The Poverty of "Lived Experiences"
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 сен 2024
- Tip box:
/ bigmoneydickmagick
Further Reading/Viewing:
A foundational text detailing Woke Epistemology and the application of “Lived Experiences” in the manner represented in this video. This book ranks among the top five most important texts to Woke Ideology, as evidenced by its 40,000 citations at the time of this video’s release, and pervasive presence on the publicly available syllabi of Grievance Studies courses across dozens of universities:
Collins, Patricia Hill. Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. Routledge, 2002.
Asch compliance effect and a meta-analysis of studies replicating it:
Asch, S.E. (1951). Effects of group pressure on the modification and distortion of judgments. In H. Guetzkow (Ed.), Groups, leadership and men(pp. 177-190). Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Press.
Bond, R., & Smith, P. B. (1996). Culture and conformity: A meta-analysis of studies using Asch’s (1952b, 1956) line judgment task. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 111-137.
Misinformation effect:
Loftus, Elizabeth F., and John C. Palmer. "Reconstruction of automobile destruction: An example of the interaction between language and memory." Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior 13, no. 5 (1974): 585-589
Primacy effect:
Anderson, C.A., Lepper, M.R. and Ross, L., 1980. Perseverance of social theories: The role of explanation in the persistence of discredited information. Journal of personality and social psychology, 39(6), p.1037
Confirmation bias:
Three different meta-analyses of “implicit bias” testing (assuming it’s even a real thing and that it can be reliably measured with the IAT), each demonstrating that the effect size on behavior is essentially negligible:
Carlsson, Rickard, and Jens Agerström. "A closer look at the discrimination outcomes in the IAT literature." Scandinavian journal of psychology 57, no. 4 (2016): 278-287.
Forscher, Patrick S., Calvin K. Lai, Jordan R. Axt, Charles R. Ebersole, Michelle Herman, Patricia G. Devine, and Brian A. Nosek. "A meta-analysis of procedures to change implicit measures." Journal of personality and social psychology 117, no. 3 (2019): 522.
Kurdi, Benedek, Allison E. Seitchik, Jordan R. Axt, Timothy J. Carroll, Arpi Karapetyan, Neela Kaushik, Diana Tomezsko, Anthony G. Greenwald, and Mahzarin R. Banaji. "Relationship between the Implicit Association Test and intergroup behavior: A meta-analysis." American psychologist 74, no. 5 (2019): 569.
Replication and generalization crises in the social sciences:
Open Science Collaboration. "Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science." Science 349, no. 6251 (2015)
Freese, Jeremy, and David Peterson. "Replication in social science." Annual review of sociology 43 (2017): 147-165.
Tackett, Jennifer L., Cassandra M. Brandes, Kevin M. King, and Kristian E. Markon. "Psychology's replication crisis and clinical psychological science." Annual review of clinical psychology 15 (2019): 579-604.
Yarkoni, Tal. "The generalizability crisis." Behavioral and Brain Sciences 45 (2022).
Pew data that, poor resolution notwithstanding, appears to contradict the claim that testimonies of oppression track actual instances of oppression, as evidenced by the fact that respondents with more college education claim greater degrees of oppression than respondents with less (or no) college education, and respondents who lived through more egalitarian times claim greater degrees of oppression than respondents who lived through less egalitarian times:
www.pewresearc...
www.pewresearc...
www.pewresearc...
Feminist scholar Kelly Oliver explains to us why science should be governed by feminist theory, and why such a science would be under no obligation to tell the truth:
Oliver, Kelly. "Keller's Gender/Science System: Is the Philosophy of Science to Science as Science Is to Nature?." Hypatia 3, no. 3 (1988): 137-148
Video series, “The Science Wars,” with detailed explanations and long bibliographies of Woke Epistemology and their justifications for things like “Lived Experiences” as a substitute/complement to (shoddy) empirical evidence:
• New Series: "The Scien...
Video series, “Nuking Social Constructionism,” which presents a philosophical and scientific counterargument to the principal justification for pluralistic epistemology (namely, the claim that scientific knowledge is fundamentally a product of arbitrary power relations):
• Nuking Social Construc...
Opening clip is from The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc
Wherein I explain why sitting in an armchair and staring at your belly button is NOT a way of knowing things.
Bibliography is in the description box.
I put a lot less effort into the visuals since the work that I’d put into them previously didn’t seem to be paying off, and this way, I can get my thoughts out there more quickly than before. Depending on the feedback, I might make video essays like this more frequently since this took relatively little time to make. Let me know what you think in the comments.
Tip box: www.patreon.com/bigmoneydickmagick
Visuals can be low effort if they're snappy and get your point across. Just look at lazerpig
I just really hope to see a response to Dr. Fatima some time soon, in whatever form. That shit needs to be challenged and not allowed to fester.
ruclips.net/video/PPFHMQ7L_Ks/видео.html
I don't mind I want your ideas - not fun things to look at unless needed to visualise what you are talking about like complex maths or things of that nature.
Footage of the challenger explosion or the rant by the woman insisting that we have to "decolonise our mind" in order to allow for things like shamans shooting lightning at people - those were fantastic additions to your videos... Same with the montage of utterly bizarre and insane published papers in the social sciences you had on one of your videos. Beyond stuff like that though, I'm happy for it to be a mostly audio experience.
Short form: ‘Lived experience’ used to be called ‘anecdotal evidence.’
Anecdotes are very important for lots of things , from law to science. Just look at how medical reports from doctors are catalogued. It’s often based on what people say and feel. Your own experiences are important, but not so you can use them to judge everyone else around you. We are often wrong about other people.
Obviously we should always be checking our own experiences with others around us. Not preaching about how we know what other people are thinking and doing. It’s tough to spot a racist these days, anyone who is really sure about it is prob full of shit.
Self report anecdotal evidence
Anecdotal evidence is still admissible in court. When anecdotal evidence is all that we have available then it is useful because it's better than nothing, especially if there are several corroborating sources.
@@christopherlee9026 well-put!
@@christopherlee9026 of course it is still worth something, but it remains the weakest and most unreliable kind of evidence
The first time I heard the words "lived experiences" I was completely baffled. The reason was I have been studying philosophy and logic since highschool. The notion that someone can appeal to ancedotal evidence as evidence is so absurd that it throws 2 thousand years of intellectual progression away. The notion that this can be entertained in academic settings is intellectual sacrilege
This sort of evidence has been used in the soft sciences for a few decades, referred to as ethnographic studies or qualitative analysis.
@@KD-rs6xx yeah, I am aware but soft science are not really sciences. We shouldn't take them too seriously
@Lux et Mathematica why is how they feel a measure of anything? For instance, if something makes me feel bad, does that mean the situation is bad?
@@CambrianAnomalocaris yes I have but those concepts haven't been applied to sciences until recently.
It’s a political term not a statistical one. It’s a request to consider the interests of a discrete marginalized group. If it’s being used outside that meaning, fine, criticize away, but at base it’s part of living in a democratic society.
Reminds me of a quote I saw once. "It's possible to lie with statistics, but it's far easier without them."
“There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics”
@@nickgoesvestmode Exactly. I've actually studied statistics in school. It is INCREDIBLY easy to set up a statistical analysis that gives you the result you desire. So easy in fact that a significant portion of the Introductory course was concerned with how NOT to do that on accident.
@@nickgoesvestmode Socialism, wokism and Left fascism in general primarily depend on damned lies.
The only problem with statistics is that no one checks the math. It's not the statistics, it's people being lazy to check.
@@AdobadoFantastico
ruclips.net/video/6GSKwf4AIlI/видео.html
I did a year studying abroad in the US (not American).
I got called an antisemitic slur by an Arab student, the teacher excused it because he was "oppressed" by Jews in my home country... He was a 2nd Generation American whose family was Saudi Arabian not Palestinian.
So there's my "lived experience", a teacher giving blatant bigotry a pass based on their own flimsy understanding of geopolitics
It's amazing how reliably these things always end up back at antisemitism...
@@SevenRiderAirForce I mean we're a canary in the coal mine for a reason
@@aredjayc2858 Out of curiosity, are you Ashkenazi?
You h££ß$ should stop the genocide of Palestinians and give them their land back. If you support the Israeli occupation then you deserve even worse
@@scottmaclellan5688 Yep
I suffer under oppression every day. I have two cats and they clearly see me as their slave.
I grabbed 5 : ( Felt bad for broken cats. Now I'm broken.
assassinate your oppressors with a tire iron
Remember: your cats are always right. If your two cats say one thing and you say another thing, you need to defer to your cats' opinion.
lol. Good one. Feed them slave. They gave ur life a beautiful purpose. Fulfill it.
You are, cats always own you. They're our feline masters. 😸
You are forgetting an important follow up to the line experiment. An actor was put in who would support the real answer, and that one voice among the crowd was enough to severely mitigate the peer pressure of perception of reality on the actual test subject.
"MY lived experience is indisputable, irrefutable fact!
Your lived experience is a single data point of an anecdotal nature and ,thus, invalid."
This sort of thinking is the antithesis of thinking
Invalid as proof of some greater trend, not invalid as suggestive of something that might be worth investigating further.
@@Individual_Lives_Matter wrong
@@relaxingsounds1386 lol no. not wrong. personal anecdote and experience aren't meaningless. they're just not really valid proof in a scientific context. doesn't mean they don't mean other things in other contexts. the salience of a bit of information entirely depends on context and what one cares about
@@Individual_Lives_Matter like the difference between a piece of evidence and a clue.
One is information; the other is a vague promise of information.
Substitution of perception in place of reality.
Only hearing what one wants to hear.
These are manifestations of the closed mind.
Ever picked up a trash bag that was bulged and straining; expecting a hefty chore: to find it "light as a feather"?
It was filled with un-colapsed boxes and air.
Such is the weight of the closed mind.
Straining at the seams, yet bereft of content.
@@relaxingsounds1386 your lived expirnce of family meeber being murdered isn't real so we're gonna let him walk is that what you want
On the correlation between racist experiences and higher education, it’s probably just due to the fact that you’re more likely to have a racist experience by virtue of being around more people of different races than you otherwise would have in your own neighborhood. Not everybody has to take a CRT class in college.
The overall point I agree with though. You can’t know what a person is thinking so how could you definitively know you’re being treated a certain way due to your race, that person could have just had a bad day 🤷♂️
And you can most certainly gaslight yourself into interpreting someone’s behavior as racism if you’re already “looking” for it. Which can then create a feedback loop, because then that person might think that you think they’re racist and their behavior will change in turn, which you might notice a change in behavior, which will reinforce your internal monologue of “this guy is racist”, and so on.
All experience is “lived”. Dead people don’t experience anything. There’s absolutely no conceptual difference between saying:
“In my experience…”
or
“In my lived experience..”
What “lived experience” actually means is:
“The following statement, which will contain a statement about reality and an attack on a specific group, must not be disputed, because of the group-identity of the person making it.”
Lived experience: IE: my ancedotal story
The difference is that "lived experience" has a victimhood/oppressor component, which " in my experience" doesn't.
@@dirkvanschalkwyk1919
Well yes that’s what they pretend it does. But there’s literally no difference between “experience” and “lived experience”, it doesn’t actually mean anything. There’s no such thing as “unlived experience”.
It’s like saying “my personal opinion”.. what else would “your opinion” be?
@@OddityDK "Lived experience" provides political power, which the Woke captured institutions of society, yield to, such as limits on freedom of expression, etc.
It suits the "Woke Folk" just fine that Normies think of lived experience as meaning my experience, as the Normies then won't push back and realise too late that their children are on puberty blockers and are shamed at school for their privilege as instructed by the teachers, etc.
The lived experience of Canadian Knowledge Keepers may not and is not questioned by the Canadian authorities, else they would have exhumed the remains of several hundred First Nation children that the Church allegedly buried in an unmarked mass grave when they succumbed to TB and poor nutrition, as claimed by said Knowledge Keepers, i.e. excavating the site would be too disrespectful, so the "alternative truth" of the lived experience of a victim group has trumped the Liberal pursuit for evidence.
This Ideology appears to be progressive and virtuous, but is authoritarian.
I've only ever heard internet people use the term, but I assume lived experience implies knowledge you've gained firsthand, as opposed to hearing it from other people.
3:42 To skip the exquisite intro. But don't skip it the first watch through. It's exquisite.
