What is the main focus of the video?

The video focuses on explaining the creator's unique methodology for analysis, aiming to be educational and useful.

Why does the creator feel awkward making this video?

The creator feels awkward because it involves explaining their analytical thought process, which feels self-aggrandizing.

How does the creator view 'why' and 'what' questions?

The creator suggests prioritizing 'what' questions over 'why' questions to focus on gathering knowledge and understanding causes.

What does the video say about contradictions in analysis?

Contradictions are viewed as opportunities for deeper understanding, indicating areas where traditional thought may not fully explain a phenomenon.

How should one approach using other people's definitions according to the creator?

The video advises forming one's own understanding first before referring to external definitions to enhance personal insight and analysis skills.

What is the significance of 'forgetting the facts' in analysis?

'Forgetting the facts' encourages a fresh perspective by reassessing preconceived notions and looking at the broader subject matter.

How does the video suggest improving analytical skills?

By practicing asking questions, seeking contradictions, using personal ingenuity, and not relying solely on external ideas.

What are some key takeaways from the video's suggested methodology?

Key points include asking more 'what' than 'why,' analyzing contradictions, and committing to independent analysis and model-building.

Does the video address the concept of overanalysis?

Yes, the creator dismisses overanalysis as a concept that stifles deeper understanding and suggests engaging with complex analysis.

Why does the creator emphasize using fewer external sources?

Using fewer external sources encourages developing a unique viewpoint, improves critical thinking, and prevents reliance on predefined ideas.

My Methodology of Analysis (200k SUB SPECIAL!)

01:22:33

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFWzrZOlm2c

概要

TLDRThe creator shares their methodology for analysis, which involves focusing on 'what' questions rather than 'why,' exploring contradictions, and building simplified models of understanding. The video aims to offer educational content to enhance analytical skills, rather than provide entertainment. The creator discusses the importance of asking abundant questions, embracing contradictions around key elements to foster deeper comprehension, and maintaining focus on generalized understanding rather than concrete answers. The methodology includes avoiding over-dependence on existing definitions or the intentions of creators while committing to independently forming insights. The notion of 'forgetting the facts' is suggested to inspire fresh perspectives and question preconceived notions, driving towards context-free understanding and independent analytical capability. Self-improvement in analysis is encouraged through critical thinking, comparison, inquiry, and empowering individual frameworks over pre-established ones.

収穫

🤔 Ask 'what' not 'why' to gather foundational knowledge.
🔍 Explore contradictions for deeper insights.
📚 Form your understanding before turning to external definitions.
🧠 'Forget the facts' to reassess fundamental ideas.
📝 Use simplicity as a goal for creating guiding models.
❌ Critically engage with the idea of overanalysis.
🛠 Build independent frameworks rather than relying on existing ones.
🌟 Questioning drives more comprehensive understanding and learning.
📈 Prioritize self-improvement through critical thinking and analysis.
🔄 Be open to multiple models and perspectives; contradictions can coexist.

タイムライン

00:00:00 - 00:05:00
The video creator feels awkward sharing their unique analysis methodology, noting that it's not typical YouTube content and will be a detailed, non-entertaining guide. Despite the discomfort, they aim to fulfill viewer requests and provide comprehensive, actionable insights into their analytical process.
00:05:00 - 00:10:00
The creator introduces two major rules in analysis: first, to ask "why" about everything to help identify potential causes and questions that can guide understanding. They emphasize the importance of asking every conceivable question to open up possible areas of investigation or theory.
00:10:00 - 00:15:00
The creator stresses the importance of asking "what" instead of "why" to focus analysis on gathering knowledge rather than expressing confusion. They argue that "what" questions lead to more structured, meaningful inquiry and help create more grounded theories by focusing on defining observed facts.
00:15:00 - 00:20:00
The creator discusses the nature of developing theories and models in analysis, emphasizing that these are approximations that help explain data more comprehensively. They caution against settling on superficial definitions or relying on others' definitions without individual exploration.
00:20:00 - 00:25:00
A methodology involving ongoing questioning is recommended to navigate getting stuck in analysis. This includes strategies like identifying contradictions, finding pivot points in sequences, and comparing similar or contrasting elements to stimulate further inquiry and deepen the investigation.
00:25:00 - 00:30:00
The creator introduces the technique of 'forgetting the facts' to stimulate new perspectives, akin to Einstein's approach to rethinking subject matter without preconceived notions. They suggest stepping back to reassess broader topics abstractly to break through analytical roadblocks.
00:30:00 - 00:35:00
The creator highlights the qualities of good theories: Simplicity (reducing complexity through unified, elegant explanations), transformative understanding (making phenomena appear categorically different), and requiring specific evidence to substantiate theories.
00:35:00 - 00:40:00
A list of general analytical do's and don'ts includes rejecting the concept of over-analysis and treating all details as potentially intentional, to focus on learning. They emphasize the importance of remaining open to new ideas and being mindful of the ego in evaluation.
00:40:00 - 00:45:00
The creator advises comparing everything in analysis as a rich source of questions and encourages deep engagement with analysis. They stress the importance of being confident yet open to critique, and the necessity of clearly formulating and communicating ideas.
00:45:00 - 01:22:33
The video closes with reflections on the educational background that informed the creator's approach, underscoring the value of tradition in learning. The creator expresses gratitude for the support received on their channel, sharing insights from their unique academic experiences.

よくある質問

What is the main focus of the video?
The video focuses on explaining the creator's unique methodology for analysis, aiming to be educational and useful.
Why does the creator feel awkward making this video?
The creator feels awkward because it involves explaining their analytical thought process, which feels self-aggrandizing.
How does the creator view 'why' and 'what' questions?
The creator suggests prioritizing 'what' questions over 'why' questions to focus on gathering knowledge and understanding causes.
What does the video say about contradictions in analysis?
Contradictions are viewed as opportunities for deeper understanding, indicating areas where traditional thought may not fully explain a phenomenon.
How should one approach using other people's definitions according to the creator?
The video advises forming one's own understanding first before referring to external definitions to enhance personal insight and analysis skills.
What is the significance of 'forgetting the facts' in analysis?
'Forgetting the facts' encourages a fresh perspective by reassessing preconceived notions and looking at the broader subject matter.
How does the video suggest improving analytical skills?
By practicing asking questions, seeking contradictions, using personal ingenuity, and not relying solely on external ideas.
What are some key takeaways from the video's suggested methodology?
Key points include asking more 'what' than 'why,' analyzing contradictions, and committing to independent analysis and model-building.
Does the video address the concept of overanalysis?
Yes, the creator dismisses overanalysis as a concept that stifles deeper understanding and suggests engaging with complex analysis.
Why does the creator emphasize using fewer external sources?
Using fewer external sources encourages developing a unique viewpoint, improves critical thinking, and prevents reliance on predefined ideas.

