Cats don't care about your filmings.

"Numbers don't lie, but people use them to," my dad.

I used to be one of those "facts and logic" people, but then I learned about Antonio Damasio and his patient "Elliot," who had suffered brain damage from a tumor. His intelligence and memory were unaffected, but he no longer felt any emotion. He reacted to both positive and negative emotional stimuli with total neutrality. One might think being unencumbered by emotion would mean "Elliot" would be an extremely rational and logical decision-maker. This was not so. After losing his ability to feel emotion, he became incapable of making sound decisions, if he made decisions at all. Even something as basic as deciding what to eat for lunch could take hours. He wasn't able to organize documents at his job because he just couldn't decide how best to do it. Without emotion, he wasn't able to place any value on particular scenarios or choices, and so ended up losing his job, destroying his marriage and generally ruining his life. The fact that didn't care about MY feelings was that *logic cannot function without emotion*. The two are not separate forms of information processing at war with each other, they work in tandem. If you ignore one, your entire system of reasoning suffers.

Calling ben shapiro a philosopher is very generous

"Those who boast about being 'brutally honest' are usually more brutal than honest"

when you said "numbers cannot lie... or can they?" my brain just filled in the vsauce music

I'll never understand how these people can say something like "facts don't care about your feelings" and then immediately take the anti-intellectualism approach of "asking questions is bad, questioning data is dishonest, new information bad"

Being a scientist myself, I'd like to say it's dangerous that people 'trust' in science. Science is not supposed to be 'believed' in and one shouldn't have 'faith' in it. This is a mistake we keep making over and over again throughout the ages.. Becoming scientifically dogmatic is what's happened more and more during our era since the early 1900's and is ongoing to the present. My point here is this: Science is to be understood. One must have an understanding of science. One must always question the base assumptions. [This may very well be the most important aspect of science which tends to be overlooked] And for specifics of data & computer programs, the foundational rule is: "Garbage in = Garbage out"

"Obsession with objectivity, reverence for rationality, fixation on facts." I appreciate your alliteration.

How ironic is it that Ben says “facts don’t care about your feelings” while he himself has displayed that he’s vulnerable to conformation bias which is based on one’s personal values

“Facts don’t care about your feelings.” - a guy who’s job is to justify his feelings

Ben Shapiro: Facts don't care about your feelings. Also Ben Shapiro: **ignores, misconstrues and denies facts whenever it suits him, makes shit up, only cares how things make him feel**

“I’m an English teacher” “I don’t know any cool kids lol” Damn, way to roast the whole class

Frontal lobes: hmm yes, good points about constructed reality Hind brain: GIANT CAT

Facts do care about my feelings. We met up yesterday, grabbed a drink, talked about career goals. It was nice. Facts is one of the real ones.

As a mathematician, I'm always glad to hear people talk about the problems with Predpol. It's a terrible model that is guaranteed to create feedback loops even in the best of cases. In most cases, those loops also target minority communities, which makes everything worse

*Ben:* "The facts don't care about your feelings." *Therapist:* "But *we* care about *yours,* Ben." *Ben:* "... **Sniff** Finally..."

The very first thing I was taught in my statistics class is that, while numbers can not lie it is very easy to lie with numbers

"Facts don't care about your feelings" is just a craven way to say "I don't care about your feelings."

To me, the biggest proof that facts DO care about your feelings was a researcher who wanted to prove gender dysphoria was a trend, so she interview parents of trans people, who told her their kids had never displayed any type of gender non-conforming behavior until seeing it on TV or having a classmate come out, to which she created the "diagnosis" of "Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria". Problem is: she took her sample of parents from transphobic forums on the internet, most of the parents in that forum had been neglectful to their kids regarding their gender identity, some even had kicked their children out of the house or spanked them for playing with toys that didnt align with gender expectations. Her methodology was biased from the get-go and now her research is used by alt-righters to diminish trans identity.

So basically Facts don't care about feelings, but people collecting the facts do.

It’s hilarious to me that Benny Pepino would spout “facts don’t care about your feelings”, and then proceed to make arguments composed almost entirely of feelings.

Shapiro is probably the most emotionally unstable snowflake I've ever seen. I remember how he freaked out during his interview with Andrew Neil on abortion. He stated that "scientifically, life begins at conception", which is an emotional rather than scientific idea, and then accused Neil of being a leftist. Because Neil had the gall to question him. And then he cut thé interview short, because it wasn't going his way. Very rational, Benny.

"Facts don't care about your feelings" How cute, he thinks that we humans are able to separate 'rational thoughts' from 'emotions'. Both happen in the brain, bud.

Even if there was a difference in average intelligence between identifiable groups doesn't justify racism. Intelligence is not a synonym for human worth.

This comment section is wild. There'll be a mathematics professor from Harvard talking about the subjectivity of objectivity itself and the philosophers trying to understand the meaning of lies themselves. Then like, right under them is "let's say, Hypothetically, Benjiman Sharpie is a 3 toed cake goblin."

In summary: The truly rational thing to do is to acknowledge your own and other people's irrationality, understand how it operates, and try to work past that. As someone who used to think that rationality ruled, and that emotions interfered with that, I find it terribly ironic that these people who claim to be paragons of rationality are not rational, but are trying to artificially foist the label "rational" onto whatever they happen to think. Thank you for educating me, and opening me up to my own biases.

What Ben is saying is “my chosen facts don’t care about your feelings.” Sadly, he actually means “my focus on facts is an attempt to not care about my own feelings.” (Principally compassion and empathy, I imagine.) Jaak Panksepp’s work in affective neuroscience clearly shows that affect precedes cognition, and that rationality is dependent upon emotional literacy.

Ben Shapiro's voice sounds like what I'd think a parody of his voice would sound like

"Facts don't care about your feelings"... he says YOUR feelings...not his own. He has proven time and time again to be a very emotional kid, like other rich people who cry on TV because other people care about each other.

"Facts don't care about your feelings" Religious, climate change deniers, creationist: "I'm just gonna pretend i never heard that"

As a whistleblower: Yes, very, VERY much. People care almost exclusively about feelings, and ignore any facts that hurt them.

The first time I encountered Shapiro's "Facts don't care about your feelings" slogan, I almost laughed at the irony, given it's a slogan purposed to emotionally galvanize his base.

When I was a child, we had "How to lie with statistics' by Darell Huff in our bookshelf. I never actually read the book, but the title stuck with me, and later I studied mathematis and physics, and I started to understand how biased we are. I don't think 'the truth is 'relative', but it is very easy to back up your illogical beliefs with numbers and 'facts'. A man can believe that he must buy a new car for 'logical' reasons, even if his old car works perfectly well, and he lists up all the 'facts' that supports that this is the best thing to do, when actually it's just his feelings screaming: 'What a nice car, I really want it so bad!'

It's always been so weird to me that people act as if the brain isn't a PHYSICAL organ. Like, feelings ARE fact. We factually have feelings because of chemical processes in an organ in our bodies. And when the topic is identity, such as with trans discussion, it is quite literally fact BECAUSE OF feeling. Or when people say things like "words can't actually hurt anyone." Yes they can. If the listener understands the words the speaker said and they were spoken with vitriol, hate, and intended to harm, then they DO cause PHYSICAL harm. Again, the brain is a PHYSICAL organ. When people are hurt by words, their brain involuntarily releases chemicals that cause a type of pain, and repeated release of those chemicals from continued harassment and verbal abuse changes a person's physical brain chemistry.

Love this UKpostsr. Not just because I feel she’s on my side. But that she throws nobody under the bus making her point. That’s a special talent. That’s the future I want.

Ben Shapiro gets DESTROYED by cats and logic

What annoys me about Ben Shapiro is that he never seems to acknowledge his own biases and he picks and chooses the “science” he follows, often going against consensus.

"Everywhere we go, everything we do, everything we experience, is touched by human fallibility." That is beautiful and now I want that on my wall.

I’m late to the party, but I always found it annoying when people pull out the most biased statistic they found on Google from some sketchy website to fit their argument, but never check how that result came to be. They formed a conclusion that fits their narrative, but could care less how it was studied. Even more, but the whole story is always hidden, because “clearly” the results are what matter in the end

“Facts don’t care about your feelings.” ~ Ben Shapiro, a very religious person who believes in an omnipotent deity that says being gay is wrong

People who try to shame other people's feelings in order to try to assert a supposed rational superiority are, in fact, the most emotional people I know. Anger, disdain, disgust, and hate are also feelings. Most of them argue based on their own confirmation bias based on their hate towards certain subjects.

Things I’ve realized in my short 16 years on this earth: 1. Realism and true objective facts likely exist. We can all agree on that. But it’s what you do with that information that makes us all different 2. There is no reason to have facts without feelings and vice versa. Both are necessary and should be considered. Like that one line from the Barbie Movie. My dad raised me constantly worrying Ben Shapiro’s “facts don’t care about your feelings” and it is such a damaging ideology. Not only for the people the facts are about, but also for the people believing it.

that cat on your chair is the most distinguish gentlemen ive ever seen

As a mathematician, I am very fond of the fact that it's been logically proven that you cannot logically prove that logic works (Godel's incompleteness theorem) In clearer language, it means that logic is unable to prove itself. From this, the natural conclusion is that we have to take some things as a given. It is impossible to prove everything.

Zoe: I'm not going to dunk on Ben Shapiro Zoe: proceeds to murder him with words Ahhh refreshing

Ever since I thought of myself as a critical thinker, I believed that emotions and feelings were on the way for me to become a impartial, "better human being", and that facts mattered the most even before knowing these dark web guys defended not only this but a whole bunch of nonsense narratives. At first it really attracted me. Thankfully tho seeing the counterparts of it, especially on this video, really helped me see the full picture, and all the stuff i know frightening little that honestly makes even more interested in learning (somewhat hard to happen with a standard high school student). You're the best teacher i never had, hope you see this, thanks!

"facts don't care about your feelings bro" (starts spouting blatant misinformation)

Nice to see Shaun in the background in the bookshelf.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." Mark Twain

“Facts don’t care about your feelings” Also Ben: Proceeds to just overwhelm his “debate opponents” with random bullshit that is never facts and just his attempt at looking smart.

Thank you for this, I hated that 'facts don't care about your feelings' SO MUCH. It not only ignored that feelings are very real, but also that 'facts' are very malleable and there are very few 'objective' truths

As a statistician I can make the numbers say whatever I want. I can say that a 0.001% to 0.01% increase is insignificant or that it is a tenfold increase or even a 1 000% increase. It's all the same but I can bias the way I frame the numbers so that they reinforce my opinion. It's bad practice but I see a ton of studies that do exactly this, most of the time it's to get funding for another study. Scientists and journalists are humans, even the best randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study can be perverted for money, fame or ideology.

Ben is unable to separate his "facts" from cruel conservative religious greed. He doesn't fight for censorship or freedom from political correctness, he is merely acting like his biblical influences are objective. He's more controlled by his feelings than anyone he criticizes.

I can verify something similar as a musician; no two human beings, no matter how educated they are in whatever formal schools of music there are in the world, will ever hear the exact same piece of music that is played in front of them. The music may be played as closely as possible to the original score, if the piece was scored; but the dots, lines, flags, and various and sundry scribblings that make up formalized western notation are not the music each of us hears, just a mapping of it. Our perceptions of music, like facts, are clouded by our feelings and the innate biases we bring with us. Great video. Thanks for posting.

There was this joke my dad tells that goes: A person goes to a mathmatican , an engineer and a statistician and asks the same question, "what is 2+2" Mathmatican: it is 4 Engineer: it is somewhere in between 3,99 and 4,01 Statistician: what do you want it to be?

Background kitty cat is best kitty

As someone that works in science, facts don't really exist. Empirical data does though and data doesn't care about your feelings. But when they talk about "facts" they are talking about their interpretation of the data. For hard sciences like physics and chemistry the studies are quite irrefutable and can effectively directly answer the question. For instance if we observe that the climate is warming faster than we expect then we can test what may be causing that and show empirical proof that human emissions of CO2 are directly affecting the warming of our climate at a dangerous rate. Sociopolitical studies are not hard science though and therefore leave a lot more room for interpretation than for empiricism. This leaves the "facts" that they are talking about to be littered with bias. For instance there is empirical proof that college educated people tend to lean more democratic in their political views. That is an empirical fact. The interpretation that "colleges are indoctrinating people towards left leaning ideology" is not a fact. It's a hypothesis created based off of that data. You could also make the claim that educated individuals find democratic ideology to be more conducive towards a better society but even that would have to be studied. That's where this idea of "fact" falls apart. How do you empirically study either of those things? ***Edit*** So I am seeing this comment getting some attention recently and I believe that most people, reasonably so, are not reading the entire thread for the conversation that was had on what I initially meant to say. So as to correct for this I am editing this to include a later comment I made clarifying quite a few things. Also anyone discussing the climate change portion of this comment i highly suggest visiting the NASA website for climate change as it gives a very thorough FAQ about the issue. "@Hagane no Gijutsushi You explain my differentiation between what I initially addressed as "hard" science vs "soft" science perfectly here in your concluding sentence. Giving them the names of Natural sciences and Social sciences is much more appropriate and less problematic. In no way do I mean any dissent with the notion of soft it was simply an archaic term that came to mind and one which I will not be using going forward. I should also really humble myself in this comment thread by instantiating that I am no expert on the philosophy of science nor have I studied the social sciences so my perspective is very limited. After reading through Ishan Kashyap's comments above I believe that I have dismissed the social sciences' rigor in data analysis and the divide I have made between the two at times can definitely be seen as unjust or to David Kornfield's point as if I am making the natural sciences superior. I do not mean to do so. Also I should instantiate that the initial point of my comment was simply to make the statement that empirical sciences are based on empiricism and then interpretation. Therefore the fact of the matter lies in the empirical data. My initial critique was mainly of the breakdown of science to the general public in that the public usually gets the flashy headline and a sexy article about the conclusion of the experiment yet the true details of the experiment is tucked away neatly in the fine print. This leads a lot of political pundits to incorrectly quote science. The irony is that my statement that "facts don't really exist" is exactly that headline and my real point is that when quoting "facts" you must back up your statement with proper empirical data and proper data analysis, which I never see in modern "debates". Also a note here is that this refers only to empirical sciences so Logic, Philosophy, and Linguistics (I'm not to sure I'm using this one correctly) aren't being considered in my analysis. Therefore facts of reason and my take on the philosophy of science are not considered in this analysis. Finally after admitting my own bias and lack of expertise in the issue I would love to talk from what I do know and learn about what I don't. In my perspective, as Hagane explained, the natural sciences study things that, for all intents and purposes, have exact characteristics. When I study a particle the mass, charge, and general state of that particle are effectively exact and therefore I don't have to consider those aspects as variable in my experiment. They are constants of nature. In social sciences there seem to be no true constants and therefore in order to simplify the experiment you must make greater approximations. These lead to higher uncertainty and therefore less precise conclusions. I do fear that my strict perspective of someone from the natural sciences may be skewing my analysis so I would love to hear from someone from the other perspective on this idea"

“Facts don’t care about your feelings” Psychology: I’m not sure about that…

Wow I just found this video randomly and thought it would be some awful rant but turned out instead to be peak intellectualism. This is a breath of fresh air, really.

Okay, I'm a cartographer, and when you brought up maps and photographs I got so excited. Royal cartographers used to draw their countries as large as they could, or including lands they claimed were theirs. Even today, making a map of the countries of the world determines where that map can be sold. A map showing Nagorno Karabak as being part of Armenia could not be sold in Azerbaijan, for example.

A great analogy for drawing the wrong conclusions from a good data set is one where in WW2 they studied the bombers that came back from bombing raids to see where they had been damaged by enemy defenders and the intention was that the most commonly damaged areas they would beef up with armor to protect the crew and plane. It wasn't until someone pointed out that they need to do the opposite, that the areas where planes that came back weren't damaged was where they needed to add armor because obviously the planes could survive damage to the other areas and the planes that WERE hit in the areas that didn't show up commonly did not make it back. Facts matter, even more important is how we interpret them.

Facts don't care about feelings. Facts support almost every single rebuttal to anything Ben Shapiro has ever said.

You’re a far bigger person than I am. I don’t think I could ever apply the phrase “*intellectual* dark web” to these scam artists without laughing or choking on it.

[stares into the horizon] maybe the facts were the feelings we made along the way.....

the "facts don't care about your feelings" guys are predominantly using this phrase to disguise their interpretation of facts as the actual objective truths, and in a lot of cases they actually don't see the difference

Reminds me of a quote from the game Injustice 2, of all things: "Justice is blind, not heartless"

I still have yet to see the facts that show that WAP has corrupted young girls. Ben still going with his feelings on this one.

One of the worst things I've done was deciding that I was the clear headed arbiter of truth and everyone else was just being PC or letting their identity get in the way. "If everyone just could see the facts as they are they'd come to my conclusion!" I'm glad I stopped that BS. I'm a better person now.

Facts were there to care for me when no one else did 😔😔😔😔

One thing I also want to point out is that when it comes to crimes, you can never say "this is where most crimes occur." All you can say is "this is where most reported crimes occurred." When it comes to crime, you only know about the crimes that are reported. The inherent nature of a crime is to be a secret so you aren't punished. I hate when people say "people of color commit more crimes" because you have no idea, you just know that people of color are more often charged with crimes. I always think it's really important to understand the role biased police officers play in this situation. If a cop catches two people doing drugs, in the exact same circumstance, but one is white and one is black, there are cops who would give the white person a warning but charge the black person. When inputting data of crimes reported (and not crimes committed), if the cop is racially biased, they may be more likely to disregard crimes in more white-focused areas because they personally believe is a false report or there isn't enough evidence that is was real, but don't give the same treatment to less white-focused areas because they personally believe that it is more likely a crime was committed there.

0:40 noteworthy cat moment

Me: *listening carefully* *notices cat* "Aww a kitty" *Diverts full attention to cat*

This reminds me of a neat little tidbit in quantum theory; you can't always observe or study something without changing it, since the thing you are studying often is affected by the action of observing it in the first place. I feel like this can be applied to many of the things we measure for statistics.

"It's a movement of people defined by their insensitivity and cruelty, who justify said cruelty by their own false perception of their intelligence. They say things like 'Facts don't care about your feelings', but when presented with facts that contradict their prejudices, the actual facts are dismissed. Because their movement isn't actually about facts. The so-called 'facts' that they spew are easily, and constantly, debunked. This means the movement is not about a separation of facts-from-feelings, but, actually, an incorrect conflation of cruelty with intelligence; an intelligence that does not actually exist. Which means it's really only about cruelty under the _guise_ of intelligence." *-Leon Thomas (Renegade Cut) ("The Problem with **_Rick and Morty_** ")*

I was today years old when I realized that Ben Shapiro could be abbreviated to BS

I actually agree with the literal meaning of "facts don't care about your feelings". Facts are an abstract concept. They are incapable of caring. Or doing much of anything else, really. What I rather strongly disagree with is the tacit "and therefore since I said that magic phrase, everything I say now is FACTS and if you disagree it's only because you're being EMOTIONAL, so unlike the SUPERIOR BASTION OF REASON as myself. No, it doesn't matter how much of a purely subjective and interpretative hot take whatever it is I say is (well removed from being just pure "facts"), or how shonky the means of gathering the data that may or may not support it or whether I even bothered to show any" that silently follows.

>"I'm not a philosopher." >philosophizes We're onto you

This video basically sums up what every scientist is taught to before doing any kind of research. Human bias is also one of the reasons why universities are trying to improve their ethnic and gender diversity-to add alternative perspectives within scientific fields to make new science more robust (though justice is another key reason for DEI efforts). I know about the questionable stuff that Peterson and Shapiro have to say, but what about Harris? I thought he was the mindfulness-meditation guy. Is it about his moral philosophy and views on religion?

That was a pretty darn awesome essay, I love how you first teared down the romantic image of the thinker, but then reconstructed it in the end in a way that was the literary equivalent of a mic drop.

I’ve always said that, facts may not are about your feelings, but your feelings sure as hell do care about facts.

Anyone else notice that she made a rainbow out of her books by placing them according to the color spectrum?

I wonder why videos on the opposite of the political spectrum don't use as many sources as this video does.

Phenomenal video. It made me question some things that I’ve hinged on all my life, because while I’ve always been aware that the “facts don’t care about your feelings” thing is BS, I never took the time to really think about it and analyze it like you’ve done here. I’ve been guilty of putting “objectivity” on a pedestal, just like these people have. And it took me a while to realize that my viewpoints on these sorts of things were just as flawed as theirs, even if mine were in a completely different political context.

I used to be yet another one of those “anti-sjw” Shapiro fanboys. I cringe every time I think about that embarrassing part of my life 😔

The funny thing about “facts don’t care about your feelings” is that when people like Shapiro are shown peer reviewed studies and other evidence that sex and gender are not the same thing and trans people exist, they reject that. It’s implied that “facts don’t care about your feelings, but my feelings can determine what is a fact”.

im usually not one to subscribe to anyone i randomly come across. im very selective with my subscriptions. but after watching just 2 of your videos i have already subscribed. this is the type of intellectual content i look for constantly

I remember hearing this one line about if you go looking for a crime, you will find one.

As an expert in my field, I'd even argue that experts don't know the facts either. Even experts disagree on what the facts are. That said, I understand your point and have a general appreciation for it.

This is such an important message. People become so close-minded when they pride themselves on objectivity, when really they have filters of interpretation like everyone else. And lately I've been struggling to accept my own biases, so it really helped to hear this. I can't even describe how much this means to me, thank you so much 😭

I love the fact that your videos are relaxing to watch! even when you are dealing with the most obnoxious stuff, you still sound like a really nice person to just grab coffee with.

This is an older video at this point, but I still think it is worth saying. Data doesn't lie because it is not an entity possessed of self-awareness, so it cannot lie. This is true. Models can be inherently biased from the get because humans make them, but misinterpretation still happens when models carry little to no inherent bias because humans are creatures with biases--period. Like you said, awareness of your biases is key; we all have them and we should try our best to know them to be as objective as we can when confronted with some bit of information, especially when it challenges our biases. Big data is great for crunching numbers really fast and it has its uses, but stats and Big Data alone cannot be used to paint the whole picture. It was never intended to do that and it is largely misused because people treat it like it has all the information necessary to provide a solution. This is a woefully erroneous approach. I have had this conversation many times about crime stats and how people aren't really looking at them as honestly or as objectively as they can... and it's just easier to give into a "confirmed" bias--less work is needed. In these conversations, it always comes back to what you stated in your video: "more crimes happen in lower income locations." That could be partially true, sure, but what we are looking at is incarceration/arrest rates, not the act of committing crime as a broader concept. What the data is telling is is that rate of arrest happens more in lower income locations. And I think that distinction is important. DOES crime actually happen more in lower income locations, or do more people happen to get arrested more for crimes in lower income areas because of a higher police presence? And the questions only pile up from there because the stats does not report on racial/class stigma, systemic oppression, police brutality, etc. This is also why it's important that interpretation and reasoning is peer reviewed and scrutinized by a number of credible data scientists of varying backgrounds and cultural differences. This naturally paves the way for diversity of thought. AND-- scientists could stand to include more empathy in their evaluations, which could also be obtained when teams are exposed to different people from themselves. Like you pointed out in your video, hard data and "cold" facts alone presents a detrimentally scoped view of the world and cannot tell us the whole reality of it.

Zoe: lots of smart, articulate analysis Meow, an intellectual: CAAAAAAAAT

Let's say for the sake of argument, I like this video. And for instance I comment and subscribe. Recently found your channel through recommendations about a week back. Glad to see I am not the only one to have found your content!

Thank you for making this wonderful video, sorry your owner lady pointed the camera at her but you showed real professionalism and patience with her and I respect that.

I really appreciate how you break down complex topics to make them easier to understand. This video is great!

I was talking with a guy about this the other day. I believe I said "but what's the point of society if not to make people happy? What's the point of progress if not to make people happy?". Ignoring people's emotional and psychological wellbeing in political matters is like destroying the root of society itself. Edit: I think some of you are not getting what I meant. Society and governments are not there to make you HAPPY, that's impossible, they're there to make it FAIR and to work together for the general wellbeing (society) and to work as a mediator (governments). If you still aren't convinced by this, take a look at XVII and XVIII century philosophy, especially Thomas Hobbes, and XIX philosophy too, especially the criticism it recieves

Anyone who brings up IQ studies is not a learned person, especially those who make claims about what they signify.

Iris Murdoch: "How we evaluate any given moral situation is ineliminably a product of one’s own perspective--the “facts” of a moral situation are already judgments. There is no impersonal perspective to occupy when we perceive our moral lives, and therefore neither the facts nor judgments of morality can conform to the requirements of scientific objectivity and impartiality."

Thank you! I always felt like there was some conceptual problem with how people use the word “objectivity”. I actually understand now