Are your most viewed videos really the most original.mov

[Contextcatcher]

Talking about deep. I did a little bit of research on your channel. I found a very instructive vid's "The Languages of truth". You're a reader of analytic philosophy (Quine) and seemed to be disappointed in philosophy. Anton is the opposite of this he still believes somehow in the language of truth. That's the bottom of your unspoken irritation. But isn't truth in a gradual form not something on which everybody relies on? Is language not a fine detector for it ? Not only eternal truth

counts..

[randyhelzerman]

@Contextcatcher I'm not irritated with Prof Anton, I'm sad at his unused potential. Like I said, if you enjoy Prof Anton's kind of thing, great! If you want to understand why I don't enjoy it, you'll never understand it if we just sit here and swap smooth sayings like pokemon cards. Do my exercise and lets talk. If you don't wanna do that, that's great to!! But you are not going to understand where I'm coming from without experiencing something which cannot be written down in a book.

[Contextcatcher]

@randyhelzerman "But you are not going to understand where I'm coming from without experiencing something which cannot be written down in a book".

Sometimes you must try to reach the impossible... but maybe I did go too far. Of course I respect your bottom line. But there is something serious significance behind these words. TNX for your response.

[Contextcatcher]

The problem is deeper than only the YT form. Anton tries to be near the authentic WORDS, without making a scheme and dividing it already in categories, so he shows us the unique quality of it. His approach is more like reading poetry: the best way knowing it is learning it by heart and when you love the words, it goes automatically and... you don't need a scheme. Your approach is more a detached 'dialogue' translating the text in your own categories and scheme. I miss the original feel of it.

[randyhelzerman]

@Contextcatcher *chuckle* spoken like a true Prof Anton fan. Look at the backdrop to this video; I'm way nearer to the authentic words than he is--those books aren't more than 2 feet away from my head...

[Contextcatcher]

@randyhelzerman A dull remark Randy. And you know it. You' ignore my point: scheme. the typical 'mathematical' approach. Distance. Anton is ironical enough more a human medium... But I like your approach in "The legend of Immanual Kant"...nice done...but in shallow idiom of many vids. Words contains more content...

[Contextcatcher]

Very very strange when I listen to Professor Anton I never had the idea he wants to be mister know it all. No I hear and see a passionate man who wants to share enthousiastic his knowledge with everybody. He is defending the art of reading. Against all odds. He isnt consuming books because he forgets nothing. 'Our Anton' isn't indifferent like you Randy "whatever" know it all. Randy you're envious because you tend to forget most of what you read and can't reproduce it like bright Anton can.

[randyhelzerman]

@Contextcatcher If you enjoy listening to Prof Anton more power to you and to him. I'm just trying to explain why I don't enjoy listening to him. I only made this video because he asked me to clarify what I was talking about. Cheers.

[Contextcatcher]

@randyhelzerman But it is obvious, altough Anton didn't emphasize it in this 'ego' discusion, that Prof's intention is educational. And that he did not make a point of it is his strong point: his enthusiasm drives him. Sorry I'm hard on you Randy but...being bright and intellectual skilful is special on You-tube. And he is full of respect for thinkers he tells about. Tutorials are also important events on You-Tube. And for readers Anton is very instructive. TNX for your fair play to pick me out.

[randyhelzerman]

@Contextcatcher again, if you get enjoyment, great! But it almost makes me want to cry that this is what being special on youtube has become. "bright and intellectual skillful is special"--no. YouTube is a new medium which never existed before, and it makes possible new intellectual creation which never existed before. What's special about YouTube is that very rarely--you do see something absolutely new which the world has never seen before. (cont)

[randyhelzerman]

(cont, to Contextcatcher) Compare with the switch from radio to television. Radio was great, but television made certain art forms possible which were never possible before. YouTube is an even bigger leap from Television. But Professor Anton's channel is just a youtube video of a television show of a person sitting around a radio microphone reading a book. I already have the book--why do I need Prof Anton's channel? (cont)

[randyhelzerman]

(cont, to Contextcatcher) I actually think that Prof Anton has the capability of giving us something utterly new. Which is why I would bother spending my precious few minutes I have on this earth making videos to encourage him to do so. It was very sad to me that he didn't take up the challenge, and its very sad to me that his accolytes and fans on YouTube don't encourage him to be all that he can be either.

[Contextcatcher]

@randyhelzerman You project your personal argument "I've already have the book" on a general argument if other people also have the book and...read it. I'm Dutch and I like Antons readings of e.g. Heidegger. His vision is fresh. He made me listen sharp. I'm learning so also English. I like to see his personal approach. You-tube made it possible for me. That's for you as pretentious interactive idealist a shallow use of the Tube. But it is called: YOU Tube: freedom. New stuff? I want quality.

[randyhelzerman]

@Contextcatcher Here's an exercise you could try. You don't have to, but you'll probably see things my way if you do it. Find 10 videos on YouTube which show things which can be done with a $99 webcam which absolutely, positively, could not be done in on TV, EVEN if money were no object. If you can do that, you'll know why I chided Prof. Anton. But If you are happy enough with what IS that you don't yearn for what COULD BE, then don't bother, and have a great life!

[AmericanAscetic]

Well said about call and response. I would have also pointed out that anton is resorting to quote, an unoriginal thought. And while randy may not be willing to shine this light upon himself, every bit of his commentary in this video and the previous ones that constitute this dialogue have been from his own ideas. Randy brings attention to his books to "belittle" them for lack of a better word. Anton extolls them.

[pointyhead1]

unsupported claim that ants are not individuals.

if not, then Evolutionary Selection cannot act on them as individuals.

Was, perhaps, this notion from the observations that ants have more seeming order in their lives ?

[randyhelzerman]

hi pointyhead1, can you tell me where I said that ant's were not individuals?

[randyhelzerman]

HI Randy.

Unfortunately, I have been unable to get YouTube to post my reply to you. Here it is. Noting your surprise that I said what I said,

I

[randyhelzerman]

'm assuming that your commentary following what I consider the calim, is to be thought of as distinguishing how we are not individuals in the same way as ants are individuals ?

That we have views of the world ? I would suggest that that commentary would need examination for truth, if it is indeed your thinking on this. Examination showing that ants do not have views of their world, too

[randyhelzerman]

Randy, that says. that ants are not individuals, because you point out the difference between them (as social animals), and us (as social animals). Significant Difference : we are individuals.

Thanks for the reply to my claim

[randyhelzerman]

(the above was cut-n-paste from pointyhead's email to me; apparently comment posting wasn't working for him, so I put it here for him). Hi Pointyhead, I suppose I can see how you would get that from what I said. I don't think that ants have a point of view on the world, any more than I think that my thermostat has a point of view on the world. Sure my thermostat reacts to its environment and changes if things get warmer, but so does an ice cube, and I don't think an ice cube (cont)

[randyhelzerman]

(cont, to pointyhead) has a point of view on the world either. Ants are just little stimulus response machines which robotically react to their environment. Both professor anton and I have in our previous videos defended the notion that humans are not like this at all, than our posession of language allows us to stand apart over against the world--you have to be able to hold your self at a distance from the world in order to get a view of it. (cont)

[randyhelzerman]

(cont, to pointyhead) in my remarks I was trying to emphasize the vast difference between the way which humans cooperate and the way that ants cooperate. These remarks were kind of eliptical, because i thought that professor anton would get it without having the point beat to death, because we are in substantial agreement about it.

[pointyhead1]

Hi Randy.

Thank you so much for your nice reply.

Firstly, I would address your explanation that ProfessorAnton and you are n agreement and thus beating it to death was unnecessary.

I wouldn't know what PA will say about it, but I do know this: .since the conversation you bring has an aspect about dialogue, you must, "in character", remember that your reply to PA was a public reply, not private mail.

Thanks again.

PH

[pointyhead1]

Randy abridged said :

"... Ants are just little stimulus response machines which robotically react to their environment."

Hi Randy,

In the short spaces I can reply only point by point.

Addressing 2/ Ants as Robots.

What do I need to show, so that you admit that they are the same amount of robot as we are ?

[randyhelzerman]

Hi pointyhead1, yeah, the claim that we are different in an important way, robotically (e.g. that we arn't just bigger robots than they, but robots non the less) is a substantial claim which takes a lot to defend it. My best defense is contained in my video series on free will (see my playlists on my channel page). If you are a longtime watcher of prof anton, you know he has also made several videos defending this discontinuity.

[pointyhead1]

Randy, I started to watch your reply to Everett, and at 0;40 you said people "give way too much credence to first-person points of view."

In your reply to PA you say that we are individuals with a view..etc.( IOW not like ants who are mere robots in that regard.

Isn't that individual first person point of view, exactly that the thing, which , in your reply to PA, that you indicate is what sets us apart from ants ?

And yet you say is given way too much credence ?

[pointyhead1]

What do I need to show, so that you admit that they are the same amount of robot as we are ?

[pointyhead1]

And then you go on to your point about Salvation coming through the production of video and sharing so that we reach an inter-subjectivity through communication of, with our fellows, our subjective experiences ?

[pointyhead1]

Threby pinning your argument on a sharing communication of subjective views leading to quorum, which is THE credential that the human boasts ?

[randyhelzerman]

I'm saying you can overboard in elvery direction :-) sure, its the dialog which is paramount, but a dialog is something which happens when people share their points of view. No points of view, no dialog.

[pointyhead1]

Randy,

I need to add , that upon rewatching your reply video, I see that you were actually trying to sort ProfessorAnton's thinking, and so you supplied a line of thought that included the "ants thing" as a possible proposal that could be part of something to do with his "feeling of being 'forked' ".

So the thing about ants, I have to acknowledge, was not then your own claim, but now is.

[ThOverdrive]

I have always found that popularity trends towards the jackpot search results nowadays. Original content was more in the days of when featured videos were relevant. My videos are usually only viewed even in the triple digits if I get it linked somehow to a more popular video or a hot topic.

btw when did Fred drop to #2, surprised I never heard about that!

Thank you for explaining the attention bar. Any idea how many views a video needs before Youtube registers the bars?

[Diacorda]

I think part of the problem here is how to quantify "originality" sufficiently enough for objectively measure and correlation to views and subscriptions. Originality is something of a sliding scale.

Also can you show what your hits are with your entire time frame of having that channel and look at average number of views/attention per month? Again I charge that this data set is too small! :)

[Diacorda]

I very much agree with you on the wide gap between comprehension and creation of a new idea. I must credit websnarf who in conversation with me has discussed how today many people can understand the concept of and equations about gravity, but it took the very brilliant mind of Newton to view the data, synthesize and articulate the result that now informs our middle school teachable theories of gravity, for example.

[randyhelzerman]

Hi Diacorda, there's only so much data you can squeeze into a 10 minute vid, but you can get a very good idea of what the entire data set would look like very easily: just go to my channel, click on my uploaded videos, and sort by "most viewed". The top 25 most viewed account for the bulk of my views, you can go through them and draw your own conclusions as to how original they are or not. (cont)

[randyhelzerman]

(cont, to Diacorda) as to originality, yeah, its tough sometimes, but again, its hard to know what to say....my story about the objectivist missionaries had never been written before I wrote it, my definition of free will had never been written before I wrote it, my proof of the diagonal argument had never been written before I wrote it, the program I used to find a nondeterministic neuron was written by me and the experimental data was collected by me. . . ? ? ?

[Diacorda]

"most views" can be misleading, due to being posted for a longer time period, a vid can get more views, hence my request for monthly averages.

Also I think the popularity of your "AS Mormon" vid can be attributed also to the theatrics and cinematography, ie presentation (indeed very well done!), not just original content. Had you simply done a regular "talking head" vid saying your original idea: "them Objectivist are like evangelists!" the view number would not have been so great.

[Diacorda]

I think intriguing titles, (as FGB indicates), good key word tags, being in other popular videos' "Related Videos," and some above average production values can enhance viewership and attention lengths - even while repeating essentially unoriginal material. Similarly, very original material that does not have these additional aids can have low viewership.

Because of all these variables I am cautious about how to interpret the correlations.

[randyhelzerman]

Hi Diacorda, trust me, the time frame (weekly, monthly, daily) won't change the ordering much at all. My vids get a few hundred views in the first day they are posted, then the rest of the views come in in proportion to how popular they are. You have all the data you need to draw accurate conclusions. W.r.t. the popularity being due to theatrics, or photogenic teenagers, etc, sure, that helps, but once again, look at the data: (cont)

[randyhelzerman]

(cont, to diacorda) all but 2 of the 25 most popular vids of mine are just me droning on over powerpoint slides.

[matrixcmitech]

i just have to say this: youtube is a new model of human communications... humans are adapting to it.... and humans are anticipating what comes next ;)

[Barklord]

production

[BonsaiSky]

You're right. He's wrong. End of discussion. Nice beard by the way. :)

[randyhelzerman]

*chuckle* thanks BonsaiSky :-)

[TheCarruths]

Your argument is clearly flawed, Randy. "The Legend of Kant" vid is a s well-watched as it is because it is primary evidence in a pending court case regarding your strange, strange abuse of your children.

[randyhelzerman]

Doh! and I would have gotten away with it if it hadn't been for you meeddling kids!!!

[1PercentRDA]

Sorry, didn't mean to come off in such a bad way, deleted comment.

[randyhelzerman]

ha, I kkow the feeling :-)

[trick0171]

Seems to be the difference between original lines of philosophical thinking and original ways of presenting / displaying thinking (philosophical or not). You are both talking about something different here.

"The other half of the accomplishment is actually responding back"

I couldn't agree more with this statement.

[Barklord]

With respect to the topic of original content, I think you're generally right. However there's more to it. With channels like your own and Professoranton's people may not just be looking for *original as mush as they really want to know your *personal views and feelings. The *drama doesn't have to be a despicable back and forth like fakesagan/capt0awesome but it does have to engage real personal feelings. Maybe that's what gets people to stick around.

[FatGermanBastard]

My most viewed video is the one about "atheist morality". It's not my most original video but it's certainly the one with the most provoking title. If I had called the video: "Why materialism is incompatible with intrinsicism" I bet hardly anyone would have watched it. However, calling it: "My problem with atheist morality" made it my most viewed video. Unfortunately the title caused more confusion than it did good (i.e. people thinking I claim that atheists can't behave rationally or socially).

[brokennarcissist]

Its a bit of stretch to suggest that people are interested in truely creative voices, especially on youtube. They tend to flock to that which is familier.

Its personal expression that invites connection with the audience (as opposed to shaming for watching televison, gasp) and not the originality of the content.

[randyhelzerman]

Well, like I said brokennarcissist, you can go take a gander at the most subscribed, or at the most viewed videos. If you can dig up some data to contradict this, by all means I'll admit I'm wrong. But what I've seen seems to show otherwise.

[brokennarcissist]

If people are interested in original expressions why is high culture pretty much dismissed by the masses? Thats where one could find original artistic and intellectual expression(s). I didn't really see any of that on the most subbed list.

[Borror0]

Being original is important, but not the only selling point. Personally, I am not interested in the details of the latest discovery in certain fields of science, no matter how interesting it is.

I think Randy would agree on that.

[randyhelzerman]

Hi brokennarcissist, Borror0's is right below. I also I think its because a lot of people who are in high culture sneer at Youtube. Prof Anton in one of his vids said something like his "professional" friends who were in the media warned him not to get on Youtube. If they were (a) here and (b) genuinely creative of something new and wonderful, then I think they would get millions of subs too.

[aaronhemeon]

The extent of the fallout of this whole situation should demonstrate to anyone who is not up on the philosophical jargon involved, that dospooks critique was devastating. The lesson should be, when you do not understand someone's critique of your work, do not set it aside until you comprehend the meaning of their charge. Sometimes the fact that you do not understand the critique is actually evidence that it may be crippling to ignore.

[23discordians]

Sorry, I do not usually find myself disagreeing with your comments, but this is garbage. People should not base their opinions on the fallout of things they can not understand.

As for the rest, maybe I am an idiot, but I fail to see what was so devastating about it. It seemed like a pretty straightforward critique of academia clouded in murky language to me. And sometimes when a critic relies on murky language it is evidence that their critique ain't really up to much.

[aaronhemeon]

Well, dospook is problematizing Anton's claim about the priority of ontology. When he spoke about the ever backward pointing sign into a chain of authors, which fades into the anonymity of the past, he was pointing out a problem in hermeneutics; that is, there is a kind of backwardly infinite signifier -- each author riffing off an author in the past, or as Gadamer positively put it, each author answering a question posed by his predecessor. That's only one small element of the critique.

[aaronhemeon]

I have a position on Sartre and Marcel in which I think they both fail by assuming a person is ultimately interpretable through their actions.  I think people are bigger than their conditions, so I find dospook's critique congenial to my preference to undercut the totalizing gesture of "authenticity."

[DecentralizedByGuilt]

true individualism is a myth ;)

[Mjhavok]

The distinction and difference between most viewed and most described is quite interesting.

[Mjhavok]

Subscribed*

Strange typo.

[DANanINHABITANT]

There could be many degrees of understanding something. A "complete" understanding of the concept of zero would mean understanding it about as deeply as the creator of the concept of zero. Therefore understanding something thoroughly could require about as much energy as creating it. Most people today have a small notion of the concept of zero to the degree that they are able to use the symbol. But they probably don't fully understand it.

[1140Cecile]

My feeling surrounding this whole issue around Corey leaving YT is that it began with a response, a few videos ago, to Corey from username dospook. It feels to me that Corey took umbrage from this video, more from the perceived tone than the content, which Corey called something like "word salad", which, to me, means a collection of words thrown together in no particular order and, therefore, meaningless. In blunt terms, I feel that Corey felt insulted AND dishonored. I think, in reality (TBC)

[1140Cecile]

(cont.) that those people who are engaged in this "dispute" are people who actually appreciate the videos that Corey makes and simply wished to engage with him on deeper investigation of issues he, himself, had raised. Dospook's reply to one of Corey's videos would have, for anyone less than a 200 IQ, required a transcript to read and re-read before being able to decipher all of his nuanced points and poetic metaphors. I hope that egos decide to take a back seat in favor of continuing adventure.

[aaronhemeon]

I think the mistake is to attribute a high IQ -- ie something innate -- to being able to understand dospook's video. I would say it's not a matter of IQ, but a matter of familiarity with the jargon. Knowing the history of Heidegger, Gadamer, Saussure, Levi-Strauss, Derrida... is about all it requires to understand. But Anton should be up on this, and if he isn't he should humbly admit that. dospook effectively displayed a need for inquiry into the very idea of "authenticity."

[PianoIsTheRemedy]

Indeed. My thoughts on this current spat is to use a metaphor of music and how it is dissimilar. If you hear an extremely elaborate musical composition, chances are, you can appreciate it even though you don't understand it. For dospook's video, I didn't completely understand it, therefore I couldn't completely appreciate it, but I don't automatically assume it to be "worthless". In this kind of thing, one can't appreciate without understanding...

[PianoIsTheRemedy]

Some may disagree, but I think that if the current conflict is tied to ego, I find Corey's persona to be more "egoistic" than either Randy or Dospook. This is not a collegiate debate, and I think the "ego" associated with youtube in these kind of debates is a bit more relaxed. It would seem to me that Corey desires collegiate academia discourse when part of the attraction to youtube for many is that it departs from that.

[aaronhemeon]

It is possible that the territory which phenomenology and hermeneutics stakes claim is actually a flawed project. This view is born out through the heavy academic exchanges and disagreements in this issue. cf. Derrida vs. Searle, for example. Anton comes from a place of assertion, which is wonderful, but when someone, when a colleague, like dospook mounts a critique and Anton wipes it aside as a "word salad" and says "come on people," it actually demonstrates a blindspot in his scholarship.

[1140Cecile]

I tend to agree that Corey's reaction to dospook's video seemed to "demonstrate a blindspot in his scholarship". One thing about YT is that one never knows who is watching, who may respond or if one will be challenged in a manner they're not prepared to handle. As I said earlier, I think dospook introduced conglomerations of ideas that, for most people, would require re-reading to fully comprehend. To me, it seemed that Corey wasn't prepared to do this re-reading. C'est la vie!

[ExistentialExistent]

Your original video is only original in regards to entertainment rather than conveying ideas. You are trying to prescribe a presentational preference.

[ExistentialExistent]

I don't think your prescription is appropriate for professoranton's project. Personally, I prefer people who convey ideas over presentation.

[randyhelzerman]

Check out my most viewed videos, its an easy check. You will see that I've only got 2 entertainment videos in my top 20 most viewed videos. Most of my highly viewed videos are not entertainment, but rather, they are just me droning through powerpoint.

[ExistentialExistent]

Ok, IC.

[CousinoMacul]

This is getting good. I'm glad that I have ringside seats. ;-)

[randyhelzerman]

:-) me too CousinoMacul.

[Mjhavok]

Apollo Creed: "Ding Ding"