ビデオをもっと見る

AIを活用したYouTubeの無料動画要約に即アクセス！

字幕

オートスクロール:

00:00:00
okay this is a video about my
00:00:01
methodology of analysis and it feels
00:00:03
very weird people have been asking me
00:00:05
for something like this since I started
00:00:06
making analysis content I do recognize
00:00:08
that I have a unique style that a lot of
00:00:09
people probably haven't been exposed to
00:00:10
but it's just awkward being like come in
00:00:12
here help my brilliant genius smart
00:00:14
person brain works when you're just like
00:00:16
a random guy on YouTube making videos
00:00:17
about TV shows so that's weird the other
00:00:19
weird thing is that there's no way
00:00:20
around how un YouTube friendly this
00:00:22
video is going to be this is not like a
00:00:24
five easy ways to improve your analysis
00:00:26
BuzzFeed article this is going to be
00:00:28
very dry it's gonna be very abstract
00:00:29
it's gonna be exhausting to listen to I
00:00:31
am packing a ton of information into
00:00:33
this I'm trying to make these
00:00:34
methodology techniques and strategies
00:00:36
and rules and ideas as comprehensive and
00:00:39
actionable as possible and because of
00:00:41
that it's not gonna be exciting it's not
00:00:42
like fun content I'm not making this to
00:00:43
entertain I'm making it to be useful and
00:00:45
hopefully it will be but either way it's
00:00:47
what the people want so that's what I
00:00:48
have to do okay last note this is not
00:00:50
going to be about fiction analysis per
00:00:51
se it's gonna be about analysis in
00:00:53
general how I would analyze anything I
00:00:54
mentioned before my background is not in
00:00:56
literally analysis it's in tamilrock law
00:00:58
Jewish law this the brisker method my
00:01:00
channel was like I don't know a science
00:01:01
channel or a psychology Channel or a
00:01:03
philosophy Channel or God forbid a
00:01:05
politics Channel this video would
00:01:06
probably look almost exactly the same
00:01:07
okay so enough intro let's start okay so
00:01:10
let's begin with the two biggest rules
00:01:11
of analyzing anything which may or may
00:01:14
not contradict each other rule number
00:01:15
one is ask why about everything this
00:01:19
idea is pretty intuitive but I don't
00:01:21
think the extent of it is as intuitive
00:01:22
the first thing to do with anything you
00:01:24
are trying to analyze is to ask every
00:01:27
question you can think of and I mean
00:01:28
every question so if I have a scene just
00:01:31
like a little kid almost what I want to
00:01:32
do first is ask like a thousand why
00:01:34
questions spoilers for Arcane shocker
00:01:37
take the tea party scene why a tea party
00:01:38
why is doing it at circle's old place
00:01:40
why is a real valdiana here why is bunny
00:01:42
here why does she need Milo and clicker
00:01:43
here why does she need Vander here I
00:01:45
thought they didn't have much of a
00:01:45
relationship why do Jinx physically make
00:01:47
two chairs representing her identities
00:01:48
why did she decorate the powder chair
00:01:50
with these specific decorations with
00:01:52
these designs with this aesthetic and
00:01:53
then the same for the Jinx chair why the
00:01:55
feathers Etc and why chairs why sitting
00:01:57
and why does she do the dead Caitlyn
00:01:59
fake out why is she treating VI this way
00:02:01
why the cupcake why was vice offered to
00:02:03
leave piltover and zhan the one thing
00:02:04
that gave Jinx Paws why did she gags
00:02:06
tickle and Caitlyn but not VI and then
00:02:08
other questions to what was her plan for
00:02:09
the night how did she think this would
00:02:11
go what would happen if I had killed
00:02:13
Caitlyn what happened with silco if I
00:02:14
does then lesoko really never gonna give
00:02:16
Jinx to them or is he lying is there a
00:02:18
chance that he was going to shoot Jinx
00:02:19
here and not VI and then also questions
00:02:20
about individual lines what does nothing
00:02:22
ever stay dead mean what does are we
00:02:24
still sisters mean what is but you
00:02:25
changed to me what does your perfect
00:02:27
mean what does will show them mean and
00:02:28
I'm including questions here that if
00:02:30
we're being perfectly honest are
00:02:31
probably totally meaningless details in
00:02:33
the scene why does the scene take place
00:02:34
in the dark why the candles why put a
00:02:35
smiley face on Caitlyn's gag why is this
00:02:37
guy red here what's the star meaning
00:02:38
behind the whole Shimmer aided scuffle
00:02:40
with Kate why did Jinx have the lighter
00:02:42
here what are each of these monsters and
00:02:44
why the order what about their colors
00:02:46
why is it by shouting out Mom and Dad if
00:02:47
we never really met them what's with the
00:02:49
gigantic Vine mouth and the gigantic
00:02:51
Circle mouth and a lot of these
00:02:52
questions are going to be kind of stupid
00:02:54
kind of meaningless they're not going to
00:02:55
matter but questions are your only tools
00:02:58
to understand anything asking questions
00:03:00
forces you to notice each little thing
00:03:02
that is unexplained which really means
00:03:04
identifying what could fall into the
00:03:06
scope of your theory or your
00:03:07
investigation you're not necessarily
00:03:08
trying to answer these questions you're
00:03:10
taking note of everything that is in the
00:03:12
scope of your data and these questions
00:03:14
could become relevant once you know a
00:03:15
little bit more they could be a starting
00:03:17
point there could be some little bit of
00:03:18
evidence that becomes relevant later on
00:03:20
they could connect your investigation to
00:03:22
some other important topic or whatever
00:03:23
it's not always necessary to like
00:03:25
literally write out an endless list and
00:03:26
push yourself to ask more and more and
00:03:28
more but the more you notice that's
00:03:29
unexplained the more tools you will have
00:03:31
to build your theory and let me be clear
00:03:33
here even if you think you know the
00:03:35
answer still ask the question those
00:03:37
answers you think you have you don't
00:03:38
know if you're going to sickle them
00:03:39
throughout your investigation you may
00:03:40
find flaws you may develop them more or
00:03:42
you may find entirely different answers
00:03:43
that you like much better so still voice
00:03:44
the questions and there's gonna be the
00:03:45
case whenever I talk about questions in
00:03:47
this video when you are in question mode
00:03:48
be in question mode forget about answers
00:03:50
or no answers it's always worth just
00:03:52
asking the questions anyway so that is
00:03:54
rule number one ask about everything
00:03:55
asked why about everything specifically
00:03:57
because at this stage of your
00:03:58
understanding you really need to be
00:03:59
viewing every everything is potentially
00:04:00
having a cause even if it doesn't
00:04:02
because you haven't begun your
00:04:04
investigation yet you don't know that
00:04:05
yet and why is the type of question that
00:04:07
probes our causes it is the best
00:04:08
question to ask ask why about everything
00:04:11
that is rule number one rule number two
00:04:13
is stop asking why about anything it's a
00:04:16
bad question okay let me explain okay so
00:04:18
the real rule number two is this ask
00:04:20
what not why and I see this as without a
00:04:24
doubt the most important rule of
00:04:26
analysis this rule or tip or whatever
00:04:28
you want to call this is what changes
00:04:29
everything if you take away one thing
00:04:31
from this video to use and how you think
00:04:32
about things it should be this so before
00:04:34
I explain it it's gonna be really
00:04:35
helpful to see examples first so here's
00:04:36
an example of this principle in action
00:04:38
or maybe an inaction I made it short
00:04:40
about the animal symbolism in Arcane and
00:04:43
I titled it with a why question why is
00:04:45
jinx a monkey meaning why is jinx
00:04:47
associated with monkey imagery and
00:04:48
Arcane and I got this answer in a
00:04:50
comment it's because Jinx was associated
00:04:52
with a monkey in get Jinx the music
00:04:54
video this is true but this does not
00:04:56
further my understanding in any way how
00:04:58
did I ask the question in the short I
00:04:59
didn't ask why I drink some monkey I ask
00:05:01
well what is a monkey what are the
00:05:03
characteristics of a monkey playful
00:05:05
chaotic wild oh Suddenly I See The
00:05:07
Parallel Jinx also has these
00:05:08
characteristics why is Saron an eye
00:05:10
response but he is not an eye in the
00:05:12
books that is true that does not further
00:05:14
my understanding how did I ask the
00:05:15
question in the short what is an i what
00:05:18
is seeing what does it feel like to be
00:05:20
watched what is the connection between
00:05:21
this All-Seeing Eye and the All-Seeing
00:05:24
Eye that is taking me places we are on
00:05:26
our way before I even get to the
00:05:27
question mark what as a line of inquiry
00:05:29
more often not necessarily but more
00:05:31
often puts you in a knowledge Gathering
00:05:33
mental mode why can put you in a
00:05:36
knowledge Gathering mode but it's also
00:05:38
often just an exclamation of I'm
00:05:40
confused this thing is confusing there's
00:05:42
something I don't understand here now
00:05:43
what do I do and that's why you get all
00:05:45
these weird null answers because
00:05:47
confusion is uncomfortable something is
00:05:49
out of place having to exclaim a
00:05:51
question is a frustration it's an itch
00:05:52
and really anything that scratches that
00:05:54
itch that works for me as long as I stop
00:05:56
itching hey man that's good enough for
00:05:58
me that's fine I'm I'm not looking for
00:06:00
more understanding I'm looking for
00:06:02
relief from the pain of my confusion
00:06:04
this is why why questions tend to be
00:06:05
taken as so open-ended that they can
00:06:07
easily lead down unproductive roads they
00:06:09
can lead anywhere as long as it stops
00:06:10
the itch but not so with what questions
00:06:12
or at least not so with good what
00:06:14
questions good what questions will take
00:06:16
you someplace before you've even
00:06:17
finished saying the question and by the
00:06:18
time you're done answering your watch
00:06:20
you'll find otherwise you possibly could
00:06:22
have asked are already answered the what
00:06:24
obliterates the why
00:06:26
aside from just the inefficiency and
00:06:28
ineffectiveness of why questions there's
00:06:30
another crucial benefit of starting
00:06:31
analysis in what mode there's word you
00:06:33
probably hear me using a lot in my
00:06:34
videos which is speculative and I know
00:06:36
it's an odd word to use with analysis
00:06:38
because a lot of analysis a lot of
00:06:39
theory is almost by definition pure
00:06:41
speculation we're all just thinking
00:06:43
thoughts and making random observations
00:06:44
and deductions until something
00:06:45
interesting and relevant pops out right
00:06:47
and yeah that's true on some level but
00:06:49
there's a really important divide for me
00:06:50
when I'm thinking about anything between
00:06:51
the point at which building a theory or
00:06:53
an idea is making use of just what is
00:06:55
just the facts or just abstractions that
00:06:58
are so close to the facts or social
00:06:59
self-evident that they themselves can be
00:07:01
considered factual and at what point you
00:07:04
start building connections and making
00:07:05
deductions or inductions beyond the
00:07:07
facts beyond what just is AKA the stage
00:07:10
where you start making abstractions that
00:07:11
can be argued with that can be seen
00:07:13
differently that can be wrong what I'm
00:07:14
trying to highlight here is that
00:07:15
eventually theories will get into
00:07:17
speculative territory that is the nature
00:07:19
of theories but if you can start with
00:07:21
steps that are so grounded in just what
00:07:23
is that they cannot be wrong you will
00:07:26
end up with better theories even though
00:07:28
granted they are still speculative at
00:07:29
the end of the day all theories are
00:07:30
speculative but it's like that Indiana
00:07:31
Jones scene where he's stepping on the
00:07:32
tiles and try not to fall into the abyss
00:07:34
it is exponentially beneficial how much
00:07:37
I can help your theories to start with
00:07:38
instead of just jumping on whatever
00:07:40
random tiles that seem interesting to
00:07:41
you to start with three tiles you know
00:07:43
have completely Solid Ground beneath
00:07:46
them if your first few steps are not
00:07:48
speculative at all if your first steps
00:07:50
are so grounded in what is that they
00:07:52
cannot be wrong you will be on a better
00:07:54
track for the next steps that's what
00:07:56
what questions are giving reasons
00:07:58
answering was it's doing your best to
00:08:00
identify or invent connections between
00:08:02
things which anyone can do in any number
00:08:04
of ways but answering what is defining
00:08:07
just what you see and the closer you are
00:08:09
to definition to focusing on information
00:08:10
where you cannot be wrong the closer you
00:08:12
will be defining truth through your
00:08:14
theorizing and by the way this principle
00:08:15
I did not make it up
00:08:19
immediately
00:08:22
the trained mine avoids the whole thing
00:08:26
it's true he wants to find out why but
00:08:28
he knows that that way is looking today
00:08:30
the train line
00:08:33
just it's fine what is going on here
00:08:35
what is going on here
00:08:37
you see the untrained mind this is
00:08:39
astounded as I work I say careful it's
00:08:42
paralyzed the train line forgets about
00:08:45
the astonishment and all business but
00:08:47
just think what is going on can we pray
00:08:49
is there anything here
00:08:51
instead of running all around answering
00:08:53
wise we just took these facts and said
00:08:56
what does these facts say what's the
00:08:58
what's your new on the period many times
00:09:00
wants to define the fact that
00:09:03
I know whenever people are complimenting
00:09:05
my analysis stuff and I'm going no
00:09:06
seriously it's not me all credit to my
00:09:08
teachers and they're like yeah yeah he's
00:09:10
being modest that recording is from
00:09:11
1971. I've heard ask what not why all my
00:09:14
life it was a mantra in my academic
00:09:16
community and I actually just want to go
00:09:17
back to that recording for a second when
00:09:18
teacher 5 is talking about this he uses
00:09:20
an example from Aristotle that's really
00:09:22
great at illustrating what I've just
00:09:23
been talking about I don't know what
00:09:24
he's quoting from I don't even know if
00:09:25
he's remembering the case correctly this
00:09:26
wasn't like a prepared lecture or
00:09:28
anything it was just a recording of an
00:09:29
improperative discussion with the
00:09:30
students but anyway the Casey's
00:09:31
referencing is that Aristotle saw a
00:09:33
group of black people who had children
00:09:35
who were white and then those white
00:09:36
children grew up and had children who
00:09:38
were black black
00:09:41
yeah it is
00:10:21
that's what it is
00:10:33
it was right
00:10:35
you see Aristotle was right why was he
00:10:37
right because just with his intellect he
00:10:39
was able to know hey there has to be
00:10:41
something in here
00:10:42
now he didn't know what a Jew was but it
00:10:45
was intelligent to know they're ready to
00:10:47
be on the trail of the team see he knew
00:10:49
how to be there somewhere it was closer
00:10:51
than anybody else before
00:10:54
you know what I mean then when when
00:10:56
Linda made the Expressions
00:11:07
[Music]
00:11:15
[Music]
00:11:23
we see that there must be black inside
00:11:25
the White it has to be that way well
00:11:36
I know he's saying where not what the
00:11:39
wording doesn't actually matter it's not
00:11:40
important to say the word what some good
00:11:41
why questions are really what questions
00:11:43
some bad what questions are really why
00:11:44
questions Etc but anyway definition is
00:11:46
the focus here what questions lead us to
00:11:48
definitions not theories and then
00:11:50
sometimes the definition itself will be
00:11:52
enough and sometimes definitions will
00:11:53
just lead to a much better Theory a
00:11:55
theory built on a much firmer Foundation
00:11:57
last point on what questions I've
00:11:58
referenced this a bit already but the
00:12:00
best what questions are already starting
00:12:01
to Define in my Lord of the Rings versus
00:12:03
Arcane video I asked what is the
00:12:05
underlying frustration behind the
00:12:06
heart's criticisms that is already
00:12:08
acknowledging that even if I disagree
00:12:10
with the heart's criticisms what's
00:12:11
prompting these questions is real
00:12:13
something real is causing frustration
00:12:15
for this person and this question
00:12:16
accurately characterizes the criticisms
00:12:18
as a result of frustration and even
00:12:20
worse Clues to identifying the nature of
00:12:22
that frustration in this harmony short I
00:12:24
asked what is the function of telling
00:12:25
not showing by this character that's
00:12:26
defining what we're seeing as telling
00:12:28
not showing I'm not asking why are we
00:12:30
breaking this rule my question is
00:12:31
accurately identifying that there is a
00:12:32
function being served here in the r our
00:12:35
video I ask what traits are we seeing
00:12:37
Showcase in ROM's introduction that is
00:12:39
already defining one essential element
00:12:40
of the functionality of a character
00:12:41
intro scene and this is also implying
00:12:43
that traits we see here have
00:12:44
functionality for what we will later
00:12:46
learn about who this guy is questions
00:12:47
are not and should not just be
00:12:50
exclamations of ignorance questions are
00:12:52
an opportunity to identify the features
00:12:54
of what you're examining that is why you
00:12:56
will go far if you can endlessly ask
00:12:57
questions on a topic you're finding all
00:12:59
these things that stand out that might
00:13:00
be clues for you later on and certain
00:13:03
types of questions what questions
00:13:04
specifically Orient you towards firmer
00:13:06
foundations to build theories on and
00:13:08
this has to do with the Mind mode they
00:13:09
urge you towards we've departed from
00:13:11
proclaiming hopeless painful ignorance
00:13:12
here and instead we've gone to the much
00:13:14
more productive knowledge Gathering mode
00:13:16
and the other Advantage is all the
00:13:17
implicit facts that the best what
00:13:19
questions are premised on what questions
00:13:21
lead you to take Rock Solid First Steps
00:13:23
in building a theory they keep you from
00:13:25
being wildly speculative and they focus
00:13:27
you on just defining what you see and at
00:13:29
that stage in the process what you're
00:13:30
focusing on you cannot be wrong at that
00:13:32
stage you are just looking at the facts
00:13:34
and because because of that where those
00:13:35
first steps lead will often just be
00:13:37
truer and just to caveat here I'm not
00:13:39
really saying don't ask why questions
00:13:40
why questions can be great questions
00:13:42
they can point to really strong
00:13:43
contradictions they can also just be
00:13:45
really great what questions in Disguise
00:13:46
so keep asking all questions but
00:13:48
specifically ask what not why Focus more
00:13:50
give more value to what questions those
00:13:52
are going to be the best questions you
00:13:54
can ask like I said earlier this is the
00:13:56
most useful analytical tool in my
00:13:58
experience I understand it can be a
00:13:59
weird principle to hear at first it can
00:14:01
sound a bit arbitrary like it's a
00:14:02
distinction without a difference but the
00:14:03
more you see it in action the more you
00:14:05
will see just how important it is if
00:14:06
there's any one thing to talk about in
00:14:08
this video that by itself can completely
00:14:09
transform and supercharge your
00:14:11
analytical skills it is getting good at
00:14:13
this if you like my content it is by far
00:14:15
the tool I use the most if you ask me to
00:14:17
list 20 times off the top of my head
00:14:18
where I use this in my videos I could do
00:14:20
it easily I could do three examples I
00:14:21
could do 50 examples actually I will do
00:14:23
that here feel free to pause if you want
00:14:24
you don't have to just to show evidence
00:14:26
of how useful and how pervasive this is
00:14:27
this rule really is everything for me
00:14:29
okay so moving on next topic the brown
00:14:32
throated thrush in this video we're
00:14:34
going to moving through the stages of
00:14:35
analysis here that's going to be the
00:14:37
rough structure so we just talked about
00:14:38
questions but you can't really get
00:14:39
started with answers without knowing
00:14:41
what type of answer you're looking for
00:14:42
what are we trying to accomplish through
00:14:44
this analysis I have five points here
00:14:46
the first two have to do with this guy
00:14:48
Richard Feynman famous physicist and
00:14:50
prankster and lock picker and Bongo
00:14:52
player worked on the Manhattan Project
00:14:53
Nobel Prize Challenger disaster Etc
00:14:55
famous guy a really cool guy listen to
00:14:56
the story about his childhood and the
00:14:58
next Monday we were playing in a field
00:15:00
and the kids said to me say what's that
00:15:03
bird what's the name of do you know the
00:15:04
name Outburst says I'm the slightest
00:15:05
idea
00:15:06
he said well it's a brown-throated
00:15:08
thrush he says your father doesn't teach
00:15:10
you anything but my father had already
00:15:12
taught me about the names of birds he
00:15:15
once we walked and he says that's a
00:15:17
brown sword of thrush he says know what
00:15:18
the name of that bird it's a brown
00:15:20
Throne of the thrush
00:15:21
in German it's called a freaking plague
00:15:24
in Chinese it's called a king long pong
00:15:27
in Japanese
00:15:28
and so on and when you know all the
00:15:31
names in every language of that bird you
00:15:34
know nothing but absolutely nothing
00:15:35
about the bird
00:15:37
then we would go on and talk about the
00:15:39
pecking in the feathers so I had learned
00:15:41
already that names though
00:15:42
constitute knowledge names are not ideas
00:15:46
jargon is not ideas analysis is not
00:15:49
about making references to named ideas
00:15:51
and using jargon to translate a
00:15:53
phenomenon into some complex formulation
00:15:54
of what you could just easily describe
00:15:56
without any dragon that is not what
00:15:57
analysis should be analyzing something
00:15:59
should be about gaining knowledge it's
00:16:00
about advancing your understanding of
00:16:02
how something works or what the essence
00:16:03
of a thing is if you don't come out of
00:16:05
the process knowing more than you did
00:16:07
before you've wasted your time and
00:16:08
speaking in jargon if it's not helping
00:16:10
you with that if it's just referencing
00:16:12
named ideas as a flimsy replacement for
00:16:14
understanding that is not good enough
00:16:15
that is not knowing more about something
00:16:16
so in terms of the goals of the analysis
00:16:18
it is not that that is not what you're
00:16:20
trying to do in terms of answers it
00:16:22
should not be about that it should not
00:16:23
be about looking for what to call things
00:16:25
second Point similar point but I want to
00:16:26
highlight something different we have
00:16:28
another Richard Feynman childhood sorry
00:16:29
listen to this one one day when I was
00:16:31
playing with the little wagon for
00:16:33
children to pull around
00:16:35
it had a ball in it I remember this and
00:16:38
had a ball in it and I pulled the wagon
00:16:40
and I noticed something about the way
00:16:42
the ball moved so I went to my father
00:16:44
and I said say pop
00:16:48
I noticed something
00:16:50
when I pull the wagon the ball rolls to
00:16:52
the back of the wagon it rushes to the
00:16:54
back of the wagon and when I'm pulling
00:16:55
along and I suddenly stop the ball rolls
00:16:57
to the front of the wagon I said why is
00:16:58
that
00:16:59
and he said that he says nobody knows
00:17:04
he said the general principle is that
00:17:06
things that are moving try to keep on
00:17:08
moving and things that are standing
00:17:10
still tend to stand still unless you
00:17:12
push on them hard
00:17:14
and he says this tendency is called
00:17:16
inertia but nobody knows why it's true
00:17:18
so this is another fantastic stressing
00:17:20
of the difference between names and
00:17:21
ideas but I want to focus on the step of
00:17:23
saying no one knows why but we call the
00:17:25
pattern inertia this is such a perfect
00:17:27
summing up of the stages of ethereum
00:17:29
often really what a theory is at the end
00:17:30
of the day what you are doing is
00:17:32
creating models that are proximate
00:17:34
reality and often that is all you can do
00:17:36
I'm not a physicist but when we went
00:17:38
from Aristotelian physics to whatever
00:17:39
was next Galilean physics Newtonian
00:17:41
physics it's not like science had
00:17:42
defined the reality of what motion is
00:17:44
and then it was wrong and noon was right
00:17:46
and then Newton was wrong and Einstein
00:17:48
was right no everyone had similar data
00:17:50
sets and these were models they were
00:17:52
patterns the human mind imposed on
00:17:54
reality that helped us to understand
00:17:55
what was happening each one was getting
00:17:58
closer and closer to explaining a more
00:18:00
and more complete segment of that data
00:18:02
set but theories explaining something
00:18:04
are not the thing they are
00:18:06
approximations they are models that help
00:18:07
us explain more of the data and
00:18:09
sometimes the more your models develop
00:18:11
the best models those may start to point
00:18:13
at what the thing is but even if your
00:18:16
theories don't get there you've
00:18:17
accomplished a lot just by improving
00:18:19
your models when I'm defining
00:18:20
Cliffhangers or beauty or the bad movie
00:18:22
Trend or masculinity or talking about
00:18:24
some system of writing a powerful scene
00:18:26
or what makes a good character or how to
00:18:28
evaluate whether a story is good or not
00:18:30
I am absolutely not saying this is the
00:18:32
end-all be-all this is what the thing is
00:18:34
no I'm trying to give a model to help us
00:18:36
understand more of the data I'm looking
00:18:38
for a more useful approximation of
00:18:40
what's Happening than what I started
00:18:41
with I am not trying to say why
00:18:43
Richard's ball went to the back of the
00:18:44
wagon I finding more accurate ways of
00:18:46
describing the model the pattern that we
00:18:48
call inertia worth mentioning at this
00:18:50
point there's a very well-known saying
00:18:51
in talmudic study
00:18:53
it translates to these and these are
00:18:56
both words of the Living God and what
00:18:57
that means is that when you're working
00:18:59
within an area like tomirik law or
00:19:01
storytelling that is not a hard science
00:19:02
good theories are not mutually exclusive
00:19:05
even when they contradict each other and
00:19:07
this is because they are models you will
00:19:09
often end up with two models that are
00:19:10
both logically sound that disagree with
00:19:12
one another and your job ends there
00:19:13
there's is know which one wins which one
00:19:15
is the truth no both your theoretical
00:19:17
models are words of the Living God so to
00:19:19
speak they're good models they make
00:19:20
sense they Advance your understanding
00:19:22
and they're logical that is good that is
00:19:24
exactly what you're looking for a full
00:19:25
stop and by the way they both do have to
00:19:27
be logical you can come up with two
00:19:28
models that are contradictory and then
00:19:29
you find flaws in one of them or one of
00:19:31
them there's just better it's more
00:19:32
elegant than the other one and then
00:19:33
those are not both words of the Living
00:19:34
God so to speak they're not both equally
00:19:36
useful and then yeah one of them did win
00:19:38
and that's also fine but what I'm trying
00:19:39
to say is often just a waste of time
00:19:40
trying to figure out like no which one
00:19:42
of these ideas is beauty which is the
00:19:44
end-all be-all reality of what a
00:19:46
cliffhanger is or what makes a good
00:19:47
character finding the one theory that
00:19:48
works to the exclusion of all the other
00:19:50
theories and why all the other theories
00:19:51
are wrong it's a waste of time and let
00:19:53
me take this point even further here
00:19:54
even when you're not juggling multiple
00:19:56
ideas anytime you're looking to explain
00:19:58
data and have developed a working Theory
00:20:00
what makes a compelling character is X
00:20:02
is development let's say if someone says
00:20:04
well I think R2D2 is a good character
00:20:06
and he doesn't have any development your
00:20:08
response to that should not be R2D2 is
00:20:10
not a good character because character
00:20:12
is all about development so you're wrong
00:20:13
you your response should be to take this
00:20:15
as an opportunity to discover the other
00:20:17
person's model what makes a good
00:20:18
character and that may mean that you end
00:20:20
up with two contradictory models that
00:20:21
are both words of the Living God or
00:20:22
maybe you'll see your friends model and
00:20:24
compare that to your own model and
00:20:25
you'll discover some way to synthesize
00:20:26
the two but the point is finding a model
00:20:28
and using that to invalidate data that
00:20:30
is the reverse of what you're trying to
00:20:31
do you're trying to explain the data and
00:20:32
in the Arts how people feel is part of
00:20:34
the data set okay Point number three
00:20:36
okay this is one that kind of fires me
00:20:37
up a bit when I'm talking about what
00:20:39
questions and definition I am not
00:20:42
talking about dictionaries dictionaries
00:20:44
are reference tools the goal of its
00:20:46
contents are to help you to identify
00:20:48
what words refer to the goal is not to
00:20:50
give you a deep understanding of what
00:20:51
the concept behind a word is example if
00:20:54
you're trying to understand a mental
00:20:55
health condition like depression let's
00:20:57
say you should not look it up in the
00:20:58
dictionary you should look it up in the
00:21:00
DSM you should talk to people who work
00:21:01
in Psychology and Psychiatry and
00:21:03
Neuroscience you should talk to people
00:21:04
who have suffered from depression or
00:21:05
have friends and loved ones who've
00:21:06
suffer from it mental health
00:21:07
professionals didn't go to school and
00:21:09
just look up every condition
00:21:10
Merriam-Webster and get handed a diploma
00:21:12
obviously so same with everything if
00:21:14
you're analyzing a scene with a
00:21:15
cliffhanger and you realize you're at a
00:21:16
point where you have to Define it do not
00:21:18
use a dictionary use your brain you do
00:21:20
not need help to identify Cliffhangers
00:21:21
which the dictionary definition may help
00:21:23
you to do you are trying to understand
00:21:24
the idea of it and you have all the data
00:21:27
you need to think about it I.E your own
00:21:28
experience of it your own experience
00:21:30
hearing people talk about it other
00:21:31
people's opinions of it so your job is
00:21:32
to figure that out for yourself I could
00:21:34
see using a dictionary definition as
00:21:35
part of your data but the idea that a
00:21:36
dictionary has some Authority when it
00:21:38
comes to definitions specifically
00:21:39
definitions of complex things I could
00:21:41
not disagree with that more on a similar
00:21:43
note 0.4 and this one is controversial
00:21:45
hold off on using other people's
00:21:46
definitions until you've worked on it
00:21:48
yourself at least a little bit first of
00:21:49
all just practically no two analyzes are
00:21:51
the same and that may severely impact
00:21:53
whether it relates to your investigation
00:21:54
or not and some ways you might not even
00:21:56
realize like if Aristotle has an idea of
00:21:58
beauty he is dealing with entirely
00:21:59
different data than I am and probably a
00:22:01
different emotional lexicon as well and
00:22:02
this is all fitting to some bigger
00:22:04
General ideas of what beauty is in the
00:22:05
natural world and other things about how
00:22:07
nature works and how humans work all
00:22:09
these other things that have impacted
00:22:10
his analysis and his goals are probably
00:22:12
different than ours he is doing
00:22:13
philosophy for our investigation we're
00:22:15
just trying to become better writers two
00:22:16
completely different investigations so
00:22:18
if you have a question like this and you
00:22:19
start with someone else's answer you may
00:22:20
throw yourself off the scent of the
00:22:21
Beast you're really chasing and by the
00:22:23
way that may be absolutely clear this
00:22:24
applies equally to me and my YouTube
00:22:25
videos as well if you're trying to think
00:22:27
of something don't let me impact your
00:22:28
thought process if I say something about
00:22:30
it that resonates with you that's fine
00:22:31
but I encourage you hold off and think
00:22:33
about it on your own develop an idea
00:22:34
that's unique to you and how you think
00:22:36
and then you can compare it to my idea
00:22:37
or to other people's ideas compare them
00:22:39
to yours see if they fit see if they're
00:22:40
better than what you came up with
00:22:41
basically you lose Nothing by waiting
00:22:43
and you do lose something by not waiting
00:22:45
you may lose the opportunity to develop
00:22:46
your understanding of your own unique
00:22:47
worldview which is a pretty significant
00:22:49
thing to lose and that is my premise
00:22:50
here that everyone already has ideas
00:22:51
about all these topics we talk about
00:22:53
casually these ideas are in the back of
00:22:54
your mind they're semi-conscious they're
00:22:55
totally not developed and that is
00:22:57
precisely what is worth exploring what
00:22:58
is worth developing you person listening
00:23:00
to this do you have a way of using the
00:23:01
word beauty or the word Cliffhanger that
00:23:03
operates by some unconscious rules and
00:23:05
your analysis is going to largely
00:23:06
consist of sharpening that really rough
00:23:07
idea you already have into something
00:23:09
more definitive more profound whatever
00:23:10
and the best part will be that that idea
00:23:12
is completely unique to you it has all
00:23:14
these nuances that come from only how
00:23:16
you think from experiences that only you
00:23:18
have why sacrifice the opportunity to
00:23:19
see this uniquely creative thing you do
00:23:21
without even realizing it by running to
00:23:23
someone else's idea first and letting
00:23:24
the authority of that person overshadow
00:23:26
whatever beautiful snowflake of an idea
00:23:28
you have in your own beautiful brain no
00:23:30
sharpen that unique idea only you are
00:23:32
capable of producing I want to hear that
00:23:34
you can always compare to other people's
00:23:35
theories and definitions later but you
00:23:36
really only have one chance to discover
00:23:38
your ideas undiluted with as little
00:23:40
outside influence as possible it's a
00:23:42
special opportunity do not waste it so
00:23:44
that is one reason to hold off when
00:23:45
using other people's definitions second
00:23:47
reason almost as important maybe even
00:23:49
more important is that a large part of
00:23:50
the goal of analysis should be to become
00:23:52
better at analysis if you run into other
00:23:54
people's definitions it's like asking
00:23:55
someone else to do your squats for you
00:23:57
at the gym what are you doing you should
00:23:58
be trying to get better at thinking more
00:24:00
precise more creative more logical more
00:24:01
beautiful why let someone else have that
00:24:03
workout and that payoff and by the way
00:24:04
I'm not saying like don't read Aristotle
00:24:06
or expose yourself to anyone else's
00:24:08
definitions or World Views before we've
00:24:09
completely developed everything about
00:24:10
your own I'm saying when you're
00:24:12
analyzing something I'm saying when
00:24:13
you've said your sites a new thing to
00:24:14
analyze you're sitting down to think at
00:24:16
that moment hold off on other people's
00:24:18
definitions do your thing and then go
00:24:19
compare okay final point and this is a
00:24:21
minute point but it's been drilled into
00:24:22
me because it's a mistake that comes up
00:24:24
so often and so easily that I think it's
00:24:26
important to mention here a definition
00:24:27
that starts with that which is not a
00:24:29
definition what is a chair that which
00:24:31
you sit on what is inertia that which
00:24:33
makes things stay in motion what is a
00:24:34
cliffhanger that which makes me feel
00:24:36
suspense as a story ends if you're
00:24:37
thinking about what you're saying you're
00:24:38
using that witch so you don't have to
00:24:40
say what the thing actually is you're
00:24:42
skipping right to what it does so that
00:24:43
definition is not really defining it
00:24:45
it's defining its action or its
00:24:46
potentiality no what is a chair it is a
00:24:49
constructed raised service of a size and
00:24:51
Constitution designed and built to
00:24:53
support a certain human being something
00:24:54
like that what is inertia it is a
00:24:56
description of the pattern and physics
00:24:58
of the behavioral objects in motion that
00:24:59
they stay in motion what is a
00:25:01
cliffhanger it is an ending that's
00:25:02
rendered incomplete by withholding the
00:25:04
resolution of a major arc and that often
00:25:07
causes suspense but even if you
00:25:09
personally don't feel that emotion it's
00:25:11
still a cliffhanger and there are some
00:25:12
cases where you do feel suspended and
00:25:14
it's still not a cliffhanger just like
00:25:15
there's plenty of things you can sit on
00:25:16
that are not chairs so to sum up what
00:25:18
are you trying to accomplish with your
00:25:19
analysis what will the answers be like
00:25:21
one they will provide a deeper
00:25:22
understanding of what the thing is or
00:25:24
how it functions which means you are not
00:25:26
just naming something or referencing
00:25:27
names or translating into jargon you are
00:25:29
looking for a new understanding and if
00:25:30
you come out of your analysis without
00:25:32
that then you're not done you got more
00:25:33
work to do number two you are not
00:25:35
looking for the underlying reality the
00:25:36
be-all and all truth of what the
00:25:38
phenomenon is that you're investigating
00:25:39
you're looking to find a model that will
00:25:41
help you explain more of the data and
00:25:42
there may be multiple valid models and
00:25:44
they may even be contradictory but as
00:25:46
long as they're logically consistent and
00:25:47
advanced understanding that's exactly
00:25:49
where you want to be not necessarily to
00:25:50
go further than that number three do not
00:25:52
use dictionary definitions number four
00:25:54
hold off on other people's definitions
00:25:56
until you've done some work on your own
00:25:58
and both these points are about using
00:25:59
that opportunity for deeper
00:26:00
understanding sharpening UniQue Ideas
00:26:01
only you have that you can then compare
00:26:03
to ideas of other people and also it's
00:26:05
about getting better analysis by making
00:26:07
you do the thinking instead of leaving
00:26:08
it for something else to do and letting
00:26:09
that person get the practice and number
00:26:11
five don't fall into the that which trap
00:26:12
in your definitions it sounds like a
00:26:14
definition but you're just describing
00:26:16
what it does or what potentiality it has
00:26:18
and really avoiding talking about the
00:26:19
thing itself okay time for the next
00:26:21
stage getting stuck is the next stage of
00:26:24
analysis you've asked a bunch of
00:26:25
questions congratulations now it all
00:26:27
really doesn't make sense in all these
00:26:29
like terrifying and specific ways or
00:26:31
maybe you did make some headways still
00:26:32
you're gonna get stuck everyone gets
00:26:33
stuck it's part of the process so what
00:26:35
do you do when you're stuck obviously
00:26:36
what do you think I'm gonna say
00:26:37
Obviously you ask more questions but
00:26:39
specific questions or specific types of
00:26:40
questions so let me list six types of
00:26:42
questions I find to be particularly
00:26:44
effective at getting you unstuck or
00:26:45
getting you deeper into an investigation
00:26:47
here's the list just as a preview number
00:26:49
one contradictions number two pivot
00:26:50
Points number three incomplete
00:26:51
comparisons or incomplete contrast
00:26:53
number four what's extra number five
00:26:54
what's the address number six what must
00:26:56
you say so number one contradictions
00:26:57
I've talked about this quite a bit and
00:26:59
this is number one because it is the
00:27:01
most useful thing to find let me explain
00:27:03
what's going on here because it can be a
00:27:04
little counterintuitive contradictions
00:27:06
usually the reason people don't like
00:27:07
finding contradictions is that usually
00:27:09
they're a sign of error it's sloppy
00:27:11
writing sloppy reasoning sloppy argument
00:27:13
rhetoric deduction logic we end up with
00:27:15
conflicting components that expose the
00:27:17
shoddy development contradictions
00:27:18
usually end the discussion it shows
00:27:20
there's no ideas behind this it's all
00:27:21
farce but if there's a reason to assume
00:27:24
There's real wisdom behind what you're
00:27:25
analyzing then it's the opposite
00:27:27
contradiction is a sign of depth it's a
00:27:29
sign that there's more understanding to
00:27:31
be gained it's an x marks the spot great
00:27:33
ideas will be found right here here a
00:27:35
contradiction is a sign of your sloppy
00:27:37
thinking if anything there's a reason it
00:27:38
looks nonsensical to you and it's your
00:27:40
job to figure that out think about like
00:27:41
a queen sacrifice in chess Queen best
00:27:42
piece on the board you do not want to
00:27:44
give that pizza for free if it's a bad
00:27:45
player that's an error that sloppy
00:27:47
thinking if it's Magnus and you think
00:27:49
it's a nonsensical move that's on you
00:27:50
there's something you're not
00:27:51
understanding here and you probably want
00:27:53
to think twice before taking that Queen
00:27:54
so if a character is acting
00:27:55
inconsistently in a bad story sloppy
00:27:58
running there's nothing here next if a
00:28:00
character is acting inconsistently in a
00:28:01
great story and it's a great character a
00:28:03
compelling character a Threading here
00:28:04
does seem intentional then you better
00:28:06
start digging there is buried treasure
00:28:08
where you are standing and what I mean
00:28:09
by digging contradictions Force you
00:28:11
towards a more complex and nuanced
00:28:13
perspective this is classic teacher
00:28:15
number one first day of class this would
00:28:16
be the first thing you would teach he
00:28:17
called it subdividing when I let a rock
00:28:19
go it falls to the ground when I let my
00:28:21
balloon go it goes up into the sky
00:28:22
contradiction so what do you do
00:28:24
subdivide things that are heavier than
00:28:25
air fall things that are lighter than
00:28:27
air rise from there we get to buoyancy
00:28:29
and we realize it's not too conflicting
00:28:30
phenomena it is a single phenomenon that
00:28:32
is more nuanced than our previous
00:28:33
understanding Jinx says you change too
00:28:35
but Vai is the one who didn't change
00:28:37
subdivide we have reality reality and we
00:28:39
have Jinx reality in reality reality VI
00:28:41
didn't change but the way Jinx sees the
00:28:43
world VI won't randomly kill Kate She is
00:28:45
totally changed this proves it and
00:28:46
there's a more nuanced understanding of
00:28:47
the thing that is going on here or
00:28:49
Theory 2 VI hasn't changed in terms of
00:28:51
her love for powder but she has changed
00:28:53
in terms of her love for her sister
00:28:55
who's become someone different than
00:28:56
powder and here we also end up with a
00:28:58
more nuanced picture that shows us that
00:28:59
she has changed and she hasn't it's more
00:29:01
complex than we thought okay so question
00:29:03
two what's the pivot point I stole this
00:29:05
one from my brother you can thank him if
00:29:06
you're dealing with a sequence that's
00:29:07
hard to understand a sequence of any
00:29:09
kind sequence of events dialogue
00:29:10
sequence whatever anything ordered not
00:29:13
always but but sometimes you can
00:29:14
identify a point in the sequence when
00:29:16
something changes before this point it
00:29:18
was like this it was about this this was
00:29:20
the essence after this point it was
00:29:21
different it was about something else it
00:29:23
had a different Focus different Essence
00:29:24
and now that we found this pivot point
00:29:25
now we can ask what's the relationship
00:29:27
to how things were in the first half and
00:29:28
how things were in the second half
00:29:29
something changed what changed why did
00:29:31
it have this impact and also similar
00:29:33
contradictions you end up pushing
00:29:34
yourself to find nudity as well this is
00:29:36
the scene that powder changed into Jinx
00:29:38
we can talk about all the differences
00:29:39
but zeroing in on what the relationship
00:29:40
is from before to after it's forcing you
00:29:43
to Define really what did not change how
00:29:44
is this still one single person next one
00:29:47
is similar incomplete comparisons and
00:29:48
incomplete contrast take any two similar
00:29:50
elements that have even slightly
00:29:52
different outcomes are treated slightly
00:29:53
differently they're similar but they're
00:29:55
not identical and those seemingly my new
00:29:57
differences are going to be what
00:29:58
determines the difference in outcome and
00:29:59
then alternatively take any two opposite
00:30:01
elements that have the same outcome or
00:30:03
are treated the same or similarly
00:30:04
they're opposite but not completely
00:30:06
opposite not in every way and those
00:30:07
seemingly minute similarities are going
00:30:09
to be able to determine the similarity
00:30:10
and outcome examples for comparisons if
00:30:12
I'm trying to understand why or powder I
00:30:14
can look at them in terms of comparisons
00:30:15
to the other undercity kids we have the
00:30:16
full set of VI powder Echo clagra Milo
00:30:19
even Deckard they all started out pretty
00:30:20
similar but drastically different
00:30:22
outcomes so what determined these
00:30:23
differences in outcome by seeing the
00:30:24
details that don't exactly compare we
00:30:26
identify the possible routes to the
00:30:27
answers for example age is a difference
00:30:29
engagement style is another difference
00:30:30
relationships and other different
00:30:31
capability another difference now
00:30:33
examples for opposites Vander and silco
00:30:35
these two characters could not be more
00:30:36
different politically ethically in terms
00:30:38
of parenting even physically but they
00:30:39
have nearly identical outcomes so
00:30:41
similarities they both love their
00:30:43
daughters more than anything let's start
00:30:44
there or they were both leaders or they
00:30:46
were both from the lanes or they both
00:30:47
fought piltober all reasonable starting
00:30:49
points now we can examine all these
00:30:50
differences between the two characters
00:30:52
that we may think would change the
00:30:53
outcome that the similarities rendered
00:30:55
inconsequential and then we can think
00:30:56
about why they're inconsequential
00:30:58
another example Echo Heimerdinger could
00:30:59
not be more different in terms of where
00:31:01
they're from age experience physically
00:31:03
philosophically how they see time
00:31:04
relationships Fame but newly identical
00:31:06
outcomes they are the only characters
00:31:07
that end up with completely positive
00:31:09
endings to their arcs so similarities
00:31:10
they're both scientists they both value
00:31:12
life more than anyone else in the show
00:31:14
they both turn their backs in their
00:31:15
societies great starting points okay
00:31:16
number four what's extra what doesn't
00:31:18
need to be here the boxing scene what is
00:31:20
the point of that scene at all why do we
00:31:22
need to hear all about Mel's mysterious
00:31:24
brother who's this guy and what's the
00:31:25
point of him why does Vander need to be
00:31:26
represented in the scene why is the real
00:31:28
vaviani here why does bunny need to be
00:31:29
in every bunny scene why the color
00:31:31
system what if it wasn't there and you
00:31:32
can also do this with characters and
00:31:33
scenes and arcs in terms of how they
00:31:35
exist take any character and imagine the
00:31:37
most default basic unadorned form of
00:31:39
this thing you can possibly think of and
00:31:40
then one by one see what each unique
00:31:42
characteristic adds to the character's
00:31:44
functionality I've used normal Rupert as
00:31:46
a name for this tool in the past if I'm
00:31:48
trying to figure out R2D2 or Chewbacca
00:31:49
or whoever I imagine the character in
00:31:51
the most default form I can think of
00:31:52
totally average guy serving a similar
00:31:54
purpose Han psychic is just a guy who
