The math is correct as far as it goes. But there is a crucial semantic issue that needs sorted out for this to be useful. You need to define the necessary and sufficient conditions for "blowing it". That necessitates some serious unpacking. Is it still "blowing it" if a conspirator accidentally says something but it doesn't reach mass consciousness? How much needs to be revealed to be considered "blowing it"? Does it need to be the whole plot, or only a component of it? If someone leaks a conspiracy plot to other people, but nobody believes them or they don't tell anyone else, is that still considered "blowing it"? How many people that have roles in a conspiracy have knowledge of the big-picture plan. Are there hierarchical or nested tiers of collective intentionality? This mathematical explication is not sufficient for debunking conspiracy theories until these issues are explored and clarified.
Correct (and there are other factors too), but doubt you will get a response since a year has passed. Intelligence agencies and mafias would be absolutely ineffectual if his explanation made sense beyond this overly simplified abstraction. The whole conspiracy angle seems like clickbait to explore some other question, maybe something more similar to a single operation in which everyone knows everything and institutional capture, incentive structures, compartimentalization (information security) and "limited hangouts" (among other failsafes) are not considered to exist.
By this math, the CIA has never in its entire history conducted a covert operation, because evidently more than 3 people knowing about something for a few weeks at a time results in 99.999% certainty of failure. I'm kinda surprised this paper exists and that you're not seeing its glaring weakness: incentives, stakes and motivation. There are countless podcasts where various CIA agents are interviewed at the end of their lives (with deceased spouses) and they still refuse to reveal any information about covert operations that were conducted decades ago. Whether it's out of loyalty to a cause or some ironclad NDA, evidently they're able to do it long after they're discharged from duty. Same goes with un-patented trade secrets like the Coca Cola formula. I'm a math enthusiast - not a conspiracy theorist - and this math is weak. This is essentially a first order approximation of the Fermi paradox (on which reams have been written and debated).
The entire point of this video is that large groups of people can't keep a secret. If the CIA limits information about covert operations to just 2-3 people, they can absolutely keep things secret. The problem emerges when we start talking about large groups, which are needed for most conspiracy theories that are floating around. No one disputes that the CIA does covert operations. Nor is anyone disputing that they can keep them secret. But things like the moon landing being a hoax are nuts given how many people would need to be in on it to keep it secret.
@@DataDemystified I believe I was perhaps unclear in my comment (due to it being the internet). My apologies for that. For starters: the moon landing is not a hoax, and this is a premise (for this particular argument's sake) that we can take as a given... But with regards to the CIA, or even the general branches of the military, we already know that *large groups* of seemingly unaffiliated people (well over 3) consistently keep highly sensitive secrets essentially indefinitely. This is essentially business as usual in the modern world. So either this paper is wrong, or it is asserting something that is incorrectly constrained (or simply unconstrained). This paper seems to boil down to the trivial notion that any value in [0;1) will tend towards 0 when raised to a sufficiently high power. That kind of math is a bit lacking, imho: we know that the interesting limits are all of those where both numerator *and* denominator are 0 (not the trivial ones where only one of them is). In other words, clearly this paper hasn't thought of *good* reasons why people *do* keep secrets. More over, where secrets can't be kept, you could employ strategies to ensure their control and mitigation (like silo'ing of knowledge as practiced by the CIA). I personally don't think the moon landing was faked*, but that doesn't stop me from thinking about how it could be faked and pulled off. What strategies could be used to do so. And most importantly, I feel it is a bit confirmation bias'ey to say that it of course couldn't be pulled off because of the number of people that would have to be involved in doing it. (*It is kinda sad that we live in an era where I have to claim this so vocally)
@@memetb5796 The thing is people DO blab about those CIA operations and black ops, but because they affect so few, people rarely care. Hell many of the motivations of the Taliban cited by them were supposedly classified operations. We just don't hear about it because, frankly, they're boring. A black ops team sent to assassinate a rebel leader is pretty dry compared to 9/11 in terms of sheer attention grabbing power.
@@DataDemystified Some one blabbing doesn't mean much of anyone is going to listen, which makes someone spilling the beans so many times more unlikely than you say. The biggest nefarious conspiracies aren't technically secrets, but a negligible amount people know about them simply because they aren't on the large government approved media. The fake moon landing theory falls apart because NASA not being an intelligence agency isn't built to keep secrets, and it's claims can be verified by so many more times the amount of people than there were involved in the project.
@@DataDemystified What makes you think the large conspiracy isn't compartmentalized? Ie... DEGREES of freemasonry? How can you tell me there isn't a 33rd degree when the pinnacles of masonry say there is? Or how the CIA might segment tasks into small groups, but the director himself will inevitably know the contents of every task. Most people are kept in a need-to-know basis. Don't we have examples of entire genocides being carried out by compartmentalized groups within political parties, only for the rest of the party to be oblivious to said genocide? Russia and Germany both come to mind. And in the case of Russia, people were starving in one city while the newspapers in another said that no one was starving in Russia. Your channel isn't good dude, whoever is paying you to do this is a crook without morals.
