• Welcome to the edge of the civilized internet! Registration has been temporarily enabled again! We do have a chatbox but it's disabled until you sign in. All our official content can be found here. If you have any questions, try our FAQ here!

In Response to Vsauce's "The Future Of Reasoning"


Staff member
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ArVh3Cj9rw

There are a lot of small issues I have with this video. Let's just go through them one by one here.

1. We can't reduce every emission to zero. This is practically impossible.

2. There's other factors that vsauce and co. aren't considering here if they're rejecting global warming or think that the imapct is not actually enough to be worried about. There is a huge amount of skepticism in the government and the news and as people begin to isolate themselves more and more into their bubbles, this skepticism will only get stronger and, if unchecked, will morph into extremism.

3. The magician test is interesting, but it's also suspect in that, if I was there at least, I couldn't give a comment on who was more or less trusting because the simple and obvious truth is that appearances tell us close to nothing about someone's trustworthiness, therefore the whole question is a wash. There's also the fact that people may suspend self-criticism when they're in such a test because they're asked a question in a lab setting without any context and expected to answer then and there with no further information. Of course they're gonna make shitty judgements that easily shift with some manipulation because the question is a pretty stupid one in the first place.

4. Many people reversing their stance when asked to give explanations about their political beliefs makes sense sadly. But in that case, political discussions just by themselves in the the world immediately summon defensive feelings that have their origins in some kind of personal hurt and injury. So the answer to this isn't necessarily MOAR LOGIC but instead more empathy. (see: https://intosanctuary.com/index.php?threads/why-the-us-is-so-politically-polarized.979/)

5. If someone's mad and you see it, you actually may not know right off the bat if you're autistic. This is not because they lack intuition but rather emotional intelligence.

6. If someone offers me two free products where one has more functions and is otherwise identical to the other in every way, then yeah, obviously I'm gonna get the one with more functions even if I may not necessarily need them or use them right now. Because in the future, I may change my mind. Maybe a circumstance comes up where I do need those features. Either way though, it's not because I'm trying to win some imaginary justification contest.

7. The jury system has often been complained about and the justice system in general is long overdue for another big review. In connection with that, a lottocracy would give ridiculously sporadic results along with heightening the risk of corruption. On top of that, who decides what the experts are? Now that's not to say that a lottocracy would give all bad results, but when compared to other potential systems of government, it's not worth pursuing.


But even with all its problems, I think this video is actually well-intentioned, and the conclusion that is arrived at is both sound and agreeable. It is kinda funny though that in a video about reasoning, we have specious arguments and questionable studies.
Last edited: