - A. Toffler
"I would use this ring from a desire to do good... But through me, it would wield a power too great and terrible to imagine."
The metaphore is far from perfect but I cant help but feel like hank is gandalf and twitter(or social media) is the one ring. You can try to use it to spread the truth but ultimately the algorithm doesnt care and even truths slowly turn into lies online.
+
Gods help us if Twitter (or X, or whatever) is the One Ring. Because it's already in the hands of Sauron.
This is what they were always on about in all those media literacy classes! You're setting such a great example, showing that absolutely no one is immune to falling into the comfortable trap of our own biases
I think it is so important to talk about how easy it is for inaccurate information to make its way into our brains, even for those of us who consider ourselves conscious of how much wrong information is out there. I also really appreciate you being honest about bias, and it will certainly make me try and fact check more often before I share information that may have been misconstrued or edited to appear a certain way (ie. Always read the fine print on statistics and graphs as often they are done in very narrow margins so the data aligns with expectation).
Thank you so much for your authenticity. I try to adhere to my Gen X mentality of "Question Everything!" and this video is a great example of why one should. When we don't, our brains take short cuts (we all do it!) and can be mistaken.
Cheers to being curious and aiming to understand the facts vs the spin!
The fact that I didn't notice the haircut change until he mentioned it was the craziest part of the video honestly
The topic of Information Literacy is what deals with ALL of the things you are talking about here. I teach this subject at an academic library, and I constantly use the Crash Course series on Digital Information for this, but you better believe I'm adding this video to my teaching arsenal!! Awesome vid Hank!
You teach information literacy?
Can you describe to me what you know about ribosomal frameshifting or antibody class switching?
Of course you can't, because you've done nothing but sneer at "antivaxxers" in between your multiple booster shots without bothering to learn anything.
@@SenatorBlutogibbering moron
I worked closely with the homeless for years. I've been homeless myself. My family helped get many off the streets, off drugs, into jobs and into housing. And we fed 100's more every weekend sending them away with enough for the week. And having tackled this issue from every angle. I can tell you with absolute certainty that homelessness is not a housing problem. That narrative is what allows governing bodies to get away with awarding people who have them in their pocket with development and redevelopment contracts that ultimately help almost none of the people they were intended to.
Even taking the most cursory numbers it simply doesn't add up. Ignoring homes built before 1975 (of which there are millions but it's hard to quantify an exact number), there is 1 home for every 2.3 people. Considering that most housing is between single family occupancy (3-5) and single occupancy unit complexes (which is actually 1-2 per). There is more than enough living space. Even after you account for derelict dwellings you have to consider functional housing which isn't accounted for fully. Such as non-subdivided ADU's, RV's, and places not zoned as residential being used residentially. Like an old industrial building being turned into college dormitories without rezoning or changes in use on unrestricted land.
Homelessness is a multifaceted issue. Building a house doesn't help the guy who will strip it for copper to pay for a habit. It doesn't help the woman who won't sleep inside because bees live in the walls. And most of the people who it could actually help will never see the inside of one because of the red tape that stands between them and it. People who need housing the most often do not meet housing program requirements. For one thing they have no way of identifying themselves officially much of the time. Birth certificates, ID's Driver's license. Hell even a library card. For a lot of them that was all lost, expired or stolen years ago. And to renew most of it...to get the ball rolling on getting into housing, you know what you need? Proof of physical address.
On top of all that they often have to find a way with no money, poor hygiene and physical appearance to get from a to b several times a day to get things regarding all that done. They have to do that with all their worldly possessions to. because if they leave it somewhere. They'll be lucky if it's there when they get back. So you better have a buddy when you're homeless. Another homeless person who will watch your shit while you do things if you watch theirs while they do. And that relationship is based off mutual benefit. Once one of you takes too long or is getting something not being shared equally and it's known (like the possibility of one of you getting housing and the other not). That relationship and your only thing resembling a safety net is dissolved. Then you have to explain yourself to a lot of people on the street. Because if you flake or do anything that's perceived as trying to do better for yourself without raising the position of those around you as well, you will be excluded from a lot of circles.