"We further assume that a leak of information from any conspirator is sufficient to expose the conspiracy and render it redundant-such leaks might be intentional (in the form of whistle-blowing or defection) or accidental (mistaken release of information). We concern ourselves only with potential intrinsic exposure of the conspiracy and do not consider for now the possibility that external agents may reveal the operation." This assumption that "a leak of information from any conspirator is sufficient to expose the conspiracy" has not been established.
There is someone if a fallacy here. Yes, it is nearly certain that someone will squeal when there are multiple people involved in a conspiracy. However, the rest of the group may be able to discredit that person or persons and make them seem like they are lying. In this case, the conspiracy can still hold even if some people spill the beans. .
@@lobachevscki Are you fucking kidding me? What planet do you live on where people aren't discredited nonstop for spilling the beans on pedowood? Only for it to turn out true decades after the fact?
Probabilities and numbers can quickly confuse the general population. We don't do math very well. Millions have had the Covid vaccinations without incident, but anti vaxxers like to high light the one who may have died. Also, it's not important if they died from the the jab, or during the ride to the vaccination centre. Conspiracy theorists like to leave out inconvenient details like that! The point is people want to overlook that highly unlikely scenario to focus on the one that meets their agenda, scepticism or lack of understanding in how math works. 1 vs 10 million.
Yep, and they put their fingers in their ears “la la la I’m not listening” whenever presented with actual evidence. That’s because it’s really about feeling special, cool, edgy, like they’ve cracked the code. It’s a subculture, and I doubt many of them actually believe it deep down. Or it’s just sheer arrogance. Perfect example is the 9/11 conspiracy theories. People saying stuff like “I watched a video and it looked like a controlled demo!” Or “my local construction worker told me buildings don’t fall like that.” Sure, like we should believe you over the actual civil engineers that have opined on this. Sheer arrogance. Sheer “I’m smarter than the architects and engineers, I’ve figured it out by watching some homemade videos.” Pathetic. It’s the civilized world’s job to stomp out this idiocy. As we get farther away in time from the actual events themselves, the world will be more susceptible to the bullshit. Stomp it out. Tell a conspiracy theorist why they are wrong.
Millions have tried mushrooms with only a few having deaths. Same with other drugs yet the government banned them to control the people that opposed war. Locking down the economy wasn’t free as the 40% of all dollars in existence were made in the last few years. I’m so glad they’re debunking conspiracy theories with math. I can’t wait to watch how math proves the fbi and Facebook is right that hunter Biden’s laptop is a conspiracy theory. That’ll be fun to watch.
Here’s another problem. The government gave out free rona tests. Our local pharmacy told all employees to give them out and the boss would give them a party or dinner. My sister literally brought home like thirty Covid tests which we’ve probably thrown away. The government I think gave the pharmacy some money or something for distributing them. Total waste of tax dollars.
I think the issue was growing state authoritarianism, double standards for politicians and their pet ideologies, absurd repression and the violation of bodily autonomy more than anything. Additionally, one should compare it to other vaccines and, overall, contemplate not only the relative risk (which most propaganda exploits), but also how it ranks along with routine risks we take in absolute terms.
The whole line of argumentation presented here is stupid beyond belief. "Spilling beans" by way of merely saying you saw something isn't a thing. Several people attempted to do this with regard to Prism, but it was only the person who presented the actual documentation as evidence who effectively outed the conspiracy. If you have no compelling material evidence you only have claims which will be met with mocking, and in many cases material evidence can be easily destroyed or inherently unobtainable. This video is every bit as stupid as the pizzagate conspiracy theory.
spilling beans is also very rare. the biggest conspiracy ever went tits up because somebody caught them in he act. Scientology had thousands of people infiltrating the government get church status. nobody talked...
@@nox5555 Yeah that's true. Even with the Prism program, which should be one of the biggest government scandals in the history of the country, surprisingly few people talked. It was like thousands or even 10s of thousands of people knew the government was illegally eavesdropping on virtually every American and like 4 people said anything.
And even when someone did drop data on prism, they got ran out of the country and the surveillance state is still here. The premise that people will actually care and do something derails this entire video.
Keep up the good work. Conspiracy theorists are just people that fall for nonsense posted by other people that know how much so many people need to feel more important/special /excitement /drama/ meaning etc in their lives.
@@DataDemystified thank you more for helping the next generation see past the smoke and mirrors set up to fool them as they are much more exposed to these harmful conspiracies than I was as a green eyed kid.
friendly reminder that epstein was running an international black mail ring that included bill gates, bill clinton, and donald trump, among many, many others.
this is really good but you should make a follow up video that shows what happens when you have "leverage", the ability to blackmail person A, B, C into keeping quiet. (those percentages change)
I think framing this around a 99% chance of failure isn't ideal. A conspirator self interested in ensuring his conspiracy stays a secret should be seeking a
Absolute secrecy isn't necessary. The freemasons make you swear an oath that if you tell their secrets they will kill you. Figuratively, of course. :) Hypothetically, wouldn't killing a few leakers be a great incentive for keeping others from talking? Have these "skeptics" even heard of organized crime? Gangs? The mafia? Absolutely ridiculous sheltered nonsense is what this "skepticism" is. Furthermore, what makes you think that telling someone would help? What can that person do? How does telling the media help you if they are in the same set of secret clubs? Powerful people are assassinated all the time. Powerful people leak secrets before being murdered, all the time. When they are murdered for telling secrets, the media/state says they committed suicide. By shooting themselves in the back of the head, twice. It's all so tiresome. I know these assholes are just gaslighting us with this pretentious video but it pains me to think that some kid might wander in here and take this "skepticism" at face-value. Be skeptical of the so-called skeptics just as well as the fanatical believers, I say.
@@cooperfranklin2455 _Sensus communis_ or common sense, may refer to (1) a human individual’s “sixth sense” that organizes and unifies inputs from the five physical senses. It may also refer to (2) a widely distributed basic human awareness and ability to judge. Or to 3) the results of human judgments that exist in the form of viewpoints and values that are widespread within a particular linguistic or historical community.
This is great, but you are assuming that every probable outcome (blabbing/keeping quiet) all equals to 25%. There would be variables (such as threats etc) in place that would make it a lot more favorable for the people involved to hush rather than blab. So it wouldn't be a 25% equal divide between each outcome right?
That's already within the 50% assumption, which is the chance to spill the beans. It's probably easier to understand this looking at the 0.01%. Imagine that if there were no threats, 0.1% would blabble. But since there is a control mechanism, 9 in 10 of those keep quiet, bringing the babble% to 0.01%. that's how we get the 0.01%, which is analogous to the 50%. Those are just thought experiences by the way, and the video maker is not pretending like can calculate the actual values. He's just pointing out that even a conspiracy with very competent and loyal participants is VERY likely to be blown out over time, especially those with millions of supposed participants.
@@stddisclaimer8020 Who are they again and what is the name referring to? Also, gay men tend not to fair to well with the far ring-wing, regardless of which Abrahamic faith they (and no doubt you) subscribe to. Prescott Bush called asking for you - he needs a hand dealing with the whole Smedley Butler mess. Kisses x x x
@@DataDemystified The irony is that lots of science and calculations came from people who followed Islam. They were encouraged to find this out in order to find proof of God and religion.
“We need to increase public understanding of the need for MCMs (medical countermeasures) such as a pan-influenza or pan-coronavirus vaccine. A key driver is the media, and the economics follow the hype. We need to use that hype to our advantage to get to the real issues. Investors will respond if they see profit at the end of process.” - Peter Daszak
Trouble is, not all people involved have to know a bigger plan. People just follow orders, without questioning them. Or maybe people do not recognise their part as a bad thing. So in the end, at the top of every pyramid, there are only a few stakeholders who might know the complete truth. Or maybe not even the complete truth. The thing is, the few people that are stakeholders have enough stakes to keep quiet. And that is exactly how politics work, on smaller scale and also on bigger scale. So, Nice math, but it doesnt debunk any conspiracy at all. It just proves that only a very small group of people should know all details and at the same time have a whole lot at stake so they keep quiet. In that case you can do the math based in 0 %. What do think will be the outcome?
This guy doesn't understand basic things like threats, codes of honor, compartmentalization, discrediting, degrees of initiation, any of that. It's like a teenager with no life experience. Like one hour of researching gangs and mafias should refute this entire video.
@@abominationdesolation8322 gangs and mafia are pretty much in favor of his argument: the bigger the mafia the most likely their operations are discovered, which is the whole point of the video.
@@abominationdesolation8322He is just virtue signaling or passove aggressively trying to "debunk" certain conspiracies "floating around" in one go without actually engaging with them (and instead always assuming they MUST involve a LOT of people that kmow all the details and goals and whatnkt).
You're correct that this assumes that people/events are uncorrelated. Though, do realize that correlated behaviors are just as likely to lead to MORE leaks/confessions as they are to less. We can certainly impose correlations on any of this, but they would be huge assumptions with no evidence to support which direction they would go in.
Cognitive dissonance has a part in you equation as well that you don't take into consideration it is easier to fool the masses than it is to convince the masses they have been fooled Instead of using your math to disprove a conspiracy's existence how about useing your math to prove the existence of a conspiracy where as cognitive dissonance has no influence on the sum of the equation Media has an influence on what people believe as truth and fact and when something is planted in someone's head you could come strait out and tell them 100% truth and they wouldn't believe it !
Louie Steven Witt "Umbrella man" "Ma number all" ("US ss schemata") Numbers are in his name. One, Two, Seven, Ten, Eleven, Twelve, Twenties (19 20's) H He N Ne Na Mg K Ca
And this is all assuming ethics, money, personal guilt and other variables aren't taken into consideration. Which all would skew the conspiracy theory to being even more unlikely
They take only people with 'dirt' in their history that all members of the group know about, so in case any of them tells on anything they do, others through their owned media can blackmail the whistleblower louder than the newly exposed truth. Also, they believe that the only way for conspiracies to work is to announce their plans low-key to public. i.e. through the simpsons episodes. They don't accept people they can't control. If you not value money, you likely will not get an invitation to the club.
The problem with doing it this way is variables that significantly alter the outcome are being ignored or assumed. When people will face serious consequences for Blabbing (prison, death) etc, they are more likely To stay quiet. Personality type is a big factor on people Blabbing or not. Math ignores those factors. And since involvement isn’t mandatory it’s very selective, only certain people will be let in on the secret.
No, math does not ignore those factors. It's still all percentages: the percentage of those who can't or won't keep a secret vs. those who can and will. The larger the conspiracy, the more unlikely for the secret to be kept. It only takes one person falling out of line.
@@arsphoenix1822 obviously the more people involved the more likely it is someone will blab. That’s as a general rule for the average person. Look at people who are members of the mafia. They used to number in the tens of thousands. How many have snitched, and for almost half a century NOBODY who was a full member of the mafia turned states evidence. So variables that aren’t and can’t be taken into account in what he was saying can alter outcomes, personality and culture are huge ones
So we have math showing the probability with 40,000 people over say 5 years...and there are some theories that entail 100s of millions of people...over thousands and thousands of years hahahah!
Bro you also misunderstand a lot about these things. The best way to do something like this is get it so that it's seen as an unquestioned fact by society and if you stray from that you will be ostracized. Therefore you only need a few people that actually know what's going on bc with society most people 99% of the time don't pay attention to anything at all and are just doing their job regardless and just trying to get back home.
If this math holds true, it's statistically impossible for a video game to be released without being leaked. As AAA games quite frequently have hundreds of people working on them. Same for movies. And they have long development periods, often up to 5 or 10 years. Following this chart, there's a 99% chance that they'd be leaked (or "blown" as you say). Yet... it doesn't happen. Odd. Perhaps the "math" is wrong? Nah, couldn't be. Let's try it again. Gender Identity. This is factually incorrect and many people are aware of this. It just isn't something that exists. Yet, we see hundred of thousands, if not millions, of people pushing this idea, for many many years (it's been popular for almost a decade now). So following the chart again we should see people admitting it's bullshit. Yet.... no. They're still invested after all these years; *despite it being a known fabrication.* It's almost as if the math is wrong, and people invested in something are *much* more likely to keep quiet and keep doing what they're doing. Likewise, you forget to consider that even if a conspiracy *were* leaked, that doesn't account for the very real chance that it'll just be blown off as a "crazy conspiracy theory". We see plenty of government, air force, etc. professionals step forward and admit aliens are real and the government knows about them. Yet it's constantly brushed under the rug as a conspiracy theory. Lastly, these conspiracies *are* "blown", because conspiracy theorists know about them!! So even if the math held true it doesn't apply anyway, because they're *already* known!
Right? The guy literally took an old cliche platitude probably cooked up by the CIA itself and tried to pass it off as a scientific model. This is garbage.
Lol. Do the math on the probability a separate building collapsing without any supposed, “catastrophe happening to it”, on its own while standing beside two buildings which supposedly had “airplanes” flown into them like slice butter, when a single bird can smash the nose of a plane. And go…😂
i agree totally with you and dont believe the con theories, but it is hard to price in con theories that did not get released, we would have never found out, so we are unable to price them in... just a thought
I know someone who listens to conspiracy theories constantly. Your problem is that SHE is listening to the 'blabbers' who talk about the conspiracy... yet the conspiracy goes on. How does your math do any good when the conspiracy is actually well known (many of the things she's telling me about I have heard over the past 50 years)? It isn't people talking about the conspiracy that's the problem. It's that no one is doing anything about debunking it in a consistent way that would give those of us with regular jobs and a family (little free time) a chance to show our deluded friends that they are listening to hokum.
They can't be debunked because they are self-evident; and because they are self-evident you are the deluded one for not seeing them. IF there were sufficient evidence to debunk them, said "rumors" would not persist for half of a damn century!
You can try and come up with some equation to figure anything out but that never actually works in reality. This entire video sucked bro. I wanted to hear you disprove some theories that aren't totally insane. But all you did was basically say there can never be a huge conspiracy bc it will fall apart easily.
The math is correct as far as it goes. But there is a crucial semantic issue that needs sorted out for this to be useful. You need to define the necessary and sufficient conditions for "blowing it". That necessitates some serious unpacking. Is it still "blowing it" if a conspirator accidentally says something but it doesn't reach mass consciousness? How much needs to be revealed to be considered "blowing it"? Does it need to be the whole plot, or only a component of it? If someone leaks a conspiracy plot to other people, but nobody believes them or they don't tell anyone else, is that still considered "blowing it"? How many people that have roles in a conspiracy have knowledge of the big-picture plan. Are there hierarchical or nested tiers of collective intentionality? This mathematical explication is not sufficient for debunking conspiracy theories until these issues are explored and clarified.
Correct (and there are other factors too), but doubt you will get a response since a year has passed. Intelligence agencies and mafias would be absolutely ineffectual if his explanation made sense beyond this overly simplified abstraction. The whole conspiracy angle seems like clickbait to explore some other question, maybe something more similar to a single operation in which everyone knows everything and institutional capture, incentive structures, compartimentalization (information security) and "limited hangouts" (among other failsafes) are not considered to exist.
By this math, the CIA has never in its entire history conducted a covert operation, because evidently more than 3 people knowing about something for a few weeks at a time results in 99.999% certainty of failure.
I'm kinda surprised this paper exists and that you're not seeing its glaring weakness: incentives, stakes and motivation. There are countless podcasts where various CIA agents are interviewed at the end of their lives (with deceased spouses) and they still refuse to reveal any information about covert operations that were conducted decades ago. Whether it's out of loyalty to a cause or some ironclad NDA, evidently they're able to do it long after they're discharged from duty.
Same goes with un-patented trade secrets like the Coca Cola formula.
I'm a math enthusiast - not a conspiracy theorist - and this math is weak. This is essentially a first order approximation of the Fermi paradox (on which reams have been written and debated).
The entire point of this video is that large groups of people can't keep a secret. If the CIA limits information about covert operations to just 2-3 people, they can absolutely keep things secret. The problem emerges when we start talking about large groups, which are needed for most conspiracy theories that are floating around. No one disputes that the CIA does covert operations. Nor is anyone disputing that they can keep them secret. But things like the moon landing being a hoax are nuts given how many people would need to be in on it to keep it secret.
@@DataDemystified I believe I was perhaps unclear in my comment (due to it being the internet). My apologies for that.
For starters: the moon landing is not a hoax, and this is a premise (for this particular argument's sake) that we can take as a given...
But with regards to the CIA, or even the general branches of the military, we already know that *large groups* of seemingly unaffiliated people (well over 3) consistently keep highly sensitive secrets essentially indefinitely. This is essentially business as usual in the modern world. So either this paper is wrong, or it is asserting something that is incorrectly constrained (or simply unconstrained).
This paper seems to boil down to the trivial notion that any value in [0;1) will tend towards 0 when raised to a sufficiently high power. That kind of math is a bit lacking, imho: we know that the interesting limits are all of those where both numerator *and* denominator are 0 (not the trivial ones where only one of them is). In other words, clearly this paper hasn't thought of *good* reasons why people *do* keep secrets.
More over, where secrets can't be kept, you could employ strategies to ensure their control and mitigation (like silo'ing of knowledge as practiced by the CIA).
I personally don't think the moon landing was faked*, but that doesn't stop me from thinking about how it could be faked and pulled off. What strategies could be used to do so. And most importantly, I feel it is a bit confirmation bias'ey to say that it of course couldn't be pulled off because of the number of people that would have to be involved in doing it.
(*It is kinda sad that we live in an era where I have to claim this so vocally)
@@memetb5796 The thing is people DO blab about those CIA operations and black ops, but because they affect so few, people rarely care. Hell many of the motivations of the Taliban cited by them were supposedly classified operations. We just don't hear about it because, frankly, they're boring. A black ops team sent to assassinate a rebel leader is pretty dry compared to 9/11 in terms of sheer attention grabbing power.
@@DataDemystified Some one blabbing doesn't mean much of anyone is going to listen, which makes someone spilling the beans so many times more unlikely than you say. The biggest nefarious conspiracies aren't technically secrets, but a negligible amount people know about them simply because they aren't on the large government approved media. The fake moon landing theory falls apart because NASA not being an intelligence agency isn't built to keep secrets, and it's claims can be verified by so many more times the amount of people than there were involved in the project.
@@DataDemystified What makes you think the large conspiracy isn't compartmentalized? Ie... DEGREES of freemasonry? How can you tell me there isn't a 33rd degree when the pinnacles of masonry say there is? Or how the CIA might segment tasks into small groups, but the director himself will inevitably know the contents of every task. Most people are kept in a need-to-know basis. Don't we have examples of entire genocides being carried out by compartmentalized groups within political parties, only for the rest of the party to be oblivious to said genocide? Russia and Germany both come to mind. And in the case of Russia, people were starving in one city while the newspapers in another said that no one was starving in Russia. Your channel isn't good dude, whoever is paying you to do this is a crook without morals.
"We further assume that a leak of information from any conspirator is sufficient to expose the conspiracy and render it redundant-such leaks might be intentional (in the form of whistle-blowing or defection) or accidental (mistaken release of information). We concern ourselves only with potential intrinsic exposure of the conspiracy and do not consider for now the possibility that external agents may reveal the operation."
This assumption that "a leak of information from any conspirator is sufficient to expose the conspiracy" has not been established.
There is someone if a fallacy here. Yes, it is nearly certain that someone will squeal when there are multiple people involved in a conspiracy. However, the rest of the group may be able to discredit that person or persons and make them seem like they are lying. In this case, the conspiracy can still hold even if some people spill the beans. .
But the discredit never happens, which is the point being made.
Not one rat? Not someone who knows a rat, worked for a rat once, was a consultant for rats… but not an actual rat.
@@lobachevscki Are you fucking kidding me? What planet do you live on where people aren't discredited nonstop for spilling the beans on pedowood? Only for it to turn out true decades after the fact?
Thanks. Are you illustrating the mathematical concept of factorializng?
Probabilities and numbers can quickly confuse the general population. We don't do math very well.