What was it from???
@@ilovejettrooper5922 “The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc” 1999
In all seriousness, the stats regarding who experiences the most oppression, with higher education being the correlating factor to greater feelings of oppression, were VERY telling.
Remember how CK pointed out that survey questions can be a bit too opaque to know what people really meant by their particular response to a question? Seems like you're also rushing to a particular conclusion based on similarly limited information.
@@keisukekun86 Feel free to see conclusions as you like. Your self ignorant criticism is amusing.
So then it seems that lower education is the correlating factor for evangelical Christian feelings of persecution.
@@chrisose For all of thier ideological flaws, a rabid evangelical Christian neighbor would be infinitely superior to a rabid social justice advocate neighbor.
@@snappybean That just shows you haven't been paying attention.
I'd take issue with the arguments against survey methods. They seem to produce reproducible results in personality psychology, so clearly can work, despite the issues you raise.
That part of the video turns this less into an attack on 'lived experience' and more an attack on 'social science'
We should recognize the limitations of these methods, but that doesn't mean we have to throw them out completely and act like we don't know anything
Surveys are ... questionable... not because the results are or aren't reproduceable, but because they are often difficult to interpret. In general, constraining a person to a set of responses creates problems. One classic example of this from my own experience was the following question I encountered in my military training/schooling:
"True or False: Electricity is electrons."
Logically, the answer is false and all such questions are likely to be false because they contain some minor error in definition which makes them false....
But the purpose of a test is to ascertain one's knowledge of a subject... so, what is the level of knowledge this question is checking for? If I answer false, does this imply I believe electricity is protons? Or unicorns? If I answer true, am I affirming that I understand we are dealing with electrons - or am I saying I didn't pay close enough attention to the literal definition of the term "electricity?"
It's a question which can be answered true or false in an intelligent manner, which can then be interpreted by the examiner to be a sign of intelligence or lack thereof. It's a poorly worded test question, but how many surveys inherently include an element of this, or are even deliberately constructed to have this ambiguity?
They do have some value, at least insofar as they are the only means of collecting some types of data and can this create comparative assessments - the same survey applied across different groups and/or time - but drawing inferrences must be done in a reserved fashion and in a manner setting up a battery of case studies that can gather better quality of data to evaluate theories regarding the interpretation of surveys.
Though, as Thomas Sowell likes to say: "like most people, I've never talked to a pollster." Sampling methods are critical.
One interesting experiment, and I would have to look it up again to properly reference it, investigated whether or not survey administrators could influence the outcome of a survey despite using the same overall protocol as a double blind study where the contents and expectations of survey results were unknown.
The experiment showed a significant correlation between what the expectations of the survey result and said result that disappeared in the double blind study.
I was introduced to this experiment in a narrative context - one of Crichton's works, if I remember correctly. The character being told about this experiment obviously asks how, to which the response is "it doesn't matter if we can explain it - we can show that it happens, and we have to account for it."
Yes, qualitative studies are also vital in order to eventually build statistical analysis of patterns we detect.
I really loved the whole group meeting thing, with one complaining that the shop attendant went to their white friend first, because racism, and then a later one complained that the attendant went to them first and not their white friend, because obviously they were afraid they'd steal, i.e. racism.
You mean the made-up fairy story about a group meeting?
That's the magic of pseudoscientific thought, it can be bent in any way you need. There is literally no ontological "risk" involved, every situation supports the predetermined conclusion.
That is one of the woke favorites. I’ve seen it used many times.
It was the same thing with the Covid vaccine. If black people got it first, it was obviously racist science using them as guinea pigs. If white people got the vaccine first, it was systemic racism prioritizing whites.
Racism will never go away, not because the world has too many bigots, but because it is too profitable to let die.
This fictional anecdote isn't based on a real event, though. What basis does this made up story have on how people actually behave?
I've been in LGBT group meetings in multiple colleges and they're not like he's characterizing. His story really comes off like a strawman argument. Never were we encouraged to share experiences of oppression, especially as an icebreaker. We weren't fishing for oppression. We would discuss events in our lives, positive and negative, and not necessarily related to gender or orientation. Topics about challenges (internal and external) related to queerness were brought up organically by those who wanted to discuss those challenges, and most people wouldn't have negative things to discuss.
We would discuss events going on in our college community and local queer communities. We would share informational resources for class or for life challenges. And we would discuss political and legislative matters nationwide that would effect trans people or women.
It was also a place to get honest feedback about exploring your own identity or questions about sexuality and gender expression. I once tried a new style and someone told me I "looked like a straight guy who had never been in a department store" which was the feedback I needed to know that style of dress wasn't working for me, lol. One of my friends tried new pronouns for a while before deciding that they were cis and everyone switched back. Another person tried a new name, ended up liking it, and changed their name.
I can't speak for the racial support groups because I didn't attend them, but I can't imagine they were that different. There was also a veteran group and a parents group, which, based on discussions I had with attendees, functioned the same way. It's a handy community building tool for people to come together and discuss unique challenges in their life, in a candid way, while recieving relevant support and advice.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist or a social scientist to notice that trans people can be treated differently by some people who aren't trans. We're lower on the social hierarchy because we don't fit in with most people's expectations. I haven't personally experienced discrimination (not IRL, and online it's barely anything so I don't care) so I've been spared in that aspect, but others I know are less fortunate. If we look at another group like the veterans, we can also see their challenges without much difficulty: instead of finishing college or civilian career building, they were experiencing the stress and danger of service. Many sustained injuries. Obviously it's easier to get though college when have less obstacles, and groups like this allow people with obvious shared obstacles. While the support is interpersonal, the fact that the challenges are so easily identified means that those who share a class and those that are outside of it can lump their expected challenges together in discussions. At one point does a handful of negative experiences turn into oppression? I don't know, but I can say that those who are engaging in "oppression Olympics" and "performative displays of Victimhood" or whatever are fringe and primarily limited to terminally online spaces that have diverged from most other's reality. I have seen a few of these people in real life but sporadic anecdotes of weird, broken people are not enough to paint entire groups with that brush.
To me, stories of personal experience are important in order to make sure that important factors aren't being missed by larger-scale endeavors. You do have to do those to decide things eventually scientifically, but it's important to check in with ground truth every once in a while. It's like a CEO looking at metrics vs. talking with people working the cash register.
I largely agree - but the problem discussed here is that personal experience is being used as data to supposedly decide things scientifically. The social sciences are awash with published and heavily cited papers that essentially just use people's feelings as evidence of objective claims about society. I've seen my girlfriend treated interpersonally by people in ways I heavily suspect are due to them being sexist. But I would never use that as evidence of structural oppression. I have no issue with someone attributing something in their day to day experience as resulting from bigotry. I have an issue with that being called science.
Stories of personal experience are for dealing with individuals. With friends and family stories of personal experience are the life blood of your interactions.
However the Progressive Left use appeals to personal anecdote to try to morally bully you.
@@adashofbitter This is a cut and paste of what I posted to Claire above.
We can point now to science to back up oppression. We can point to causal as well as correlational effects. We can point to places where it is better (while understanding that there is no single variable that makes it better). If we have this data, does it matter if someone does not realize until they were told that there is systemic oppression?
Now, Claire, I do NOT want to turn someone who has escaped oppression from becoming a mindless victim who thinks that now everything is oppression. That would be stupid of me to want. BUT, I think that it is also short sighted to hide behind a few trees of Found Oppression and miss the forest of real oppression behind them.
@@adashofbitter no, the real problem is that people dismiss religion by reasoning it away. But in the end, religion is not only real, but also enevitable. scientists who dismiss religion as unscientific have shallow images in their head
@@youlig1 religion is the scab that civilization has used to cover over and obfuscate true spiritual connection.
Now that the materialist religions are here and well entrenched, anything is worthy of veneration and worship or condemnation by church decree.
The space religion is one of the popular examples. The church of nasa. High priests Neil degrasse Tyson and Elon musk.
Trust the science religion and its High priest faux chi.
Big government religion. Red priest. Blue priest. Doesn't matter. They all kneel at the same altar.
I have Borderline Personality Disorder, the most effective treatment of which is Dialectical Behaviour Therapy. In the Emotional Regulation component of that course they teach a skill called "Check the Facts". Basically, don't assume your neighbour is listening to their edgelord TV show too loud specifically to alienate or intimidate you unless all evidence points to that. Otherwise they're just an inconsiderate asshole. You're going to be a lot happier when you're not hurt or angry over motives you've essentially imagined.
So when I see it encouraged that historically marginalised groups view actions through the lens of prejudice or persecution, even to the point that they can accuse someone that their motives are prejudiced even if they're not (eg: they've just normalised it so much they're not themselves even conscious of it), I'm seeing people engage in a behaviour that has caused a lot of damage in my life that I've spent a lot of time and money in recent years to unlearn.
In fact amongst the far left I see A LOT of borderline-like behaviours celebrated. Labelling, value judgements, hyper emotionality, and the list goes on...
This is not to say that there's not plenty of "isms" still far too prevalent in society or that they don't still inform some laws and social structures. We absolutely should listen to people's experiences. However encouraging someone to "check the facts" is not the same as invalidating them.
Just one thing I would like to offer as feedback: drop the re-enactments and especially the whiny-voice when impersonating "woke-folk" - That's just childish and adds nothing of value to the content, and makes it far too easy to dismiss you as arrogant and/or insincere
Because KC is a bad faith actor.
@@christopherlee9026 A bad faith actor is someone who uses any and all forms of subversion to sidestep the issues at hand.
This is not sidestepping since he's directly attacking the methodology of those who'd use all forms of subversion to sidestep any issue when they've lost the semantic war.
Methodological epistemology is always going to be key when figuring out the truth of the matter, and the "woke folk" only ever use subversive and deflective rationale to try and "win" the power position.
@@Youshallbeeatenbyme "and the "woke folk" only ever use subversive and deflective rationale to try and "win" the power position." This is a strawman.
@@Youshallbeeatenbyme my man, thats just most of mainstream politics, people are all about left vs right and don't care about the actual politics
@@dan_asd No shit.
That doesn't change the fact that the cultural zeitgeist in the U.S. has been tainted by the progressive blocks incessant call for equity in all things.
I could give two shits about the religious right since they've been neutered to just being barking dogs. But the progressives push and push and push and bully anyone/everyone that doesn't align with them. So right now, in this paradigm, the very part of history that we encapsulate, the progressive block is riddled with nothing but bad faith actors.
I had a friend - our friendship ended because of constant instances of what I'm about to talk about - who was seemingly incapable of talking about anything other than systems of oppression and intersectionality, and if I ever pushed back on any of her absurd claims it was dismissed very openly because I'm white. One day I told her that I'm Jewish on my mother's side - I don't practice, nor does my mum, I was not raised Jewish, I've never attended a synagogue. Nonetheless, the fact that I am technically one eighth Ashkenazi Jew just blew her mind. She kept saying "i'm so sorry, I always thought you were white" and when I said that I don't consider myself Jewish on any level she kept attributing this to internalised anti-semitism and kept assuring me that there's nothing wrong with being Jewish. She would frequently ask my opinion on the Israel Palestine situation - a situation which she had very strong pro-palestinian feelings about and I suppose wanted the validation of a jew. It was utterly surreal. Her opinion of me changed just as much as I imagine it would have if she had been a white supremacist finding out I was 1/8th Jewish.
'You either agree with me or you have internalised somethingism.' This is the definition of a bigot.
'You're a Christian or you are a heathen.'
'You're muslim or Kafir.'
'You're a Jew or a Gentile.'
A bigot will not allow for an intermediate state, or that they are mistaken. You're well shot of her.
Prior to using proof by contradiction, the mathematician must show that only two possible solutions exist, bigots wilfully relieve themselves from this obligation- without explanation.
Lol, I really hope you don’t judge all “woke” people on the basis of one lived experience? I thought the point of the video was “anecdotes are not data”.
Sure I missed something. I’ll have to watch the video again.
Wow, that is very weird!
@@pansepot1490 SJWs are a thing, even if theres no data. Ive heared enough anecdotes to fill a data spread sheet. Leftists are as racist as real racists.
@@pansepot1490 lol, very good. 👍
"lived experience" literally just means a fantasy of being oppressed. "Life experience" is the term we have always used to talk about actual events in our lives. "Lived experience" is a new subversive term used by activist talking about things that never happened but that "feel real" to them.
nicely explained.
Then why do scientists do case? studies
@@saavrinfaia get your iq up above 30 please.
@@JohnPlissken That's not an answer to the question. Why do scientists do case studies?
@@saavrinfaia why do idiots not understand words?
While there are many odious aspects to "lived experience", to me the most pernicious is the way it is being used to smuggle in race- and gender-essentialism through the back door. It is a way for the wokies to argue for special treatment, positive and negative discrimination based on race and gender, without having to put forth a genetic argument. Rather, they can just hang their hats on the supposedly unique "lived experience" while still coming to the same essential conclusion: that blacks and whites are so different as to be incapable of understanding one another or sharing universal human experiences.
I had an African American (black) friend while attending Brigham Young University (BYU). He was asked to speak about his *"Black Experience at BYU."* He told me:
*"I don't have a black experience. I forget I'm black all the time."*
At the time, BYU was considered a racist institution by many in the main stream media. My friend must have have been severely brain washed not to have noticed all the racism directed his way.
I’ve never heard BYU called racist by anyone in the MSM. That sounds absurd.
@@Yor_gamma_ix_bae There have been articles over the past couple of years.
More than likely one instance that got tries to be blown up into more than what it was.
@@Yor_gamma_ix_bae How old are you? This event took place back in the 1980s.
@@amorfati4927 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS also called the Mormons) didn't allow black members to hold the priesthood prior to 1978. This drew a lot of criticism and allegations of racism.
The LDS church owns and operates BYU. There were many protests at BYU events about the race policy.
This is all just Privilege-Preserving Epistemic Pushback. Our approach to theory is of such high sophistication, we have an explanation for expected disagreement built right in: Any deviation from belief in our theory proves the theory!
...this crap has a component of faith and is very, very similar to religion.
I am not crazy, am I?
I always felt that way. The collectivists just take there religion, and replace it with a new secular dogma. They remind me of fundamentalists for sure.
No, you’re not crazy. It is an intentionally constructed Kafka trap.
The thing that has me scratching my head is how many people persist in pretending that “woke folks” are honest actors. They are not. They absolutely know they are full of BS. You can see the duper’s delight smile flash across their faces repeatedly during any attempt at conversation with them.
Very true. Any ideology that posits its own unchallengeability as one of its own axioms is pure dogma. Usually they go on the basis of merit, so in any case you can still make a case against the status quo and hold its sustainers to debate it on the same grounds, but nooope, not this one. This one has come up with like five slights of hand for every challenge, either it's privilege, or self hatred, or internalized yadda yadda. It has zero intellectual honesty
Thanks for the upload. I personally rarely watch your videos while listening to them, as I am here for the arguments and usually busy working with my hands while listening, so I didn't even notice a difference. I am very happy to hear that the uploads may be more frequent.
*“ThAt wAs a SIgn”*
“No. That was a sword. In a field.”
That cracks me up even though it’s not supposed to be humorous lol.
_Lived_ _experiences_ is just another term for anecdotal evidence.
And the plural of anecdote is not evidence. This entire video is based upon that phenomenal quote.
Better than hypothetical and completely made up dialogues to try and make a point.
@@tomwimmenhove4652 why is that? Don't you think something like that could happen? That was all it was supposed to suggest.
@@wasneeplus Sure. Something like that could happen, but in the end he's just making shit up to pull on emotional strings. I think that's a dishonest tactic and I'm surprised to see that from this guy.
@@tomwimmenhove4652 I've heard that from other people too, but I think you're misunderstanding the point. You see (my apologies if you know this stuff already), in any sort of scientific inquiry there are almost always multiple explanations for any phenomenon. In this case the accusation against social science is that they don't consider alternative explanations for "lived experiences" of racism. To illustrate this he gives an example of how those experiences might come about without actual occurrences of racism, one which fits with the higher density of such experiences within college educated people. This explanation might be nonsense, or it might not be, but it needs to be considered before conclusions can be drawn. I can assure you it's quite normal in science to come up with such hypothetical scenarios when scrutinizing a possible explanation.
Which woke folk are we talking about? In your lived experience are we talking about people you come across in the media, including social media?
How about the academic woke, the woke clergy? Maybe he’s talking about the rabid missionaries that they produce in their classrooms. This didn’t come from nowhere and he’s not making it up. The woke are the reason the United States Army has a DEI department.
@@Individual_Lives_Matter Actually the reason why the US Army has a DEI department is to increase recruiting among younger generations who haven't been eating lead paint chips for fun.
I really like at the end where you hammer out everything into a example of a way to manifest your ideas into tangible arguments
23 minutes in, perhaps a definition of "woke folk" might be helpful? It seems, at least to me, a member of what would be considered an "oppressed minority" (by most definitions) - although I certainly do not actively think of myself that way - I am so far removed from your "lived experience" that I cannot figure out who or what you are talking about.
I've been subbed to you for the better part of a decade (I think it's been that long) and have found you quite fastidious and reasonable. I genuinely think it would be helpful, to everyone, for you to define who/what "woke folk" are or what "woke folk" believe.
Edit: Just for more clarity, in College I was a member of my "minority group" meetup club. Once a week we would eat bagels and shoot the breeze, all 8 of us out of the 5500 students. I actually have faced bigotry (a small example would be a guy that lived across the hall from me - was as bigoted as possible and I asked everyone not to tell him my background so I could hear from him directly) this only ever came up in said meeting in a funny way, never in a "look at how the system is oppressing us" way. My lived experience is very different than yours, it seems, though I think we are from the same "minority" group. The more I listen this essay the more it seems you are not accounting for your lived experience. I never encountered any "minority" cultural club actively encouraging its members to discuss victimhood in such a way.
Are "woke folk" people that walk around all day with victim complexes? Are they people that respect a persons choice of pronouns - like any decent human being wouldn't insist on calling "Bob" "Robert" because "Robert" is what's on his birth certificate? "Woke Folk" seems almost like a cudgel for an amorphous group you dislike.
Woke folk are fundamentalists in the cult of intersectionality. They are relentless missionaries spreading their version of the “good word”.
Woke folk is when your opponent is slightly more to the left than to your taste.
Woke folk are folk who are cynics. They start out with an assumption about the world and then seek out evidence to confirm their prior assumption. People who critique a phenomena, or sceptics who seek evidence for a phenomena, or evidence to disprove a phenomena, are different. When someone reports to me they were subjected to racism my first instinct is to believe them. If they go on to give me detail of the episode and I discover the report assumes an intention for which I can come up with a critique of that assumption, or, through asking questions, seek further evidence that might confirm, or disconfirm, that assumption of intention, I may be left with a conclusion that it’s possible it was racist, but also possible it wasn’t. I’ll probably express sympathy that happened to you because that’s the conclusion you came to, but will I leave the conversation with a conviction it was racist? Probably not, because I wasn’t persuaded that you correctly identified the intention, you just interpreted it that way - which is fine. Persuading people to see the world and events that happen in it through your interpretation of events, which may be accurate, requires more than just your minds eye view of it because peoples interpretations can be wrong.
Allow me.... woke folks= Marxists
@@roxee57 woke folk means cynics?
This is exactly why he needs to define the term. I've gotten 4 responses and 4 completely different definitions. It points toward "woke folk" being the amorphous cudgel for a group of people one disagrees with.
By the way, phenomena is the plural, phenomenon is the singular.
"The Lady of the Lake held aloft Excaliber thereby signifying that I Arthur am the rightful king of England"
"Strange women lying in ponds is no way to establish a system of government."
A real life example of the "lived experience" formation:
I come to a bank for an appointment at a specific time. A black couple in their 50s are waiting to be served with no appointment scheduled. When the banker informs them that I have an appointment and was waiting for 20 min at that time, I would be served before them. Before I even get a chans to open my mouth and let them go ahead of me, the couple makes a conclusion and announces it outloud: "Black folks are forced to wait, but when a white guy comes in he's treated like a king".
An example from me. Some ordinary-looking fast food joint named after arabic parts of Africa, but in a way where that isn't at all obvious to me at a glance (I don't want to potentially dox myself here). The moment I walk in, to see if it's any good and maybe become a regular, the guy behind the counter looks at me with obvious hatred and/or disgust. I'm white, he's not. It would be _easy_ to believe he's just a big ol' racist, and if I were primed towards such a conclusion, well, the look on his face would prove it all by itself.
But for all I know the guy just really sucks at customer service, and since the place looks regularly empty, the two people who were sitting inside were his friends or regulars who put up with the guy. Or that's just the guy's resting bitch face, and my recoiling back when he aimed it at me he took to be racism on my part and cranked up his chilly attitude even further
Or even more likely, it's an organized crime front laundering money by pretending to run a fast food joint and making up customers, and _actual_ customers are a mere inconvenience. Considering the dubious quality of the food, that last one's been my half-joking going assumption since. It wasn't quite the gelato shop from _Alpha Protocol,_ but...
Without knowing any details, any conclusion would be easy to focus on and reinforce. I'm not a mind reader, and I can make up whatever details I want to myself, if I'm so inclined or even just careless with my memory. It's even an easy trap to fall into, and I'm _not_ naturally primed towards seeing myself as a perpetual Victim(tm).
Your example shows a weird, twisted kind of arrogance, like everything is a conspiracy levelled against them, when in reality banks just hate people regardless of any other details about them.
Or, we could also look through the lens of a group that ABSOLUTELY fifty years ago was marginalized and treated horrifically giving them a cultural bias that is not based on group think, but based on their own experience. And the fact that they jumped to that conclusion is not because they sat around in a circle and discussed their oppression, but because they lived it.
Knowing the ins and outs of many things is something that I take for granted. I would probably not have made an appointment at a bank, and I too would have looked at you being pulled in prior to me and wondered why - and, being human, I would have come up with a reason in my world view.
Now, the bank also fucked up - they should have spoken to the black couple sitting there for such a long time and explained that there was an appointment list and that they could set up an appointment. We can speculate WHY the customer service rep didn't - but wouldn't that be playing into Crocoduck's narrative? We can absolutely say that the rep's actions sucked and they should be reprimanded, but it would be foolish of us to attribute motivation.
@@Asilomar "but muh lived experiences tho" good comeback dude ten points.
"they should have spoken to the black couple sitting there for such a long time and explained that there was an appointment list and that they could set up an appointment."
And you know they didn't do this? How? Were you the bank manager who fucked up? THIS IS THE POINT, DUDE. THIS IS EXACTLY THE POINT BEING MADE IN AND BY THE VIDEO AND BY THE EXAMPLES.
@@EdwardHowton Hmmm, let's extrapolate (I mean, let's do something you obviously are not good at and think).
1.) They were sitting there before the individual came in.
2.) They and the above individual sat there for an additional 20 minutes.
3.) They seemed surprised that they other individual went in prior to them.
But yes, let's throw a sword into the field and just assume that they are unreasonable black people who are just there to make a scene and assume that they HAD been told that there was a waiting list, that others were before them, and they just decided to wait the whole time until they could make a scene in front of the OP. BRILLIANT.
Or, using Occum's Razor ... well, never mind, you prob don't know what that is.
Pudden' your racism is showing.
*roll eyes*
Thanks for this ironically "lived experience" ;)
Thank you. This was both informative and entertaining. Your referring to "Woke folk" (Intersectionist ideologue/ SJWs) has stuck in the the craw of some of the commenters, but I enjoyed your passionate and theatrical delivery a lot.
Nice intro too, reminding one of Monty Python's Holy Grail, "So just because a watery tart threw a sword (Excalibur) at you..."
It's good to see someone applying serious philosophy of science to this topic. I find your criticisms compelling but some counterpoints do come to mind. Would be very interested in hearing your response.
1. Regarding the Derek hypothetical, as well as the survey data showing that being better off/better educated correlates with reported experience of oppression. These outcomes could certainly be explained by Asch conformity (presumably alongside other environmental factors: media narratives, explicitly 'woke' curricula, etc). But an alternative hypothethis exists: Derek et al *were* operating under false consciousness, and through education they gained a clearer picture of social reality. Strictly, we'd have to say that this is another case of underdetermination. It seems that in order to assert the former hypothesis we have to beg the question: taking the conclusion 'lived experience is not evidence of oppression' as a premise.
2. You define 'lived experience' as something like 'an experience shated both exclusively and exhaustively by X demographic'. This strikes me as too narrow, and not in keeping with how woke types actually use it in the majority of cases. The way I understand the term is meaning something more like 'an experience commonly shared by x demographic'. For example, speaking English is a lived experience of people in Anglosphere countries. The fact that not all people in Angloshpere countries speak English, or that many people outside of Angloshpere countries also speak it, does no detract from this fact.
Do tell me if I've missed something here and you have a reason I've overlooked for using such a narrow definition.
3. This one might be me being dense, but I'm not sure how underdetermination can apply to the rocket launch scenario. Surely the answer to this can be proved mathematically?
Anyway, I enjoyed the video a lot. Thanks for any response.
I have a lot of sympathy for the case you're making here for the use of objective, rational, empirical thinking versus subjective, intuitive, emotional, and anecdotal experience. The confusion between these two categories of knowledge/experience is one of the most significant dilemmas of our time. However, there are innumerable ways in which objective knowledge offers little to no salience to our lives. Making a moral decision in-the-moment, for example, is little aided by a thorough analysis of utilitarian vs. deontological moral theory. Deciding what foods to eat, both in-the-moment and over my lifetime, is aided only nominally by a comprehensive understand of nutrition science- especially given how ephemeral and transitory the data in this field of study continues to be. In both of these examples, most folks will default to actions that are largely guided by our emotions and subjective experiences, rather than abstract analysis of theoretic data. If I'm poor and faced with the choice to give money or food to my child on one hand or a homeless person on the other, I am likely to favor the familial bond over a sense of 'longtermism' or general compassionate charity toward others. When thinking about what food to eat right now, I will more likely consider the physical and emotional feelings that tend to accompany my experiences with the foods on offer. I might even be able to to make quick associations with my overall health, weight, fitness level, etc., with the general categories of food that I might choose.
Given these examples, what is the best way to proceed in our lives given what seems to be a necessary dominance of our subjective or anecdotal experiences? Are woke folk really denying the value of abstraction, rationality, etc.? I appreciate your perspective on this issue- thanks.
This video essay seems to be an attempt to discredit all feminist, multiculturalist, intersectional, or critical theory on the premise that it's anti-empirical, irrational, non-objective, or unfalsifiable. Unfortunately the author of the essay does not engage with any of the vast, vast, VAST, literature in any of these subjects, he just sets up strawman after strawman and rather feebly knocks them down. Who is he arguing with? He never says. His main thesis appears to be that "lived experience" is not a valid basis for valuing one perspective over another, because no two people have identical lived experiences -- each person's lived experience is individual, private, and non-observable from the outside. That, of course, is true, but many people do have common experiences by virtue of belonging to a particular group or category, or sharing a common condition. These people don't share a consciousness, but that doesn't mean that individuals coming from those groups cannot share their own experiences in ways that can give others a sense of what it is like to be a member of that group. Just because someone's telling of their experience--"as a [blank] person, I..."--isn't a perfect 1:1 representative of all members of that group, doesn't mean that person's personal experience is not representative of some members of that group, or of all members to greater or lesser degree. The fact that we can't measure it accurately doesn't mean their contribution to the discourse is not valuable or informative. On the contrary, personal narratives like that of Frederick Douglas are of immense value in the way they awaken in others a sense of fellowship in a common experience, and communicate to those outside of that experience important aspects of what it is like to be in that group, category, or condition.
You've hit on one of the most difficult aspects of psychologic/psychiatric research, the inherent subjectivity of the human experience. As evidenced by the cognitive biases our perceptions are not as objective as we would like to believe, yet the distress caused by perceived injustice is quite real regardless and leads to any host of psychiatric maladies. This could argue for more widespread usage of CBT principles to evaluate ones core beliefs and challenge automatic thoughts. These are tough questions. I think your analysis argues for continuing to evaluate people's lived experiences but not relying on them as the sole metric for determining action but rather as a screening tool for situations that warrant closer investigation. Though I definitely don't think that any idea is above scrutiny or critique. Skepticism doesn't equal dismissal.
Also that Joan of Arc scene is one of the best representations of engaging someone with schizophrenia/delusions in therapy I've seen in a long time.
I thought about the same thing -- the Joan of Arc scene, if considered as a way of engaging someone with schizophrenia or delusions, can be seen as also a criticism of both wokeism and anti-wokeism as social practices (i.e., as movements that try to acquire followers and thus power).
The cure for bias is free inquiry and open scrutiny. Most bias checking comes from outside of the progenitor of a treasured theory.
People sharing stories about themselves and where they came from is literally the oldest way, and probably still the best way, of getting others to relate to you, accept you, and treat you with dignity and respect. You can show people all the carefully reasoned, empirically validated research in the world, but that will only be effective on a small segment of the population. Maya Angelou said it best: “I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel."
What is "woke ideology"?! Everything in this video depends on it yet you never define it.
Ye same
Deep left wing of politics that engages in identity politics to an extreme and destructive degree. Read a news article written in the last 5 years. This shit isn't some arcane secret.
The vulnerability of the argument from reason is simple: at the bottom of the well, all reason is based on experience. It's turtles all the way down.
However, the opposite extreme is also, as you so well point out, bereft of value.
If we are to enter a new age of reason, we must temper all of this with balance. We must work hard to justify the banners we place into the ground labelled "axiom", and then justify those boundaries well.
This is how they attack reason, by undermining epistemology and ontology with the clear philosophical truth that all is relative to experience. They don't point out the corollary, which is that nothing is real, and experience is illusion, thus their arguments are specious.
They are being philosophically naive here. That's what we must contend with. I think we have to show compassionate balance between pure reason and pure feeling, and build a good framework around it if we are to help usher in a New age.
On the Genealogy of Morality
Book by Friedrich Nietzsche
@@jessikablake4784 yes....I've read FN. Extensively. :-)
I find it ironic that you noted the difference between empirical and phenomenological claims - and then made such an unjustified assertion about the Pew Research. To claim that exposure to woke culture is the explanation of why old guys and the under-educated don't feel as oppressed, based on......what exactly?
I didn't claim that that was actually the case, I just said that the data fits better with the alternative hypothesis. The claim was that the Woke hypothesis has no advantage over the alternative.
@@KingCrocoduck
King Canadianfrogmanoduck.
"I never made the claim" - I just implied the claim reeeeaaaallly heavily by only talking about the one option I prefer.
@@KingCrocoduck
and dude - make up your mind. Either give me a heart or don't. Don't dangle it in my notifications only to snatch it away in the thread. I just don't know where I stand anymore.
@@bengreen171 that's my way of paging you when the option to respond with the @ before your name doesn't appear.
@@KingCrocoduck
I think it's your subconscious fighting the chaos dragon for primacy, resulting in ephemeral mixed messages that float away into the wi-fi breeze, but that's just a phenomenological claim. Or maybe it's the null hypothesis - it's difficult to tell.
The opening clip to this video conceptualises "Lived Experiences" so well. There's a huge number of possible rationals behind an individuals behaviour on any given day. Any kind of ism is one of them but there are far, far more alternatives that have nothing to do with racism. I don't usually think peoples arguments sound realistic as I've never seen a scenario in which race was invoked in a negative connotation out side of rambling old men who are stuck back in the 50s when racism was rampant or a member of a marginalised group informing me that what happened was racist for reasons. The 1st time I encountered this was in highschool when a couple black friends tried to convince me that the teacher was racist for failing them and passing me cause they're black and I'm white. At the time I actually interpreted that as them thinking I was stupid because I have a stutter and a lazy eye which was my "lived experience" they interpreted it as the teacher being racist which was their "lived experience" but I believe the reality may have been something closer to, there assignment wasn't as aligned with the syllabus or mine was marked after lunch when the teacher had just eaten and was thus in a slightly better mood. Even if it was because he didn't like the other 2 it could have been because they acted up in class much more than I did which is the case or their parents caused more grief for the teacher than mine or maybe once they just acted up in a way that struck a nerve and that soured the relationship, or he didn't like that one smoked weed and would smell of it on occasion and the other was frequently truent.
There's so many possible explanations for them failing and me passing but they chose to view it under the lease of racism because that's what they wanted to see it as.
That was awesome, loved it. Looking forward to more uploads from you in the future.
I *love* your intersectionalist impression voice. You’re honestly being charitable to them with how much you understate the degree of pansy tone involved. 😆
Without citing actual examples of “woke-folk” (especially those in academia) saying things like “the reason we know there is systematic oppression is because of the reported lived experiences of marginalised people”, this whole video comes across as a strawman, especially the little hypothetical conversation between an imagined “woke folk” and “dissident” at the end. Studying people’s lived experiences has its place in exploring a topic like oppression, but I don’t think its treated by researchers as a method for drawing strong or reliable empirical conclusions. Of course it’s more nuanced than that.
But this is his lived experience though, you can't just discredit a person's lived experience.
Did he use an entirely fictional scenario to support his view in a video about how people make up fictional scenarios to fit into their worldview?
Yes. Over a quarter of the actual video is making up stories and getting mad about it.
Nope, you missed it. The different possible interpretations of the novel by actual people was the point, not the fictional part. Just as two different real people can interpret any event with there own emotional biases, and thus "lived experience" is not as valid as evidence and reason. You made a very common error people make when attempting to refute an analogy, which is you focused on the particular physical object of the analogy rather than the abstract relationship the analogy is expressing.
@@captaingrub2228 You've got it wrong, he is strawmaning the "woke folk" or liberals by saying completely fictional scenarios instead of demonstrating through an actual example that a liberal would actually make that response, he's making up an enemy and then attacking them then pretends this is actually the views of liberals
@@captaingrub2228 Okay, but if the physical object is imaginary and indeed, created intentionally for the purpose of lambasting, then the analogy has no grounds to stand on. It's not even on the level of a hypothetical, it's just make-believe.
Which fictional scenario? If you’re talking about the Chicano group, I would guess he actually went to a meeting because that is EXACTLY what it sounds like.
Not sure why YT is recommending me moralizing bigots hiding behind feigned empiricism, but uh, enjoy this engagement boost I guess.
Lived experience is great. I remember writing my masters and having the feedback "that's the wrong lived experience".
Buuut, to not keep perpetuating the myth of academia riddles with bad actors, that was one professor. The rest really stuck to their objectivity, and gave some great feedback on how to think critically.
Let's not throw everyone under the bus when it's just a few claiming the bus is a potato.
Just a few? I think that depends on the department and the university.
'Muh non all of them muh'
It doesn't have to be all of them. It just has to be ENOUGH of them.
Use your brain.
@@relaxingsounds1386 ... one out of a whole faculty seems fairly minor to me. I get what you're saying, but perhaps you're being too quick to throw all academics under the potato.
There are as many bad actors as one's imagination allows. It's multiple times more, if one has never been to University. Scary! 😱
@@bencochrane6112 they are a useless propaganda that has put the generation billion in dept they should be captured and sold at the hugest bidder to pay off the loans and execute anyone who hates America we don't need you and it's tike we show that
The value of "lived experience" depends entirely on what the experience was and who lived it.
It's anathema to the modern global liberal mindset that runs our society, but the fact remains that the experiences, thoughts, and judgment of some people are worth tremendously more than those of others, even in the same exact circumstances. Just because someone was there, and saw or did something, doesn't mean they actually know anything about it.
"We hold these truths to be self evident..." -- So much for all that, eh? Buncha "modern global liberal" hokum if you ask me!
@@xxcrysad3000xx of course, that statement was a lie from the beginning. A pleasant fantasy, but a fantasy none the less. Men have not, and never will be, equal.
@@Laotzu.Goldbug You don't believe people are morally equal, and equally deserving of certain liberties and rights? What an odious little creature you are. In any world without such rights you'd be a little grub that the powerful would step on, enslave, and work to death at their pleasure. You shit in your own bed, little contrarian, and it's not edgy or interesting. It's pathetic.
Told there is racisem everywhere, "find" racisem everywhere, therefor there is racisem is everywhere.
So you fell off? That sucks.
This made me laugh
He's going to debate a creationist about radiometric dating next week. So no, not entirely.
Based video. I would ask my non woke people here to remember that this also applies to you. Stick to facts and logic, your feelings have little place in policy.
the non woke? I hope you're not talking about the red pill crew that continually tells people to wake up. Seriously, the word is dead.
unfortunately the value of appeals to facts & logic has been severely depreciated by perpetually emotionally triggered celebs like Ben Shapiro
Got it scooter
Actually remind our non woke friends to please refrain from trying to cure what you don't understand. This is marxism at work. Listen to james lindsey
@@christofthedead your so basic so how do you motivate people they huh you think that will get people up to vote you sweet summer child have you ever campaigned before you know what it take to get people to go vote
I appreciate your breakdown and discussion of this material. But I would like to add that a lot of this groupthink and cognitive bias ran rampant through conservative social circles as well. Qanon is a case study in how these issues affect all walks of life.
The existence of Qanon is undeniable. That it exerts a great deal of influence on conservatives, I find this unlikely. But I don't know that anyone has tried to quantify that influence, so I admit it may be greater than I think
I know a lifelong conservative that I privately nicknamed "Little Miss Anecdote" YEARS ago, bc it never matters what the mountain of evidence is, as long as she hears of _a single story_ from anyone, anywhere that *seems* to contradict it - no matter how fking flimsy or dubious it is - it becomes ironclad proof that the mountain of evidence is a hoax and probably part of a vast partisan conspiracy to destroy the country 🙄
Also, I've seen this on the right mostly in religious ppl, and I think part of it has to be the conditioning of bible study - literally a collection of anecdotal accounts that they're taught to not ask questions about & just accept as The Truth.
Q may have started out legit and then been infiltrated by The oppositions Operators, refer to them as "glowies", so now you have to filter everything for yourself as you should have been doing all along.... hooptie f****** s***
"A license to MAKE SHIT UP!" Boom & 'Shroom!
“In 2019, the median wealth (without defined pension benefits) of Black Households in the United States was $24,100, compared with $189,100 for White Households….” I agree completely with the video in that the evidentiary standard for social science is exactly that - you need evidence based in science. But isn’t this HUGE discrepancy worthy of examination by the social science? In search of some answer that can provide explanatory value through reputable institutions. And when we lack exact ways to explore the magnitude of each event on this figure… ie Tulsa riots, chattel slavery, redlining, etc, isn’t the onus on the researchers to try their best to find some form explanation backed in science?
I will say that my experience at university was mildly similar to how you describe - the concentration on the micro aggressions and systemic racism in certain departments seemed to go way too far for anything that can call itself as a science.
Lastly, I think that you can distinguish between the ‘woke’ social science departments and the empirical ones. As you state in the video it is extremely difficult to find macro scale, reproducible trends in the social sciences that aren’t some variation of human brains are very easily tricked and bewildered.
All in all, I appreciate you having the balls to move this conversation forward in a productive, fact based way. Whenever I see a King Crocoduck vid its an insta watch.
"But isn’t this HUGE discrepancy worthy of examination by the social science? "
Yes but the first explanation to fit your preexisting beliefs isn't necessarily it. There are big wealth differentials between Whites and North Asians are Whites discriminated against?
I don't believe those numbers. Anyhow how many working adults were in a white household versus on a black household, on average?
Ambiguity is a problem, interpretation is partially guesswork and people are fallible. Thus, converging lines of evidence are required in order to rule out alternative explanations. However, if we assume that there are sufficiently solid converging lines of evidence in favor of the notion of pervasive structural racism (however pervasive with be operationalized), wouldn't it then be reasonable enough to infer racist intent from ambiguos situations? Seems at least like something a Bayesian might do. Falsely assuming that lived experience are never informed by priors (which are themselves not anecdotal in nature) might lead you to an all too hasty rejection of the concept. (Alternatively, the priors might be anecdotal, but they might allow one to infer racist intent in an individual case, where multiple iterations of suspiciously hostile behaviour by one person, perhaps squared with the occurence of suggestive remarks, allow one to rule out more benign or colourblind explanations. While biases are constant, I would assume that the likelihood of being fooled by them decreases as occurrences of a certain kind mount.)
There are no sufficiently solid findings? I would again bring up the notion of converging lines of evidence. F.i., I don't think it is unreasonable to read qualitative findings through the lense of quantitative findings and vice versa. While the ones lacks in generalizability, the other in depth, both combined might work. In other words, methodological triangulation seems to be a way out, at least perhaps. The non-existence of "social physics" should not foster premature skepticism.
I have a mini conniption every time he says “woke folks”.
I really hope he doesn't go down the same road as Thunderf00t and get trapped in fucking nonsense.
I feel the same about 'dissident' as well tbh. Creating new words to describe yourself and people you dislike is a rather silly technique.
@@Ryan-lh1np dissident is a real word though. a quick google search would show you the definition
@@name-nam so are 'woke' and 'folks' lmao. My point is that nobody uses the phrases woke folks or dissidents like KC did here.
@@Ryan-lh1np im pretty confident that hes not the only one who uses those terms that way
The thing I like about your videos along the lines of truth and apprehending it is that your conclusions are much like my own, though arrived at by very different means. I often puzzle at why it's become so fashionable to embrace broken methods of achieving knowledge, and rabidly embracing the delusional conclusions such broken approaches produce.
Emotions and social conditioning. Society does other things than just rigorously gather knowledge, and it's messy. You vulcan? Just kidding.
@@revelationreflection Vulcan, or a machine. I've made plenty of mistakes and indulged in delusional thinking too many times. It became a matter of survival. Nothing was going to fix me or my life except for me, and I got very pragmatic about developing knowledge and deploying it in my life.
This man won an argument with himself in the shower and decided to make a whole video about it.
Unfortunately there's not much we can really do to argue with people who believe in "lived experiences". They've got a lot of thought-terminating cliches running around that they use to dismiss critics and deny people debate, mostly focused on stereotypes of so-called "logic bros".
You put a lot of effort into argumenting your case, as usual. Great. The voices near the end are very cringy and ultimately off-putting though. Pitty.
"Whatever you learn about those one thousand women will either be specific enough to apply only to those one thousand women or general enough to apply to everyone: men and women. There is no scenario in which you find a happy middle."
Lacks justification. Citation needed.
I stopped listening around here. Too many unsubstantiated sweeping claims about methodology while pretending to be an empiricist.
Yes that was a particularly stupid part. Here are a few conditions that are, if not universal, then can at least be considered common enough for practical purposes: women are those that have had the experience of having a vagina, women are those that have had the experience of puberty, ovulation, and menstruation, women are those who have had the experience of being looked upon lustfully by men, women are those that have had the experience of fearing that they may be raped or impregnated by men, women are those who have experienced being penetrated, women are those that have experienced pregnancy or childbirth, women are those who have had the fear of breast cancer or cervical cancer, women are those who have had the experience of needing to have children before they reach menopause, women are those who have had the experience of wanting or needing to find a husband, women are those who have had the experience of being sexually harassed at the workplace, women are those who have had the experience of feeling afraid to go jogging too early in the morning, and so on and on and on. This isn't even that hard. Some of those are natural, some of those are socio-cultural, but those are things that most women experience or will experience if they live long enough.
Nicely done! Good to see you back.
Okay, that's a pretty coherent story, and I'm not even necessarily disagreeing here, but do you have any evidence and data on how common this whole thing is? Maybe in certain circles, like American Twitter political discourse such points are frequently made, I wouldn't know, but how pervasive is all this actually?
It's the basis of all their so-called scholarship, it's what all the papers are filled with and what is taught to students.
Not very. It's a piñata that right wing "intellectuals" just love to swing at.
It is not quite navel gazing but more of a autogenital fixation.
Was extremely invested from the cool movie clip and then this dude said "woke ideology is encroaching on our institutions" and I cringed directly out of this vid lol
Yeah. This is weird. The creationist stuff was aces though.
It's like Crock has become a parody of himself.
@@carlsagan5189 He thinks he's similar to his great grandfather that was prosecuted in the USSR for dissenting against lysenko.
He just absolutely is not and it's comedic for him to think so.
I would be super interested in hearing you have a discussion with Mauler/EFAP crew about stories. Not thinking you'd disagree violently or anything, I'd just be super interested in hearing a discussion about it.
I watched this video until you started using the term "woke folk". I have often objected to creationists using terms like "evolutionist". Inevitably they will use labels like this to Poison the Well, before they present anything like an argument.
If you actually have a solid argument, there should be no need for such underhanded tactics. You didn't even define what you meant by "woke folk". The only example of such a thing you gave was the movie clip, which (as much as I liked it) was hardly a typical or representative sample.
without any definition of "woke folk" the term is less useful than "evolutionist".
so, i didn't either watch the whole thing, as i have had my fill of gamer gate-era sceptics/anti-sjw types and their rants. this might not be one of them, but the tone of first minutes is close enough.
The correct term is "moron"
@@ladyarrogance ah so you immediately dismiss it based on nothing. How very intellectually honest of you.
@@ladyarrogance It's absolutely one of them. This is blatant pandering to the alt right. It seems Crock has taken the red pill and has gone full antifeminism. It's just sad to see someone this smart be so far off.
Lived experience refers to knowledge and/or understanding that can only come from actual experiences. You can imagine a doctor telling you that you have cancer. You can ponder over the feelings that immediately follow the news and what you might do about it. But the only people that can truly understand how that feels have lived through a cancer diagnoses. Experience isn’t everything but we also can’t ignore it. Also, maybe highly educated people feel more oppressed because they are worse off compared to the highly educated majority while people with less education in their group are relatively closer to the lower educated majority.
excellent vid mate.
I have a story from 5 or so years ago that sums up "lived experience" perfectly.
I came across a guy on twitter who I'll call "woke guy" who made the claim that fathers shouldn't get custody or shared custody because fathers are the greatest danger to their children.
I explained that mothers are actually twice as likely to abuse or kill their children than fathers.
he called bullshit and demanded to see evidence for this outrageous claim, which I gladly provided.
To give him some credit, he stopped and actually considered he might be wrong, but then a second person entered the conversation, who I will call "feminist woman"
feminist woman criticised the stats I used for being 5 yrs old (I used some screen shots I had on hand from an old vid of mine), I guess we can then throw out common feminist talking points that use stats from 20 or 30 years ago (and were questionable then) right?
you have to love the double standard.
but to make her happy I posted the most recent stats to her, and the ones from the year before that, and from 10 years prior, and from memory 20 years prior, and made the point that these stats are consistent year in year out and have been for decades (at least).
her response was "you're wrong because thats not my lived experience"
In other words "because my dad was a shit, all dads (and men in general) are shits, and no evidence you show me will ever change my mind"
as for woke guy, when asked if he had changed his mind about fathers and custody, despite having his main argument destroyed, he insisted that mothers should be the only ones to get custody and refused to say why then cut contact.
In other words, it was never about "fathers being more violent" or facts or evidence, he was just trying to justify a belief.
I mean, it's pretty obvious that mothers should be the biggest source of child abuse given the structure of the dominant family form in the 20-21st century in which they're almost solely responsible for raising children. It also explains why people might have more exclusively negative experiences with their fathers, as their role in the nuclear family is to make an income and are only called in to provide disciplinary action to the children on occasion. That relatively fewer memories of the father figure (due to them being working during formative years) means that any negative ones should stand out more, whereas with the mother, that's just Tuesday.
I was gonna say that this might be because women are more likely to be around their children than their fathers but your stats may have accounted for that.
On Twitter you could be talking to a goblin person who's terminally online and has a stack of pizza boxes reaching the ceiling.
They don't have any reason to change due to the nature of online discourse favoring avoidance of dissenting opinions.
Yeeaaaahh but of course statistically women are more prone to abusing their kids because mothers are more likely to spend more time and be the primary caregiver for their children than fathers are. I would be pretty certain that if you adjust the data to be proportional (i.e if fathers were present to the same degree as mothers are in the lives of their children) you would find men are far more likely to abuse their children if all other factors are equal.
@@EugenieJustine I mean that's the question. That you shouldn't just assume the answer to just because it conforms to your biases/intuition.
I want my lived experience to have fewer unconstitutional laws that limit my choices so that I can seek an acceptable partner by my standards and not yours.
Unless your idea of an "acceptable partner" happens to be an animal, a child, or an inanimate object, no such laws have existed in the US for the better part of a decade.
@@KingCrocoduck Maybe he's Iranian or something.
@@HereTakeAFlower Or maybe he's concerned because the US Supreme Court just got rid of the right to abortion, and now they're talking about reevaluating the ruling for gay marriage. Also, the Trump administration has enacted many anti-LGTBQ policies that will have lasting and damaging consequences. The myopia Crock is showing here is astounding.
I'll be honest and say I only watched The Messenger once and only because it had Milla in it, but that was my favorite part of the movie.
To see that you have put up another RUclips video made my day! Don't worry about the visuals, you convey the underlying ideas with great precision including their emptiness. This is analysis++.
I put up another one today!
Wonderful video. It's a shame how few people - on both sides of the political spectrum - seem to value rationality and empirical data these days. I also saw a hilarious example of wokeism the other day - an article about common microaggressions, which listed, and I'm not kidding, being the only person of X race in a room (or there just being "too few") as a microaggression against you. As if the other people in a given room likely have the power to exclude people of your race, but not to exclude you, and this is done as a sleight against you...
I found this particularly funny having lived in a smaller city in Japan for several years, where if there _was_ another non-Japanese person other than me in a given place it was noteworthy. XD
@@drkmwinters Oh no, content not intended to be put through an official peer review would not survive an official peer review? How terrible. I bet your comment wouldn't pass peer review!
And as if surviving anything calling itself peer pressu.. *COUGH COUGH* review, is the end all of arguments. Even if it was, the content would fade into obscurity as not many people actually read peer reviewed literature.
Lastly there is plenty of criticism in the comments, which is being discussed. Although it may not have the same rigor as an official peer review, it serves a similar function.
@@drkmwinters is that why you publish your crap take on RUclips?
Oh, not so nice of a comment.
Could you post a quote from that article so that others can read it, please?
@@Asilomar It was some random thing I found while browsing Microsoft news, so not easy to find again. I think it was published by Newsweek or something.
@@Drazex I get it. Thank you for the reply! Too bad our brains are not as indexed as we want ... lol
I listen while doing other things so a low visual format is fine for me. Also I have been subscribed since its was reason vs religion instead of vs wokeness, but this is the first video of yours I have seen pop up in ages.
What is a wokefolk? And what is a dissident?
I don't think science can make claims of absolute truth like math can in math 1 + 1 = 2 and it will always equal 2 but in science you have to always be open to the possibility that new information could prove your theory wrong no matter how well researched it is.
KC, I must say I have enjoyed your older videos where you dissected Creationist videos and arguments with evidence that contradicts them, but after seeing this video as it came up on my feed, I must say this is the first video I've seen of yours that really concerns me. The main reason being your casual use of the term "woke folk". And not to argue in favor of the validity of "lived experiences" as you call them but as a queer person of color, most times I've heard the term "woke" used nowadays is by people on the right as a means of dismissing issues that affect minorities, even when it's minorities who are bringing attention to a problem that is directly affecting them. Even something as simple as asking a person to address you by the correct pronouns is often dismissed by people one the right as being "woke crap". I'm not accusing you of being a bigot, but to use such language without taking into consideration how it can be misinterpreted in a way that is hostile towards minorities is very worrisome to me. I do agree that lived experiences are not an objective means of forming data for the social sciences, but the reason for that is that humans are not objective. If I drop a teaspoon of baking soda into ten glasses filled with vinegar, I can almost certainly expect all ten glasses to have a reaction. But if I tell the same the same joke to ten different people, I have no way of knowing how many of them will laugh. Not every black person has the same lived experience, nor every queer person, every woman, ever man, every Jew, and so on. Not every minority experiences oppression but that doesn't mean that oppression of these groups does not exist. And if a person comes forward and says "I experienced X kind of bigotry", I don't feel comfortable seeing someone being casually dismissive of it just because it is a "lived experience". Honestly, the scathing tone at which you dismiss "woke folk" without showing any sign that you actually support minorities is the thing that frightens me the most. I suggest you be careful, KC. Because if you lose your humanity and only see people as objectives to be proven wrong from a scientific basis without seeing the good in them, you'll become no better than Ken Ham, Ray Comfort, Kent and Eric Hovind and all their ilk.
I couldn't have said it better. Instead of objectively criticising faulty methods in social sience, this video devolved into populist dogwhistling to the bigoted far right.
KC, is your desired audience really the anti-lgbt, pro-forced-birth, climate change denying, Q-anon crowed? Because this is the kind of language you used here. You could have made the exact same video with different language, not dogwhistling to the bigoted.
Woke ideology uses minorities as a shield against their ideology i.e. "if you don't agree with use you must be a bigot." That's why cold rationality must be used to dismantle their claims. If a minority is truly being oppressed they will have tangible evidence of their oppression. Just saying you are oppressed doesn't have any merit in an argument and should be dismissed. Also this video is about critiquing the idea of lived experiences, he shouldn't have to stop in the middle of it to say he supports minorities and him not saying it doesn't reduce the effectiveness of his arguments.
@@TieberiusVoidWalker He should clarify that he supports minorities because as I've mentioned before, my own existence, experiences and suffering as a minority and others like me has been frequently dismissed as being "woke" ideology. Minority character in a work of art? Woke. School supporting transgender students? Woke. Increased LGBTQ representation in media? Woke. "Woke" is the boogeyman word a lot conservatives use as a way of saying they are bigoted without saying they are bigoted. And while I can save social media conversations, I don't go around with a video camera to capture every instance of oppression I or my friends experience to prove I experience it to you. So to dismiss it if I were to say I experience oppression is cold. Let's say a person was in an abusive relationship. They may not have "marks that show" because their partner never struck them and their partner acts nicely in public but in private are manipulative and psychologically abusive. Do we dismiss this person's words just because it's a "lived experience"? Of course not. And this is another reason I take umbrage with this video. Dismissing lived experiences just because they are as such is an inhuman way of seeing the world, especially when it's a person talking about their own experiences with oppression, abuse, hatred, racism, sexism and/or queerphobia.
@@Stoneth First of all all those examples you gave as people simply dismissing as "woke" is not entirely accurate. People have actual reasons to have gripes with those things and they call it woke because it aligns with woke ideology. As for your abusive relationship example, yes we should dismiss it as we cannot prove anything that's going on. We cannot punish someone of something unless there is proof and it should be pointed out that there will be psychological evidence of the abuse that people will notice. If there is no proof at all then how do we know it's not just subjective or worse a false accusation. Justice needs to be rational, cold, and inhuman because if it's not it ends up being a witch hunt.
I once dated a radical feminists who was so against the idea of objective reality, that she refused to believe A²+B²=C² was true outside of social interpretation.
She got a free ride to an ivy league school, makes bank, sets policy, and in her opinion is "oppressed" to ridiculous degrees.
She sounds based
I mean, to be fair the philosophy of mathematics is a very complex subject for which there is no general consensus, just like every other philosophical issue.
Honestly, this was a pretty disappointing video and lacked rigour. I often find your videos thought-provoking, even when I have disagreements. But this video has crossed a threshold that makes it hard to take seriously.
Firstly, you are constantly referring to “woke folk” as some amorphous enemy. Who are you actually talking about? You invent characters, but never substantially respond to anyone specifically. Your previous videos where you engaged with other people and their ideas are much more interesting, but there is an emptiness to this video. And that's not to mention the ridiculous dichotomy between “woke folk” and “political dissents” that made my eyes want to roll out my head. It's a shallow and cartoonish distinction, and it just serves to construct an “us-versus-them”.
A particularly frustrating part was where you invented a whole cast of fictional characters to serve in making your point about compliance in woke circles. This was just a story, and it did way more to hurt the objectivity of the video than to make a useful or coherent point. The emotional cadence in your voice is telling, and your anger seems to have made you blind.
Secondly, you make reference to the “Black Feminist Thought” book and hint at its importance (especially in the description), but you don’t actually engage with it at all. I’ve not read the book, and know very little about it, but it would have been nice to learn something and have a tangible argument. Instead, the book is painted as some kind of woke bible filled with outrageous nonsense. Are you just trying to make your audience angry at something they are uninformed about?
At the end of the video, you construct another fake character and have an argument with them. While such a dialogue can be a good way to explore an idea, in the context of the rest of this video it just rings hollow. I even roughly agree with “your side” of the debate insofar as “lived experiences” are weak evidence for inferring systemic oppression, but the “woke folk” interlocutor is such a caricature that the whole thing is pointless.
Finally, you close on the note that “woke folk” cannot defend the systemic oppression of minority groups without appealing to lived experiences. You’re simply wrong. The weight of evidence is against you, both quantitative and qualitative, anecdotal and aggregate. As you did not defend your position, I don’t feel the need to defend mine. But the “light of reason on the hostile sands of empirical reality” is not on your side, as much as you want to appropriate the optics of science and rationality for your clearly emotionally-held beliefs.
For anyone reading, there are thousands of great sources on this, but I think that a good place to start is Unlearning Economics’ video on gender discrimination (ruclips.net/video/LKc_8fT6pGc/видео.html). Unlike this video, it digs into actual data, history, and arguments from an opposing side.
I'll leave a comment to see if there is an interesting reply. I agree with the criticism, and i remember seeing decent data supporting the connection between redlining and the current wealth disparity so i was surprised to see King Crocoduck apparently deny that we could estimate its effects.
Firstly, he put some loosely related books cover as a background image. He made no argument about the book or its specific content, so why do you come up with the idea that he placed importance on the book? He also placed a desert as a background, so why dont you ask him why he implied desert sand to play a significant role in the content of this video.
Secondly i agree. I also think he didn't clarify enough on who exactly he means by "woke folk". Seems like an oversight. But then again, this doesnt affect the actual central point of the video, which is to address the issue of "lived experiences". At some point one has to cut off ones clarifications on the surrounding issues.
The story was a hypothetical to explain the concept. Nothing more, nothing less. No claims were made on its basis.
"The emotional cadence in your voice is telling, and your anger seems to have made you blind." Even if there actually is anger involved it has no bearing on the content of the arguments. I would suggest to refrain from playing the internet psychologist game. I got some "Your writings are so filled with impotent rage" waiting for you here ;)
On that final dialouge thing i completely agree with you. It added nothing of value to the video. It made no point of importance to the topic, and it is not even an anecdote. No real conversation ever goes how you plan it out.
If you dont know who he means by "woke folk", then how do you know that they can prove systemic opression? So lets drop this "need to define woke folk" thing by the side, you seem to have understood the term pretty clearly. If "woke folk" can actually make an argument that does not heavily rely on subjective interpretations of personal experiences, or shaky to outright fraudulent social studies publications, i have yet to hear it.
I will give that video a try, but somehow i doubt it will be good.
@@mathis8210 KC writes at the top of the description, "“A foundational text detailing Woke Epistemology and the application of “Lived Experiences” in the manner represented in this video. This book ranks among the top five most important texts to Woke Ideology, as evidenced by its 40,000 citations at the time of this video’s release, and pervasive presence on the publicly available syllabi of Grievance Studies courses across dozens of universities: Collins, Patricia Hill. Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. Routledge, 2002”.
I agree that he didn’t really talk about the book - but I’m grasping at straws to figure out what he *is* talking about.
> The story was a hypothetical to explain the concept. Nothing more, nothing less. No claims were made on its basis
A story had just been told to explain the concept of the conformity effect. The story of the original study with the lines. Transporting it to the case of the woke social group is just an attempt to delegitimise the idea of “lived experiences”. It’s a weak attempt because it is purely speculative. Why not actually point to a study that demonstrates conformity in a real group of people, instead of criticising figments of your imagination? KC is doing exactly the same style of armchair sociology that he is supposedly arguing against.
> So lets drop this "need to define woke folk" thing by the side, you seem to have understood the term pretty clearly.
I really haven’t understood it. There's vague allusions in the video to “woke ideology” and its “ongoing encroachment of our institutions”, but honestly, I have no clue who/what he is talking about. If he doesn’t want to define these terms, that’s fine but he shouldn’t use them. In fact, that would be much better as arguments could be tangible and wouldn't create such a tribalistic narrative.
@@dylancope if you can't define women, don't use this term.
@@rrobak6477
First, he did not use this term in this comment thread.
Second, if you can define "woman" in a way that either completely include or completely exclude every person on the planet (in other words, all women must have all characteristics of your definition of a woman, and all non women must have none of those characteristics), i'll agree that "man" and "woman" are binary.
And before you bring up DNA, look up the XX male syndrome and XY female syndrome.
Calling people who are clinging to a status quo dissidents is hilarious
If you support gay marriage, the welfare state, etc., then you support a status quo. "Status quo" doesn't mean anything, it's just a way of positioning yourself as some kind of rebel against society when in reality you're just one of many competing interests.
@@KingCrocoduck neither does dissident by that same logic.
"Dissident" literally just means "one who dissents."
I think you present one argument for what is referred to when the value of lived experience in claims of an emperical nature. Facts are facts after all.
How those facts get interpreted is subjective though. It seems to me that an alternate solution is only a subjective POV away. This being the case, I don't think it's at all surprising that lived experience is heard and considered.
It also seems to me that in the interest of better communication, a generous ear is more effective. In my experience it's easier to move a conversation forward when all involved feel like they're being heard.
If you listen with generosity and you accept the value of multiple points of view, and the objective reality of the facts is granted, lived experience is often important. Maybe you can show me where I'm making a mistake.
While I'm not at this time going to look it up, I feel like it's a trivial point to claim that negative unintended consequences are real. I'm willing to go a bit farther out on that limb and suggest that, at least a portion of those negative consequences are due to a misunderstandings that a different point of view would have avoided.
Thanks for your time.
Facts can change. This is something some people have a problem with, as well. The induction problem and confirmation bias are supreme bitches.
After 45 minutes of factual academical language, that bit of artistic dramatic flair in the concluding sentence was a nice touch :)
Is this a joke
@@zenleeparadise cope and seethe lol
@@KingCrocoduck nah I'm high and happy rn thanks
@@KingCrocoduck watchin' the new lonerbox video, actually. You should watch it!
🤴 🐊 🦆
I've been listening to you for over a decade, still reasonable (unlike many of the others I enjoyed at the time).
Thank you!
I feel that. Some have left reason behind because of idelogys like what KC is talking about.
King Crocoduck is one of the very few from the old days.
To be perfectly honest he is the only youtuber from my...ahem....YT atheist days that I still look at whenever he uploads. AronRa and Darkmatter2535 were the last to fall about 4 years ago.
@@arklowrockz Theraman Thebes? That how you spell it? Is still good. Whenever he uploads.
@@myself2noone not familiar with Theramin Thebes
@@arklowrockz I'd also suggest Logicked.
"Lived Experiences" is a plea for argument from anecdote.
Thank you for continuing to shine a spotlight on this intellectually bankrupt ideology. It was, and continues to be, an extreme disappointment to witness so many people who in the past had self-righteously flaunted their superior epistemological beliefs - "trust" in science, evidence, skepticism - only to be emotionally manipulated by this bizarre secular cult into believing absurd, contradictory nonsense.
Your videos are clear and crisp as always. Thank you again for what you do!
I like the format! No need for the visuals--it definitely is the content I'm looking for.
There’s a ton of citations, but what movie is the opening from?
The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc
glad to find you are posting! missed you!
"Let's have an objective conversation on systemic opression"
"I reject all of social science that pertains to the topic"
Are we just throwing out the only possible evidence so people can't possibly argue against us? Then sit around and not present any evidence or make any claims of our own? Surely not.
@Goggles OW I'm open to any social science that is replicable, generalizable, and nontrivial. It goes without saying that p-hacking, publication bias, and misoperationalization consitute grounds for dismissal of any such research. These are not unreasonable conditions, and if Woke Folk can't meet them, then that's on them.
@@KingCrocoduck Sure. But almost every study published in any discipline could be argued to fit one of those categories. Do you have an institution you can point to that determines the validity of studies to your standard? Or does everyone have to decide which studies are valid for themselves?
@@KingCrocoduck where would you lay the blame for the blatant differences in outcome we see today then? If you deny social causes, then all I see that remains would be claims about inferior biology. Those claims are vastly more ill-founded than those surrounding the social causes. Or do you have some third position that can sidestep this issue?
@@Ryan-lh1np If I was being uncharitable I think that's the whole point of this video. Applying an extreme degree of skepticism to one side. Not even mentioning the other side, and leading the audience to the opposite conclusion. Even though the other conclusion would fall over with 1/100 the skepticism.
I could put together a 10 page document with studies that support systemic racism but that doesn't even matter because everyone of those studies will be nitpicked to an unreasonable standard.
@@gogglesow1358 You are the one making the claim, just like a fundamentalist Christian claims a god exists, and now you're shifting the burden just like a fundamentalist.
Some interesting takes, but a lot of the conclusions drawn were just one possible interpretation of events without much reason to support that interpretation. The obvious disdain everytime words like "woke" are used should really warn you about the bias in this essay
Isn't your conclusion about the "obvious disdain" only one possible interpretation?
@@mr.horrorchild4094 Considering he's made like 20 videos complaining about the issue, I think it's a fair conclusion to draw the Crock really doesn't like "woke" people or "leftists".
Well, it's been a while since I've managed to hear someone out do Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson at dropping strawman arguments, flawed reasoning and deceitful motivated rhetoric.
congratulations on a job well done.
I'm sure the audience will swallow it up wholeheartedly without managing to see through the gaping crevices.
By all means, enlighten us. Don't keep the superior arguments and air-tight logical refutations all to yourself, oh miserly sage.
@@teaseaboywonder What would be the point?
It's not as if you're not a cult of faithful seeking to be offended by made up stories that you tell yourself about reality that have no actual grounding in actual reality.
@@ewengilary7669 The point would be to get your refutations on the record.
Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson are clowns at best. They are not people to garner your social and political views from, lest you become as unserious as them.
@@asinineinsignia8743 That's an useless asinine point.
There have been some people in the comments that have offered valuable criticism of the arguments presented here. Want to guess what the replies they got were?
I have better use for my time than burning it on deafened religious fanatics.
I think your main argument is that lived experiences as currently discussed in left-wing environments are actually lived INTERPRETATIONS of actual experiences--interpretations which, like all interpretations, may be right or wrong regardless of the underlying actual experiences. They are attempts at EXPLAINING said experiences, using a certain framework and/or making certain assumptions ('there are racist people' => 'a racist sentiment could possibly explain this real-life experience') and drawing sometimes unwarranted conclusions ('therefore it DOES explain this real-life experience').
But the point then enters the area of epistemology, and the quest to figure out what exactly we can deduce from actual real experiences (assuming that we've already solved all the epistemological problems posed by the mere perception, via our senses, of said experiences). When, for instance, you claim that wokeism is the reason why the racist interpretation of your character Derek for the guy who flipped him the finger, you are making a similar interpretation. You might cite data correlating such things (woke people tend to see more racism than non-woke people), but, just as in the case of Joan of Arc's sword in the field, there are other possible reasons for that (woke people are more aware of racist feelings that are actually there but aren't perceived by people because of habituation; see also 'optical illusions' as a metaphor). In other words, am I 'more informed' by the theory I follow (so I can see things that others don't, like, e.g., the dangers of wokeism), or am I 'wearing colored glasses' because of my theory (so I see things as resulting from wokeism that aren't really illusions and are actually out there)?
The answer is of course both, and epistemological literature is full of the problems involved in linking events to theories, especially when, as in the social sciences, the link between events and theory are, by necessity, very indirect (you can't detect a 'racist thought' in the same way that you can detect gamma radiation, for instance; but this doesn't mean that the perception of something as a racist thought is always wrong or always the result of woke influences).
So I'd add a reflection to your video on how exactly the very ideas you develop about wokeism and its cognitive effects (based on well-known mental heuristics that involve or lead to logical fallacies) also apply to the anti-wokeism that you yourself advocate. I.e., about the extent to which some of your viewpoints, theories, and explanations are ALSO the result of anti-wokism ideology, based on the very same set of mental heuristics and logical fallacies. I'm not accusing you of anything a priori, I'm merely pointing out that there is no scientific reason, no physical constraint in the universe, that would prevent anti-wokeism from being affected by some of the very same problems that afflict wokeism.
A final couple of questions. Your tone of voice, especially at the end of this video, when you try to play a 'woke ideologist' tyring to counter a 'dissident', sounds quite emotional, in a way reminiscent of the very people you are trying to criticize. I wonder what kind of, for lack of a better name, lived experience you had to create this kind of emotionality. Is it the result of many interactions with woke folks who deny the importance of objectivity or of the Baconian, 'Novum Organon' to Vienna-circle logical positivism and its usefulness in creating the world of technological wonders we live in?
Also, I wonder if you're aware of philosophical criticism of the naive logical positivistic stance (especially the belief that experiments are, the only way to settle inferential disputes). There is an extensive literature on why falsification and experimentation by themselves are not sufficient, and I don't simply mean quasi- or post-modern criticism like Foucault (which has in itself its own merits -- I would be fascinated by you making a video on your opinion of Foucault's The Archeology of Knowledge and how it fits within your vision of experimental science and empiricism. But no, there are more and deeper reasons for that (oversimplifying it quite significantly but still perhaps of use: a falsifying experiment, meant to falsify, i.e., disprove a certain claim or theory, has within itself an implicit theory, an interpretation based on a reason why it falsifies the original claim or theory, which can itself be logically falsified by a second experiment that shows the first experiment to be in error -- and so on, ad infinitum).
It is true that the empirically based scientific method, based on experiments and falsification, has given us great results that no one can deny; it may in fact be the best possible method for achieving results in the material world. It is not true, though (cf. Gödel's proof) that it is a method that can reach any truth ('there are unprovable true statements'), or that there are no other methods that reach truths, including some truths that would not be reachable with the scientific method (again, see Gödel). If you accept this preceding claim, then the question of whether or not there are other methods that should be explored -- let's say, a more grounded version of 'lived experience', free from the problems of dogmatic wokeism -- cannot be a priori excluded.
@@Asehpe >When, for instance, you claim that wokeism is the reason why the racist interpretation of your character Derek for the guy who flipped him the finger, you are making a similar interpretation
I'm guessing this is supposed to be a tu-quoque or overgeneralization criticism, but the vast majority of (successful) causal explanations drawn in scientific literature do not invoke racism or sexism. So there is a very quick and easy inductive argument against reading racism in every single day-to-day interaction - most things can be explained away without invoking bias. A second inductive argument would be based on prior woke claims like the Wage Gap - it used to be that women made 77 cents for a man's dollar, then it was pointed out that the majority of the discrepancy was due to men working longer hours, then it was pointed out that the majority of that remaining discrepancy was due to job choice, then it was established that 20-30 year old women outearn men because women comprise the majority of college grads, etc. A third inductive argument would be that society has clearly gotten less racist/sexist over time (this one might be question begging and in need of expanding upon in the dialectic, but this seems to be the common sense position globally).
In general, there is not much symmetry between being woke and antiwoke, and if there is, it's likely because antiwoke is an identity that can be confounded by other various political stances. For example, an alt-righter can be antiwoke, however arguments against microaggressions seem to double as arguments against Jews brainwashing our institutions to outbreed white people. Arguments against white people being oppressors because they're overrepresented as politicians seem to double as arguments against Jews oppressing whites because they're overrepresented as billionaires. Being antiwoke *can* mean hating progressives exclusively, but generally antiwoke means opposing principles like "Evidence of a discrepancy is evidence of discrimination." So while it's a conceptual possibility for being antiwoke to function as a dogmatic political ideology, I don't think it pragmatically manifests that way (and if you think it does, I can just define the views I want to defend as "antiwoke liberal" in opposition to "antiwoke far-righter" or whatever else).
While I 100% agree with the point shown in this video... FOR THE LOVE OF MY NON-EXISTANT GOD MAN PLEASE STOP SAYING WOKE FOLK. It sounds like a term No Bullshit would say.
I agree. Call them what they are.... Marxists
Lived experience = perspective.
Perspective means your angle of view. Which means there are other angles of view that you cannot see. Lived experience is a blind spot if you cannot see other perspectives.
So many things wrong in this video.
Starting with mentioning "woke folks" or "woke ideology" non-stop without EVER defining what you mean by this was your first mistake. "Woke" is a word without a definition, barely a catch-all term for people on the right. And this goes on for the entire video, to the point where you claim that such "woke ideology" rejects both reason and evidence (5:18) preferring only personal experiences, with your "woke-folks" seeing discrimination in every part of every act of every member of society (without any evidence from your part). Creating by the end (38:12) a false dichotomy between the "political dissident" and the "woke ideology", while taking cover behind """science""".
And then came Derek, surrounded by all those other strawmens you made. You clearly never went in such reunions if you believe that someone without an experience of discrimination would feel bad and change their claims to comfort the group, of that the other members of the group would ostracize one of their members for having no weekly experience of discrimination. You don't even present any evidence of it, you just mentioned Asch's experiment and clapped to yourself. You just delegitimized ALL egalitarian social movements, especially since you claim all those movements only rely on personal experiences.
You don't even try to understand why the Pew researches you posted gave those results, a lot of people could tell you why younger people and more educated populations experience more discrimination (or, more precisely, identify it more easily) : Our understanding of what discrimination is can change with time. Things like mansplaining have existed for a long time but were not identified until recently, which explains why the younger generation and the more educated people are more sensible to it (they grew up knowing it exists, and therefore could identify it more easily), while older people have seen the discriminations of their times being fought by their generation, and therefore witnessed how things have changed for the better. Those results don't only say that racism still exists, it also says things changed at a fast rate those last decades.
What were you even trying to do ? To create a hard-science scientific methodology for egalitarianism ? Do you even realize that by the end of your video you proposed nothing to identify discrimination ?
By the end you're just claiming discriminations may exist but there is no evidence of it BeCaUsE ScIeNcE. And you don't even realize it, you just use science-sounding words to the point of word-salad, but nothing in this video was scientific, it was the same political bullshit we kept hearing for the last decade since GamerGate.
You went full Thunderf00t.
Dustin Hoffman--wow. So good.
I have a lot of Trumpers in my family and it’s crazy how much this applies to them - they just use different language. “White Christians are the most oppressed in America today.”
“Give an example.”
“Have you seen what the Woke left wants to do in our schools? They want to make all the White Kids apologize for being White and give Black Kids better grades just for being Black”
“How do you know that?”
“Everybody knows it true! People are talking about it.”
“Name one school where this is true.”
“There was that one school that did that one thing, right? I don’t remember, but they’re trying to make Christianity illegal! And pump hormones into kindergartners! And take away the flag! And….”
“Again, how do you that?”
“It’s true! Everybody knows it’s true!”
How do you know that what they're saying is not true?
I often say that lived experience is valid if approved by cathedral and invalid if not.
I make this point by saying something that would sound weird to many. When I grew up, holy men were very much opposed to homophobia. They saw gay jokes as disgusting as making poor jokes or fat jokes. This would be probably be called an invalid experience.
I take issue with a couple things here. First the example you give of being unable to gather evidence from a survey is kind of silly. Include men in the survey and make sure to add some questions about geographic and socio economic status (and obviously the gender of respondent).
I fully agree that no one knows the exact effect size of things like red lining. but suggesting that the full cumulative effect of all sources of institutional racism might be small seems kind of stupid. Blacks seems to be worse off then the general populace in just about every measure.
I do agree however that people can be aggressively stupid in looking for ways to be mad about race sometimes. This is all the worse because there are still severe problems which involve race and racism.
Black African Immigrants, such as Nigerians, tend to do better on Average than White People in terms of education, income etc.
So either they're somehow inexplicably immune to racism, or the racism I'd solely in the past.
Furthermore assuming that equality is the default state of things is laughably ahistorical, as such a situation has never happened
@@aredjayc2858 Immigrants who are wealthy have a much easier time getting and staying here. They don't have the shackle of generational poverty caused by/made worse by past discrimination (which used to be much worse).
So yes, racism used to be much worse, and class is more important then race. Saying "Immune" and only in the past is hyperbole, but It's in the general direction of correct.
@@pain5835 we don’t even have to assume perfect human equality to come to the pretty obvious conclusion that things like redlining are a significant contributor to inequality
@@Noromdiputs So your counter argument is they are "Wealthy" Immigrants from Sub-Saharan Africa who have not had to deal with the generational poverty...
I don't think you know much about Sub Saharan Africa and colonialism.
I was using Nigeria so let's take a look at some stats, shall we?
Nigeria has a poverty rate of 43% in 2022 compared to the 19.5% poverty of Black Americans. So there's over 2x the amount of poverty.
Furthermore if systemic racism was overshadowed by socioeconomic status, then surely that would be a true statement regardless of race, right? Poor Whites would have it worse than Rich Blacks and thus "White Privilege" is bunk because Socioeconomic Status is more important than Race. Let's go further shall we?
There have been numerous stats that have gotten worse since the 60s with regards to Black Americans, for example the increase in single motherhood, so were those caused by racism as well? If so has Racism therefore gotten worse since the Pre-Civil Rights Era?
@@aredjayc2858 I'm not well versed on the statistics but I don't think the average person leaves their country. Inferring the statistics of the immigrants from a country based on the countries average statistics is an error.
I would absolutely choose to be a rich black over a poor white every time. Any model of white privilege that says otherwise is stupid. No idea if we just straw manned this idea or not.
Has there been an increase of single motherhood across the board? I know divorce is up generally. No idea to what extent that attributable to race/culture/economics/incarceration. In any event the solution to that one is access to contraception sex education and a solid safety net.
That intro...I'm having a hard time expressing how amazing the intro is and it's frustrating. Every scene of how that sword came to be in the field and the a guy just yeeting the sword like he's just fucking done.
I'm a bit disappointed in this one. I think a big part of it is the lack of explaining what "woke-folk" means. To whom does this refer? Perhaps my negative reaction to this is because you're attacking people well outside the norm in the field of social science. This feels particularly weak because you haven't actually quoted anything from "woke-folk" (in this essay, at least), just a bunch of hypothetical vignettes.
This seems like an amateurish attempt to condemn social science as a whole, or at least to condemn all kinds of methodology that falls outside the few psychological experiments you've laid out here. Every psychological bias mentioned here can be found in introductory social psychology courses. It seems absolutely bizarre to me that you think "woke-folk" (and again, maybe you're referring to a smaller subset of people than just "all social science researchers"), aren't also familiar with these sorts of cognitive biases and how they might affect personal testimony. Or that qualitative researchers are somehow unable or unwilling to recognize the limitations of their methodologies.
For example, your complaint about qualitative interviews with 1000 women (god, if only qualitative studies regularly had that level of funding) being somehow useless for finding generalizable results is so strange. Your reasoning seems to be that the experiences must be either wholly unique to the individual, or they must generalize beyond the category of 'women's experiences'. But there could absolutely be themes found in 50-90% of those interviews that only exist in 1-10% from a comparable set of interviews with 1000 men. Surely that would indicate "women's experience", even if there are plenty of men who've had similar experiences and women who've never felt that way. I'm just confused why you would believe generalizations applicable to a subset of society can't be a little messy or fuzzy, or that any specific experience must apply to 100% of a subset and exclusively only that subset or it's a worthless observation.
And this also ignores things like mixed-methods research, where you do big quantitative surveys with huge subject pools and also conduct supplementary qualitative interviews on a smaller subset of that larger survey pool. (Mixed-methods is clearly not limited to that example, but you see what I mean.) Or heck, even just writing questionnaires that go deeper than just asking "did you experience X in the last week?" You could have a whole raft of questions poking and prodding at different aspects of those experiences, to try and get a deeper understanding of these phenomena.
My apologies if I've just misunderstood your points. Perhaps you didn't mean to paint social science as a whole so negatively. I'm just used to seeing you put much more care into representing your opposition as accurately as possible. As someone who is educated in social science and works for a social science research org... it definitely seems like you're upset at some weird politically active subset of people but making it sound like a fundamental issue with social science methodologies as a whole. Again, my apologies if that isn't what you meant, but it really comes across that way to me.
I'm not trying to condemn social science as a whole. Just the parts of it that purport to demonstrate that macro-scale social inequities are products of oppression.
@@KingCrocoduck That's a pretty big swathe of the social sciences, though.
Would you be more convinced that oppression leads to our current macro scale inequalities if you were presented with evidence that goes beyond just anecdotes and lived experiences? Pretty sure I could locate some for you if you are interested.
@@keisukekun86 Yes, but with caveats. Bitter experience, which I'll elaborate upon in forthcoming videos, has taught me that quantitative research to that effect needs to be thoroughly vetted for p-hacking, publication bias, and poor operationalizations (see the description box for examples of each). After that, the research would ideally consist of meta-analyses (and they'd better include funnel plots and/or p-curves, or else my publication bias alarm will go off!) of (and this next part is optional given the current state of research) pre-registered studies. If you include things that aren't meta-analyses, just keep in mind that given the breadth of these fields, it's not unlikely that I'll find studies with contradictory results. We could hash out the details for which one's better, but experience has taught me that youtube isn't the best place to argue over which logistic regression model is most appropriate for a given situation.
EDIT: it seems that my examples of shit research from Woke Folk didn't copy over from the file where I authored my bibliography to the description box. I'll post them and my complaints below.
Okay, here we go. Three representative examples of why I have trust issues with a lot of social research, especially surrounding such politically charged topics.
1) A meta-analysis of callback studies (the ones where if you submit a job application with a black sounding name, you get fewer callbacks for interviews). Purports to show a strong effect size. *Excludes any rigorous checks for publication bias.* This got my bullshit alarm ringing, and, what do you know, when you perform a funnel plot analysis on the data, followed by Egger's test, the meta-analysis turns out to exhibit a tremendous degree of publication bias.
Quillian, Lincoln, Devah Pager, Ole Hexel, and Arnfinn H. Midtbøen. "Meta-analysis of field experiments shows no change in racial discrimination in hiring over time." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114, no. 41 (2017): 10870-10875
2) A regression analysis of people who were sentenced to death in Washington state. This study purported to demonstrate that capital punishment is racially biased, and upon being presented to the Washington Supreme Court, was credited with getting the death penalty abolished. The problem is, the study was p-hacked. The author deliberately sorted the racial categories in such a way as to produce statistically significant effects; when the data is aggregated, the effect goes away, just as Simpson's paradox predicts it would. This study effectively undermined democracy by having the judiciary illegitimately strike down a perfectly legal statute that should have been left to the voters.
Beckett, Katherine. "The role of race in Washington state capital sentencing." Commissioned report. Law, Societies, and Justice Program and the Department of Sociology, University of Washington. Accessed April 9, no. 2016 (2014): 8.
3) An attempt at operationalizing "White Fragility" via a survey. The survey questions are unable to distinguish between white students who experience negative feelings during conversations about race that exhibit photos of lynched corpses, and students who experience negative feelings during conversations about race due to some kind of inherent defensiveness. White Fragility was a shit concept to begin with, but shit operationalizations make for shit research. This one's relatively recent, so it has fewer citations than the other two.
Hill, Terrence, Andrew Mannheimer, and J. Micah Roos. "Measuring White Fragility." Social Science Quarterly 102, no. 4 (2021): 1812-1829
@@keisukekun86 happy reading.
I really appreciate you making those videos! Thank you so much!
You would expect that places of learning and intellectual growth would be resistant to and impossible for these problems to bloom. Unfortunately, universities and colleges seem to be the biggest breeding ground for these types of ideas. I wonder if it has to do with the people being always 'right and correct' through all of their studies, and when trying to apply their unearned confidence in the world around them, find their most useful outcome - one that justifies their biases. And then because they have been given the right answer their whole life, they assume that everything they think is correct.
For whatever reason it is, it is frustrating, as somebody growing up during the 80s and 90s, watching just 1 generation later destroy all of the social progress my parent's generation worked so hard to give us. My parent were teenagers during the civil rights movement, they SAW how bad it was. They were also the biggest reason that I grew up without their prejudices and was able to see people as individual and not part of an arbitrary demographic group. Never in my life had I ever thought that the physical appearance of people were a manner to ascribe characteristics of personality, intellect, or thought. Obviously, I was recognizing the differences and general attributes, but it would never have crossed my mind to treat someone differently because of something so silly as color or musculoskeletal structure.
I just want to be able to be kind and fair to everyone again. Sure it was never perfect, but holy fuck, general attitudes back in 2000 were so much better for us all.
iktf. The vaguely recent furore about Buck Angel when IMO he was one of the main reasons trans folk gained acceptance or were even talked aboot tends to bug me a fair amount. Similarly, someone I forgot the name of got kicked off Big Brother for defending a black girl against bullying because he called her a negr*. He mentioned that it was the most respectful term he was aware of, apologised for being out of touch with modern developments, and was duly vilified.
When I feel like I might have rose tinted glasses, sober research tends to make me realise this isn't actually the case.