You're only going to find 1 person in a 100 who even meets whatever parameters were stipulated by those who actually made "free" housing happen (the program that develops out of the idea will not resemble the initial concept once it's made it's way through the bureaucratic grinder). And maybe every 4 of those people you'll get 1 to go along with it. And if their lucky. That system setup to "help" them won't chew them up and spit them out. Putting them in a worse position than they were before.
It's easy to say we just need more houses, problem solves, and dust your hands off. But that doesn't even dig in the direction of the root of the problem. And that's why housing first has never put a dent in this issue. Because it's not a housing problem it's an economic classism problem. So much so that people of too high a station in life relative to the on the ground issue don't even understand the problem and are therefore incapable of helping it.
you said it. this country is full of empty homes that are inaccessible to the people who need them
Thank you for taking the time to say all of this.
wonderful comment. thanks for sharing
This! Homelessness is going up here in Las Vegas, and it's not a lack of housing it's literally rent, and owning a home is too expensive. 36,000 WORKING people were evicted last year, and we have 6,000 evicted just this year. Going and asking the courts to put ahold on the evictions ultimately doesn't help because they give them 30 days to pay back what they owe. They couldn't pay the price hike to begin with, and now you expect them to pay that back to get an eviction off their record AND find a new place to live, when that was the only place they could afford before the price hike?! We have entire apartment buildings that are empty, new houses that can't be sold, and forget about getting housing help. The people in power have worked so hard to drag affordable housing through the mud that the people vote against building any, and landlords would rather have properties empty than take a government insensitive to make their properties more affordable. They also would rather pump money into Catholic Charieties than take on the responsibility of helping people! We have so many empty hotels and motels that it wouldn't be hard to convert them into housing, but they let them sit and rot.
Thanks for your insight, it makes a ton of sense
I don't know why you appeared in my feed, but the world needs more of this. Well done.
I really resonate to striving towards having a very strong alliance with the truth. I've recently realised that truth and authenticity are core values of mine and it sometimes shocks me that not everyone shares these values. That said, as you highlighted, caring about the truth is not enough and confirmation bias is really tricky to successfully avoid. I heard a quote once that had the sentiment of "always fact check, especially when it aligns with your pre-existing beliefs".
I didn't notice the haircut change until he mentioned it and then I had to rewind a little and see how big of a difference I had just overlooked.
It would've been funny if he lied about getting a haircut and then you had to go back and check that it's false.
@@vigilantcosmicpenguin8721this is the way.
@@vigilantcosmicpenguin8721 Three-dimensional chess haircut
This video would be too meta!! My life is a lie!!
I'm usually the last to notice haircuts and such, but I found myself curiously examining Hank's hair somewhere between 5:47 and 7:41 without knowing _why_ my eyes were drawn to it.
So I'm glad he mentioned the haircut - it explained why my brain was suddenly interested in his hair 😹
Thanks for doing this! When I was a kid, the old people would say "don't believe everything you hear on TV". This should go extra for social media, but those companies profit heavily from engagement, not education. So you're incentivized to share faster than you can/should think. And there's barely any accountability, since the people that will call you out are generally the people that disagreed with your world view already! Regarding viral videos, "a lie can be halfway around the world before the truth gets it's pants on" 😬.
Thank you for making this. This is exactly what we need. We need to teach people to recognize misinformation, but we have to stop framing it in a way that makes people shut down because it goes against their believies. This is a problem i am actively working on and your video was very inspiring
Hank. Holy moly. This is awesome. (I could literally feel myself thinking more complexly when you played that full Jane Goodall context.) Thank you for sharing it with us.
I saw on Twitter that the meme review got put off for this - WORTH IT.
(now we can all look forward to the meme review #teamJarrod)
People misrepresenting research on social media and in news articles happens all the freaking time, it's maddening.
Research papers misrepresenting other papers also happens all the time.
misrepresent due to misunderstanding or due to hidden agenda?
let's not jump to conclusions either way!