Millions have had the Covid vaccinations without incident, but anti vaxxers like to high light the one who may
have died. Also, it's not important if they died from the the jab, or during the ride to the vaccination centre.
Conspiracy theorists like to leave out inconvenient details like that! The point is people want to overlook that
highly unlikely scenario to focus on the one that meets their agenda, scepticism or lack of understanding in how
math works. 1 vs 10 million.
Yep, and they put their fingers in their ears “la la la I’m not listening” whenever presented with actual evidence. That’s because it’s really about feeling special, cool, edgy, like they’ve cracked the code. It’s a subculture, and I doubt many of them actually believe it deep down.
Or it’s just sheer arrogance. Perfect example is the 9/11 conspiracy theories. People saying stuff like “I watched a video and it looked like a controlled demo!” Or “my local construction worker told me buildings don’t fall like that.” Sure, like we should believe you over the actual civil engineers that have opined on this. Sheer arrogance. Sheer “I’m smarter than the architects and engineers, I’ve figured it out by watching some homemade videos.” Pathetic. It’s the civilized world’s job to stomp out this idiocy. As we get farther away in time from the actual events themselves, the world will be more susceptible to the bullshit. Stomp it out. Tell a conspiracy theorist why they are wrong.
Millions have tried mushrooms with only a few having deaths. Same with other drugs yet the government banned them to control the people that opposed war.
Locking down the economy wasn’t free as the 40% of all dollars in existence were made in the last few years.
I’m so glad they’re debunking conspiracy theories with math. I can’t wait to watch how math proves the fbi and Facebook is right that hunter Biden’s laptop is a conspiracy theory. That’ll be fun to watch.
Here’s another problem. The government gave out free rona tests. Our local pharmacy told all employees to give them out and the boss would give them a party or dinner. My sister literally brought home like thirty Covid tests which we’ve probably thrown away. The government I think gave the pharmacy some money or something for distributing them. Total waste of tax dollars.
I think the issue was growing state authoritarianism, double standards for politicians and their pet ideologies, absurd repression and the violation of bodily autonomy more than anything. Additionally, one should compare it to other vaccines and, overall, contemplate not only the relative risk (which most propaganda exploits), but also how it ranks along with routine risks we take in absolute terms.
The whole line of argumentation presented here is stupid beyond belief. "Spilling beans" by way of merely saying you saw something isn't a thing. Several people attempted to do this with regard to Prism, but it was only the person who presented the actual documentation as evidence who effectively outed the conspiracy. If you have no compelling material evidence you only have claims which will be met with mocking, and in many cases material evidence can be easily destroyed or inherently unobtainable. This video is every bit as stupid as the pizzagate conspiracy theory.
spilling beans is also very rare. the biggest conspiracy ever went tits up because somebody caught them in he act. Scientology had thousands of people infiltrating the government get church status. nobody talked...
@@nox5555 Yeah that's true. Even with the Prism program, which should be one of the biggest government scandals in the history of the country, surprisingly few people talked. It was like thousands or even 10s of thousands of people knew the government was illegally eavesdropping on virtually every American and like 4 people said anything.
@@Will_Moffett it was also outsider that came later that talked.
And even when someone did drop data on prism, they got ran out of the country and the surveillance state is still here. The premise that people will actually care and do something derails this entire video.
I find the video creator's deafening silence on this comment to be quite funny.
Living in texas it feels like im the conspiracy theorist when I believe in normal things
Keep up the good work. Conspiracy theorists are just people that fall for nonsense posted by other people that know how much so many people need to feel more important/special /excitement /drama/ meaning etc in their lives.
Thank you!
@@DataDemystified thank you more for helping the next generation see past the smoke and mirrors set up to fool them as they are much more exposed to these harmful conspiracies than I was as a green eyed kid.
That's exactly what a sheep would say!
- A fellow sheep 🙃
Freaking sheep smh
friendly reminder that epstein was running an international black mail ring that included bill gates, bill clinton, and donald trump, among many, many others.
This is a conspiracy!
fascinating upload Data Demystified. I crushed the thumbs up on your video. Keep up the superb work.
Thanks! Glad you found it interesting!
What if what passes as the history IS the conspiracy theory?
this is really good but you should make a follow up video that shows what happens when you have "leverage", the ability to blackmail person A, B, C into keeping quiet. (those percentages change)
Yeah specifically the numbers would change but the 99% after x time wouldn't
I think your theory only works when all people involved actually know that the conspirancy theory is not true.
love your explanations!
Thank you!
I think framing this around a 99% chance of failure isn't ideal. A conspirator self interested in ensuring his conspiracy stays a secret should be seeking a
Very true very true
Absolute secrecy isn't necessary. The freemasons make you swear an oath that if you tell their secrets they will kill you. Figuratively, of course. :) Hypothetically, wouldn't killing a few leakers be a great incentive for keeping others from talking? Have these "skeptics" even heard of organized crime? Gangs? The mafia? Absolutely ridiculous sheltered nonsense is what this "skepticism" is. Furthermore, what makes you think that telling someone would help? What can that person do? How does telling the media help you if they are in the same set of secret clubs? Powerful people are assassinated all the time. Powerful people leak secrets before being murdered, all the time. When they are murdered for telling secrets, the media/state says they committed suicide. By shooting themselves in the back of the head, twice. It's all so tiresome. I know these assholes are just gaslighting us with this pretentious video but it pains me to think that some kid might wander in here and take this "skepticism" at face-value. Be skeptical of the so-called skeptics just as well as the fanatical believers, I say.
Morale: In debunking conspiracy nonsense, where plain logic and _communis sensus_ fails, try math.
What is the communist sensus?
@@cooperfranklin2455 _communis sensus_ (not Communist sensus), you fellow traveler you.
@@stddisclaimer8020 That’s my bad, but I still want to know
@@cooperfranklin2455 _Sensus communis_ or common sense, may refer to (1) a human individual’s “sixth sense” that organizes and unifies inputs from the five physical senses. It may also refer to (2) a widely distributed basic human awareness and ability to judge. Or to 3) the results of human judgments that exist in the form of viewpoints and values that are widespread within a particular linguistic or historical community.
Terrific presentation--I am going to share it with my students.
Thanks! Hope they find it useful!
Terrible presentation--I am going to share it with my enemies.
The 911 in the start is one of the only okes i believe
This is great, but you are assuming that every probable outcome (blabbing/keeping quiet) all equals to 25%.
There would be variables (such as threats etc) in place that would make it a lot more favorable for the people involved to hush rather than blab. So it wouldn't be a 25% equal divide between each outcome right?
That's already within the 50% assumption, which is the chance to spill the beans.
It's probably easier to understand this looking at the 0.01%.
Imagine that if there were no threats, 0.1% would blabble. But since there is a control mechanism, 9 in 10 of those keep quiet, bringing the babble% to 0.01%. that's how we get the 0.01%, which is analogous to the 50%.
Those are just thought experiences by the way, and the video maker is not pretending like can calculate the actual values. He's just pointing out that even a conspiracy with very competent and loyal participants is VERY likely to be blown out over time, especially those with millions of supposed participants.
This video isn't math or science. It's wankery.
You should give NIST a hand with their law suit.
@Steven Nodlehs: Why don't you go represent Al-Qaeda _pro bono_ ?
@@stddisclaimer8020 Who are they again and what is the name referring to? Also, gay men tend not to fair to well with the far ring-wing, regardless of which Abrahamic faith they (and no doubt you) subscribe to. Prescott Bush called asking for you - he needs a hand dealing with the whole Smedley Butler mess. Kisses x x x
@@YourBeingParanoid Note to Nodleh; 1) Stay on one topic. 2) Try knowing WTF you're talking about.
What about religions? ;)
Don't get me started....(sigh)
@@DataDemystified The irony is that lots of science and calculations came from people who followed Islam. They were encouraged to find this out in order to find proof of God and religion.
@@DataDemystified "But the holy book told us that our God is real!"
“We need to increase public understanding of the need for MCMs (medical countermeasures) such as a pan-influenza or pan-coronavirus vaccine. A key driver is the media, and the economics follow the hype. We need to use that hype to our advantage to get to the real issues. Investors will respond if they see profit at the end of process.” - Peter Daszak
Just to be clear, you're implying that because money can be made from a thing, it must be evil?
And???
Trouble is, not all people involved have to know a bigger plan. People just follow orders, without questioning them. Or maybe people do not recognise their part as a bad thing. So in the end, at the top of every pyramid, there are only a few stakeholders who might know the complete truth. Or maybe not even the complete truth.
The thing is, the few people that are stakeholders have enough stakes to keep quiet. And that is exactly how politics work, on smaller scale and also on bigger scale.
So, Nice math, but it doesnt debunk any conspiracy at all. It just proves that only a very small group of people should know all details and at the same time have a whole lot at stake so they keep quiet. In that case you can do the math based in 0 %. What do think will be the outcome?
This guy doesn't understand basic things like threats, codes of honor, compartmentalization, discrediting, degrees of initiation, any of that. It's like a teenager with no life experience. Like one hour of researching gangs and mafias should refute this entire video.
@@abominationdesolation8322 gangs and mafia are pretty much in favor of his argument: the bigger the mafia the most likely their operations are discovered, which is the whole point of the video.
@@abominationdesolation8322He is just virtue signaling or passove aggressively trying to "debunk" certain conspiracies "floating around" in one go without actually engaging with them (and instead always assuming they MUST involve a LOT of people that kmow all the details and goals and whatnkt).
This assumes that all of the events are uncorrelated, which I don't think is valid.
You're correct that this assumes that people/events are uncorrelated. Though, do realize that correlated behaviors are just as likely to lead to MORE leaks/confessions as they are to less. We can certainly impose correlations on any of this, but they would be huge assumptions with no evidence to support which direction they would go in.
Cognitive dissonance has a part in you equation as well that you don't take into consideration it is easier to fool the masses than it is to convince the masses they have been fooled
Instead of using your math to disprove a conspiracy's existence how about useing your math to prove the existence of a conspiracy where as cognitive dissonance has no influence on the sum of the equation
Media has an influence on what people believe as truth and fact and when something is planted in someone's head you could come strait out and tell them 100% truth and they wouldn't believe it !
Louie Steven Witt
"Umbrella man" "Ma number all" ("US ss schemata")
Numbers are in his name.
One, Two, Seven, Ten, Eleven, Twelve, Twenties (19 20's)
H He N Ne Na Mg K Ca
And this is all assuming ethics, money, personal guilt and other variables aren't taken into consideration. Which all would skew the conspiracy theory to being even more unlikely
They take only people with 'dirt' in their history that all members of the group know about, so in case any of them tells on anything they do, others through their owned media can blackmail the whistleblower louder than the newly exposed truth.
Also, they believe that the only way for conspiracies to work is to announce their plans low-key to public. i.e. through the simpsons episodes.
They don't accept people they can't control. If you not value money, you likely will not get an invitation to the club.
all of those variables regularly reinforced conspiracies.
The problem with doing it this way is variables that significantly alter the outcome are being ignored or assumed.
When people will face serious consequences for
Blabbing (prison, death) etc, they are more likely
To stay quiet.
Personality type is a big factor on people
Blabbing or not. Math ignores those factors. And since involvement isn’t mandatory it’s very selective, only certain people will be let in on the secret.
No, math does not ignore those factors. It's still all percentages: the percentage of those who can't or won't keep a secret vs. those who can and will. The larger the conspiracy, the more unlikely for the secret to be kept. It only takes one person falling out of line.
@@arsphoenix1822 obviously the more people involved the more likely it is someone will blab. That’s as a general rule for the average person. Look at people who are members of the mafia. They used to number in the tens of thousands. How many have snitched, and for almost half a century NOBODY who was a full member of the mafia turned states evidence. So variables that aren’t and can’t be taken into account in what he was saying can alter outcomes, personality and culture are huge ones
So we have math showing the probability with 40,000 people over say 5 years...and there are some theories that entail 100s of millions of people...over thousands and thousands of years hahahah!
Bro you also misunderstand a lot about these things. The best way to do something like this is get it so that it's seen as an unquestioned fact by society and if you stray from that you will be ostracized. Therefore you only need a few people that actually know what's going on bc with society most people 99% of the time don't pay attention to anything at all and are just doing their job regardless and just trying to get back home.
If this math holds true, it's statistically impossible for a video game to be released without being leaked. As AAA games quite frequently have hundreds of people working on them. Same for movies. And they have long development periods, often up to 5 or 10 years. Following this chart, there's a 99% chance that they'd be leaked (or "blown" as you say). Yet... it doesn't happen. Odd. Perhaps the "math" is wrong? Nah, couldn't be. Let's try it again. Gender Identity. This is factually incorrect and many people are aware of this. It just isn't something that exists. Yet, we see hundred of thousands, if not millions, of people pushing this idea, for many many years (it's been popular for almost a decade now). So following the chart again we should see people admitting it's bullshit. Yet.... no. They're still invested after all these years; *despite it being a known fabrication.* It's almost as if the math is wrong, and people invested in something are *much* more likely to keep quiet and keep doing what they're doing. Likewise, you forget to consider that even if a conspiracy *were* leaked, that doesn't account for the very real chance that it'll just be blown off as a "crazy conspiracy theory". We see plenty of government, air force, etc. professionals step forward and admit aliens are real and the government knows about them. Yet it's constantly brushed under the rug as a conspiracy theory. Lastly, these conspiracies *are* "blown", because conspiracy theorists know about them!! So even if the math held true it doesn't apply anyway, because they're *already* known!
Right? The guy literally took an old cliche platitude probably cooked up by the CIA itself and tried to pass it off as a scientific model. This is garbage.
Thanks for sharing. Totally helpful and constructive.
Lol. Do the math on the probability a separate building collapsing without any supposed, “catastrophe happening to it”, on its own while standing beside two buildings which supposedly had “airplanes” flown into them like slice butter, when a single bird can smash the nose of a plane. And go…😂
i agree totally with you and dont believe the con theories, but it is hard to price in con theories that did not get released, we would have never found out, so we are unable to price them in... just a thought
I know someone who listens to conspiracy theories constantly. Your problem is that SHE is listening to the 'blabbers' who talk about the conspiracy... yet the conspiracy goes on.
How does your math do any good when the conspiracy is actually well known (many of the things she's telling me about I have heard over the past 50 years)? It isn't people talking about the conspiracy that's the problem. It's that no one is doing anything about debunking it in a consistent way that would give those of us with regular jobs and a family (little free time) a chance to show our deluded friends that they are listening to hokum.
They can't be debunked because they are self-evident; and because they are self-evident you are the deluded one for not seeing them. IF there were sufficient evidence to debunk them, said "rumors" would not persist for half of a damn century!
You can try and come up with some equation to figure anything out but that never actually works in reality. This entire video sucked bro. I wanted to hear you disprove some theories that aren't totally insane. But all you did was basically say there can never be a huge conspiracy bc it will fall apart easily.
Mathematics am de tool of Beelzebub!
It am designed to lead de faithful away from faith with facts!
No, that would be the media telling us Saddam has weapons of mass destruction so that we could secure oil and poppy fields.