- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
Edit - Addendum: The video title is quite clickbait-y. The video doesn’t want to debunk any “serious” science, but rather investigates how badly done research with no reproducability or horrible statistical significance is used to influence the discourse in favour of regressive politics.
Doesn’t she mention published evopsych papers right from the very beginning?
Edit: 3 minutes is literally the end of the intro. You didn’t watch any actual content of the video if that’s a correct statement.
She shows some titles, I’m not sure if they’re headlines from newspaper articles or titles of peer-reviewed papers. Regardless, she doesn’t discuss evolutionary psychology at all in what I watched, she just talks about idiots on the Internet.
Edit: right. Because given what I did watch, there’s no reason for me to watch any more.
You’re claiming a lot about a video you admitted you didn’t even watch. She discusses several professors of evopsych with published papers, like Geoffrey Miller and David Buss.
You could have skimmed the chapters in the description, at least.
Edit: The titles are obviously real, puplished evopsych papers with a bunch of citations. Examples:
Discussing evolutionary psychology professors instead of discussing evolutionary psychology? Another reason not to bother.
You can admit that you don’t like her style without claiming bullshit about a video you didn’t watch, homie.
WTF are you talking about?
Why else would you judge the video after you’ve only watched the intro?
I judged the video based on the introduction. Which is part of the purpose of having an introduction: to decide whether it’s worth investing one’s time and attention in what’s being introduced.
The introduction mostly showed the style of the creator. And it also showed published evopsych papers which the video was about to debunk. It didn’t even mention any “idiot on the internet”.