@@alexandergutfeldt1144 ya idk why the mistakes are in the papers I read. It's not like I met the people who wrote them. But there's definitely a lot of mistakes based on assumptions and biases. Of course, this could be sampling bias as well because I was studying sociology and criminology at the time. So, there could be more mistakes and misrepresentations in those papers than others. I don't know and I'm not planning on reading every paper that was ever published to find out. Lol
This is such a massive problem online. I was almost duped yesterday by a headline declaring that a local politician on the other side of the political spectrum said something absurd and outrageous. The only reason I didn't fall for it was because the image of the headline contained a few sentences from the body of the article that sounded kind of weird, and reading more of the article and watching the original statement made it clear that the statement was taken out of context. But if I had only read that headline, I would still believe that this politician said that absurd thing.
And these types of videos are so important for everyone. One, to remind us we don't always understand, remember, or translate something accurately and all have potential for bias, and b) to let the other side know that we understand this is a failing of all humans, and not just one side. Even of one side is a lot more likely to have it than the other
Thank you for being brave, and hopefully help us to be brave and admit when we're wrong, or at least reexamine our closely held beliefs every so often
Misinformation is a real problem that goes beyond political biases. We need to think of our biases when receiving information. And imo it’s even more important that we become more comfortable with realizing we were wrong. This video will most likely be stripped of its nuance and broader message by those who don’t like you. But for those that do like your content, this video is a reminder that it is not just okay to be wrong, it is NECESSARY to be okay with being wrong. That is the only way we can grow. People who perceive you as intelligent and well-informed maybe will feel less embarrassed about being wrong sometimes. This video actually reminds me a lot of a quote from Hank he said a while ago, “You have to be open to the idea that your beliefs might be false because that’s the only way that holding onto them can really mean anything”
dynasty typewriter mentioned
Sad Bois at the dynasty typewriter when?
Without addressing the root cause, nothing will improve and, people will keep complaining blindly 👉The Connections (2021) [short documentary] 🔥
w
This is my favorite vlogbrothers video in recent memory. As a medical student, I also strive to be someone with an alliance to the truth. It’s so important to critically analyze how our own inherent biases color our perception of the world. Thank you, Hank, for doing the hard work and trying to increase awareness of bias, even if it felt embarrassing!
+
Have you heard about how Florence Nightingale purposely used a confusing graph to convince people to use infection control measures? There's a fascinating episode on it on the podcast Cautionary Tales
I believed that Hank Green was able to spontaneously lengthen and shorten his hair at will until I reached the 7:40 mark of this video.
@1:55 homelessness is a problem due to a lack of *available* homes. This is also sometimes due to ownership structures.
Yeah, there are way more empty homes in the USA than there are homeless people.
But be aware that if the number of vacant homes is below 5%, there isn't much that legislation can do to unlock this (because the vacancy is temporary, or unlivable, or whatever). In that case, you just have to build more homes.
It's due to a lack of AFFORDABLE homes. We could house every unhoused person in the country right now many times over if it were just an issue of available properties.
Stop allowing corporations to own homes! Homes are for people!
There are plenty of vacant houses around me because goldman sachs bought them as investments and refuses to make them livable, or sell them for a fair price. We don't need more homes, we need less corporate ownership.
The easiest solution I can think of: reduce the number of rented residential properties a person can own down to something like 5 and prevent corporations from owning rental properties outright.
The truth resists simplicity!
Thank you for your honesty, Hank, and an even bigger thank you for the reminder. We all need to remember that not only do we have assumptions and biases, we need question and check them. And, above all, we need to be open to changing them.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to do some spot checks of the ol' mental frameworks...
1:26 I used to live in a state where rent could be increased by no more than 3% annually. During the pandemic there was an increase and eviction freeze in place. The increase freeze expired in early 2022 along with a "hardship" clause (not sure exactly what it was called) that allowed landlords to increase rents without a cap for a short time. They took advantage and even hit people with new leases in the middle of their lease terms so they could increase rent by as much as 11.4% (in the case of my former neighbor, who sent me a photo of her letter) and possibly more.
[She didn't take the new lease, opting instead to finish her actual lease term and then move back to her home state where that wasn't happening.]
The misinterpretation of online information is a major problem. We’ve all done it. Thank you Hank, for setting some things straight and keeping us better informed. I wouldn’t mind seeing a lot more of this, I think it’s great
I also think it’s great, hope lots of people watch it :)
i guess in big part is our ability to be critical has not caught up with how powerfull social media has become to our perception of the world. we easily take information for granted if its presented in a compeling way. but we constantly need to exercise the idea that things are always more complex than they seem
social media is engineered to catch your atention, and in doing so it incentivises dramatic takes that are often not true. it's the TikTok version of a Clickbait
Clickbait and misinterpretation will NEVER go away. we must learn to be more critical of what we watch.
as a rule of thumb, dont take to heart anything that you see in Reels or in TikTok. its simply not a source made to inform. its made only for entretainment.
Yes like the "corrected' tax graph he showed here - it's still wrong, or at least, it isn't showing anything meaningful. 'Tax burden as % share of GDP', what?? That's entirely dependant on the nature of the GDP and internal export/import etc relationships. In no way does that give a concrete indication of *individual* tax burdens.. just saying.
Dude, this is great idea for the whole channel. Probably not daily videos, but certainly weekly.
Hank is famous for having a channel of politically biased Sciunce "factz". Now he is realizing that he was spreading a lot of nonsense under the mantle of Science.
And you're saying he should make a channel about it...
How about he makes a channel debunking his own SciShow episode lies?
@@eschelarwhy dont you instead of lurking in his comments?
@@odiousghoul I am not Hank. How could I be Hank debunking his own SciShow nonsense?
this video is about Hank realizing that he has many beliefs that he used to think were true and unassailable, but as soon as he actually examined them, he realized his belief system is full of shit.
His SciShow was heavily based on belief systems that were full of shit. Many people pointed this out many times over years. I think the channel is dead now, but millions upon millions of hits spreading misinformation. He has a responsibility to correct the lies he made a fortune spreading.
I believe in Dave Green
+
Davetruthers
I don’t think he really exists.
@@Justanotherconsumer he exists in our hearts, and so he exists
+
This man is an example of what every teacher should strive to be.
"2 types of teachers in this world; those who teach subjects and those who teach students".
Thank God, people I respect are beginning to actively engage with information instead of blindly putting forward false info.
Thank you!
Many years ago (I think it was 1990), I realized I didn't have a justification for most of what I believed, so I discarded all of it and started over. Ever since then, I have been acutely aware of the danger of drawing a conclusion in the absence of conclusive evidence (because once an opinion is held it introduces confirmation bias), and I have believed almost nothing.
🎶Welcome to the internet, what would you prefer? 🎶
Careful, that's how Descartes started his "Meditations"!
Similar thing happened to me. But take note: if you question everything, you must also question the premise "Should I question everything?". If you want the best guess from a suicidal broken human, I think the answer is "No".
@@terdragontra8900 The logical system I have chosen precludes normative conclusions as per Hume's guillotine.
@@Claire-tk4do Given that Decartes never meaningfully questions hi religious faith, I dispute whether hebever actually questioned anything. His arguments read more like an attempt at rationalizing his preconceived notions.
This is so important to share!! I've been reading and watching a lot lately about critical thinking and a lot of declines in good faith questioning etc. In our media bubbles we get primed to easily just believe stuff that aligns with our worldview (the rent example is a great one) without asking, well, is this true? Callout culture also really discourages us from questioning stuff that people in our communities say. Knowing that others who we respect are able to admit they were wrong, or show their process of learning, is good, actually.
This is such a great format, cause it really reminds everyone to be open to having their minds changed and also that its okay to be wrong sometimes, by just being open to new information. And also a reminder to check your facts no matter how reputable it seems.
I'mma need that TikTok graph with both either adjusted for insulation or both not.
Edit: INFLATION 😂
They track pretty closely together, search "Mother Jones Rent vs Income"
I would assume that better insulated homes are more expensive than less insulated /j /lh
I hate it when tiktok graphs let water in
@@Martcapt me too 😕
@@Idefilms I can attest that poorly insulated homes are more expensive to live in.
And that rental property landlords have no financial interest in insulation beyond making sure pipes don't freeze in the walls.
Currently finishing up my b.a. in psychology and it has made me wish that all high school students were taught about research methods and statistical literacy. Thanks, Hank!
Ask Hank Green about the gender pay gap ;)
I absolutely love this video. Not only did you actually bother to fact check things that aligned with your believes but you admit publicly that you were wrong AND teach us how biases can seriously influence our perceived reality. I think this not only really takes courage to do but is also extremely helpful to teach us to keep a scientific approach to what we believe to be true. Thanks man!
This is an AMAZING idea. We need a couple thousand intelligent and honest people doing these videos. We all know (well some of us know) that it's more difficult to convince us that we have been fooled than it is to fool us, and we all need to be eager to find our misconceptions or whatever. Thank you.
Great video and a useful reminder for us all. The older I get the more I realize that being right (or at least less wrong) often isn't about BEING RIGHT at all … it's about being aware of the many ways you can easily be wrong … and the unpleasant, time consuming & ego bruising effort of diligently checking yourself.
Admirable! I’m certainly right leaning, and like you I see the sway of group think and my own biases enhanced by the scale and volume afforded by the internet. I’m always looking for voices unlike my own to weigh in (which is why I’ve been following you for over a decade). I’m thrilled to hear that you are putting in the effort required to do the same. ♥️
Great video. Like you, I have no problem adjusting my understanding, beliefs, opinions, and assumptions when I discover that information I have ingested to support those things is incomplete, erroneous, cherry picked, or taken out of context. Now if only more people could learn this one simple trick.
Caveat: Of course I get annoyed with myself when this occurs and I haven't conducted my due diligence; however, that discomfort is miniscule compared to the upset I feel towards individuals, organisations and governments that intentionally deceive with lies and misinformation.
I really, really appreciate this. I often feel really ashamed to notice I believed something incorrect, and it's good to be reminded everyone does that, and all we can do is try.
Great video.
One lesson the army taught me was "If it's important, they're lying.*" There are more "regulations" than can fit inside the Library of Congress, what is actually in print could fit on about 30 feet of book shelves. (That's regulations, not Field Manuals.) Turns out a lot of soldiers are also a Barracks Lawyers that knows all the unprinted regulations that happen to align with what they want that moment. My favorite: "The army pays you not to eat." (Great! Give me more money so I don't have to sleep.) Why? Because stripping and waxing the floor was more important then something as useless as eating. And, it wasn't even for an inspection. It was just a whim.
* I've since amended this with "... until proven otherwise."
If it is both political and newsworthy, then it simply is not true.
This is a little scary. Not being able to be sure that some famous person is telling the truth or knows what they're talking about. Thinking critically about all of the info we take in is a lot of work. It's a lot of work to double check that everything we are told is true. Maybe because we are all told a lot of things over the course of even just one day? This is an interesting video, Hank. Thanks for sharing.
Hey, this was a super vulnerable thing to have done and I’m a more responsible and conscious person for it. So thank you I really appreciate it 💛
I've often wondered how people believed fake news and made up quotes so readily. "I'm going to be less skeptical of stuff that aligns with my worldview". What a great distillation of why!
I appreciate you making this video. In the past two years I've also had to come to terms that a lot of my biases impacted how I received or rejected information, and I've been working hard to improve on this front.
I think the graph at 8:35 actually demonstrates this point pretty well, honestly. There are a ton of questions that come with it, like:
1. The scale on the bottom is logarithmic, which over inflates the skew. It does show that maybe the top 20% of the right saw significantly more fake news than on the left or center, but the majority of people on the right saw roughly the same amount of fake news as the center and left, around 1%.
2. We don't know what the source is, so we don't know who is defining "Fake news" and "Real news," or what their criteria is. Did they choose institutions that they felt were less or more trustworthy? Did they pick specific facts that they deemed real or fake? Was the way the information was conveyed to the viewer part of it?
3. How did the researcher ensure their own bias didn't affect the aforementioned criteria?
4. How were the data collected? How did they select their participants? How holistic was it? Was it from a specific website where the results might be different from the general population? Self selected or random control? Did they account for the fact that people on the right tend to trust polls and surveys less, and so respondents tend to be the most fervent in their beliefs, which aligns with the super consumer/super sharer results?
None of this means that the graph is incorrect, but it does lend itself to the idea that the information we consume requires much more scrutiny than the environment we consume it in tends to encourage.
Something else I'd like to point out about the graph. It specifically is documenting how many people SAW misinformation before the 2016 election. Based on the data in this graph, Hank comes to the conclusion that misinformation is more problematic on the right than on the left, and while I would agree with that based off of my own preconceptions and beliefs, that isn't what this graph is showing. It shows how many people SAW misinformation, but not how many people BELIEVED it. This ties back to what you said about what type of misinformation is defined as such, because nobody is going to believe misinformation such as "all trees are all red," while they might believe something such as a misleading graph. In short, because this graph is showing only the prevalence of misinformation and doesn't include how effective it is, we can't, based off of just this graph alone, come to any meaningful subjective conclusions such as he has. Also this graph only includes information pertaining to before the 2016 election, and given that this data is being used to judge misinformation nearly 8 years later, ahead of another, very different election, then it could be out of date. The misinformation landscape could be radically different than what it once was in 2016. Just some extra thoughts I'd pitch in.
> h>tt>ps:>//>sci>-hu>b.s>t/10.>112>/sci>enc>e.aa>u270>6
found the research paper
test
i found the paper but it seems my comments are being deleted. probably cause im trying to post the link
Thank you, Hank, for speaking about this, and also for underscoring how much more likely we are to accept information when it aligns with our views and preconceived opinions. The unfortunate truth in my experience, as someone who used to do a lot of fact and data checking for a couple of previous jobs, is that as soon information is used to convey some sort of opinion or political point, the probability of it being shared truthfully and without manipulation tends towards zero. Hell, it doesn't even have to be the press people, the influencers, or the political types messing with it. Just as often it's straight up the studies that are of such low quality that using them as a source is a joke. Which is why I got tired of checking things (and invariably learning that what I'm reading is at least somewhat wrong), and I am now selling pretty boxes. Boxes, of course, also lie, because they're a marketing tool, but at least I guess they aren't lying about anything important.
About Hank's closing statement on "homelessness is a problem created by the lack of homes":
My city (Montreal, not American, but I think it will also apply in the US) actually has a lot of unused housing. Many landlords prefer not to rent than to rent at a lower price. The reason for this is that we have relatively pro-tenant laws, which makes it hard to raise the rent while keeping the same tenant, and hard to evict them too.
I'm very happy these policy exist as it makes the rent sometimes cheap, but it also means greedy landlord can take housing effectively off the market.
So there ya go, more housing would certainly help, but it's not the entire story
Vancouver/BC is trying to deal with the masses of unused housing by scrapping "no rental" strata bylaws, creating empty homes / vacancy taxes, and adding a newly implemented house flipping tax to cool the market as well. It is indeed very complex.
Yeah, my city has more empty homes than homeless people. The number of homes doesn't matter when they aren't being made available and affordable, and there's a lot of capitalist pressure to keep those homes empty or used as overpriced Air B&Bs or something.
yeah, Australia too. There are a lot of houses that investors buy, wait a year with it empty and sell at a higher price in a year or two. If we simply "built more houses" the supply/demand would not make the price fall it would just mean the exact same investors could buy more houses even though yes we do need more and better quality houses built.
The rent and house price wouldn't change, which sounds like absolute nonsense but unless we also change the rules around investing, negative gearing, and availability of social housing it won't increase the affordability or availability of housing.
Depending on place, "renters" side ruleset might give too much headaches to even try renting. ROI of renting isn't too high (most times) so even few troublemakers (mindset of some renters is literally insane) can cause one to simply avoid this market at all and just have empty property as investment "hold".
the solution for that is pretty simple, you tax properties that aren't in use cause they're a drain on the economy. its a problem with a very elegant solution, which is pretty lucky all things considered
Thanks so much for sharing this. The way I've thought about it for years is we need to be taught to be better evaluators of information rather than just consumers of it. I taught my kids a little doubt goes a long way, always be willing to think you have it wrong and try to understand what's really going on. Same with folks I disagree with, I don't ask them to change their minds, I ask them to be skeptical and look for the evidence that supports what they want to believe. Only YOU can prevent confirmation bias! :)