00:31:56
follows him around instead of Chewbacca
00:31:57
normal human guy normal Bill talks
00:31:59
normally or serving the plot functions
00:32:01
after D2 serves helping out on their
00:32:02
ship or with computer stuff blending the
00:32:04
mood with little gags normal guy normal
00:32:06
human man just doing R2D2 things that
00:32:08
thought experiment allows me to isolate
00:32:09
the unique characteristics one by one
00:32:11
Chewie is Big Chewie is an alien and
00:32:13
Chewie makes growling noises instead of
00:32:15
talking R2D2 is cute R2D2 moves around
00:32:17
on Wheels kind of slowly R2D2 is
00:32:19
cheerful and if it's a scene I imagine
00:32:21
the most basic version of that scene
00:32:22
imaginable Jinx and Echo just fight they
00:32:24
shoot at each other hit each other
00:32:25
that's it that's the scene and then now
00:32:27
I can isolate the differences between
00:32:28
that and the actual scene music
00:32:30
flashbacks Arch style change in mood
00:32:31
building a parallel Echoes fighting
00:32:33
strategy jinx's fighting strategy I can
00:32:34
do with an arc what's a basic normal
00:32:36
fantasy Arc and now which photos are ah
00:32:38
here are all these unusual factors so if
00:32:39
something is interesting usually that
00:32:40
means that there's a basic default
00:32:42
version of it that you can hold next to
00:32:43
it to bring into Focus everything that
00:32:45
makes it interesting and investigate all
00:32:46
the possible reasons for those changes
00:32:48
number five is the weird one what's the
00:32:50
address so there's another useful
00:32:52
question to ask another one that's very
00:32:53
common in my academic Community if I
00:32:55
have a ton of questions and I feel
00:32:56
totally lost maybe you can't get to the
00:32:58
idea yet but you can ask what is the
00:33:01
address of this idea approximately where
00:33:03
would I find the answer let me give you
00:33:04
an example Jinx incredibly complex
00:33:06
character lots of moving Parts lots of
00:33:07
complicated scenes relationships
00:33:08
successes failures we got the mental
00:33:10
health stuff we got the hallucinations
00:33:11
we got all the wild decisions very tough
00:33:13
topic to gain deep Insight on because
00:33:15
it's all just so complex there's so much
00:33:16
of it but I know everything about this
00:33:18
character hinges on identity I know
00:33:20
that's the address of whatever this idea
00:33:22
will be or in similar vein I know this
00:33:23
is probably the most important scene
00:33:25
this is the location of the answers I'm
00:33:27
looking for so I can't get the full
00:33:28
answer I am not even close with finding
00:33:30
the address finding where to look for
00:33:31
the answer that can cut through a lot of
00:33:33
the confusion and significantly Focus my
00:33:35
investigation another example Mel again
00:33:37
really complex what are the odd
00:33:38
structure for an arc lots of unknowns
00:33:40
lots of confusing relationships a lot
00:33:41
left unsaid but I know this decision is
00:33:43
what encapsulates everything this is
00:33:45
what I should focus on this is the
00:33:46
address similarly on a more micro scale
00:33:47
the writers and animators are telling me
00:33:49
gold is very important figure out what
00:33:51
gold means so if you can't figure out
00:33:52
the answer at least figure out where you
00:33:54
should be looking final question number
00:33:56
six what must you say another major
00:33:58
Mantra of my academic Community it means
00:34:00
you cannot get to the big Theory you
00:34:02
cannot answer any of these questions
00:34:03
maybe you don't even know the address
00:34:04
but based on what you do have what must
00:34:07
you say what is a single deduction you
00:34:09
can make with absolute certainty even a
00:34:11
teeny tiny itty bitty one even if it it
00:34:13
seems totally insignificant once you
00:34:15
start making solid steps even baby baby
00:34:17
steps doesn't matter they're saying out
00:34:19
loud anything new that you can say for
00:34:21
certain that will consistently drag your
00:34:23
brain into a new space make things shift
00:34:25
just a little bit and maybe enable you
00:34:27
to see the next step and then that will
00:34:29
lead you to the next step and the next
00:34:30
and so on I don't know why Jinx chooses
00:34:32
the Jinx chair but what must you say up
00:34:34
until this point she is still
00:34:36
considering taking the powder chair that
00:34:38
alone baby step still tells you a lot I
00:34:40
don't know what the crows represent but
00:34:42
what must you say it's relevant to these
00:34:44
specific scenes that's something also
00:34:46
whatever does represent Jinx has a
00:34:48
contentious relationship with it that's
00:34:49
also something we have one crow here we
00:34:51
have many many crows here that
00:34:53
definitely means there's a more
00:34:54
pronounced manifestation of whatever
00:34:55
crows represent in this scene Aragorn
00:34:58
says to all the hobbits you about to
00:34:59
know him even though it seems like Frodo
00:35:01
or Frodo and Sam are the real heroes
00:35:03
here are marrying Pippen really on the
00:35:04
same level what must you say in terms of
00:35:06
what Aragorn is saying yes they are on
00:35:08
the same level apparently the reason
00:35:10
Aragorn is bowing to all of them has to
00:35:12
do with the commonality between in all
00:35:13
of them even if Mary Pippen seemed like
00:35:15
they did Less in terms of what Aragon
00:35:17
cares about qualitatively maybe not
00:35:18
quantitatively it applies equally or
00:35:20
similarly to Frodo and Sam ah now that I
00:35:22
made that step now I'm on a completely
00:35:24
different path before this I'm just
00:35:25
trying to figure out what Aragorn meant
00:35:27
now I'm looking for share
00:35:28
characteristics between all four Hobbit
00:35:30
arcs and if you've noticed these six
00:35:31
categories of questions are basically
00:35:33
just consistent ways to generate even
00:35:35
more even better questions each one of
00:35:36
them just leads to more and more
00:35:38
questions because like I said earlier at
00:35:39
the end of the day questions are your
00:35:41
only tool for understanding anything so
00:35:43
contradictions pivot Points incomplete
00:35:45
comparisons and complete contrasts what
00:35:46
is extra what's the address what must
00:35:48
you say if you're analyzing something
00:35:49
and you are stuck in the mud these
00:35:51
questions will pull you out and
00:35:52
hopefully Advance you to the next stage
00:35:54
of analysis which is getting stuck again
00:35:57
even worse this time so this is the next
00:35:58
topic you know the questions you found
00:36:00
all the footholds you've squeezed every
00:36:02
last drop of brain power out of your
00:36:03
brain and you're still stuck you're just
00:36:05
looking at the same questions now what
00:36:07
do you do so this next thing I'm going
00:36:08
to talk about this is the hardest one to
00:36:09
get better at you can pretty easily get
00:36:11
yourself into the habit of asking
00:36:12
different kinds of questions and better
00:36:13
questions but this next technique takes
00:36:14
years to learn to do effectively doesn't
00:36:16
mean you can't try and have good results
00:36:17
but I'm just warning you I'm not even
00:36:19
good at this this is the one that's
00:36:20
really part of a lifelong process this
00:36:22
is called forgetting the facts and this
00:36:23
was teacher Forge big thing let me play
00:36:25
you some audio of him being at this
00:36:26
exact stage of analysis I'm not gonna go
00:36:27
slow here because this is a subtle point
00:36:29
we're gonna go step by step this doesn't
00:36:30
encounter any topic that was a total
00:36:32
mess we were stuck he was stuck it was
00:36:34
awful but the way he describes where
00:36:36
we're at it was it was so bizarre to me
00:36:37
but anyway that's the problem with the
00:36:39
silly the problem is you can go down
00:36:40
every case you can just look at every
00:36:41
case from every angle but it still is
00:36:45
always a detailed uh you know you're
00:36:48
always stuck in a particular it's very
00:36:50
hard to to pull back
00:36:53
and just ask you know the general
00:36:55
question about try to get a general idea
00:36:58
I just feel like yeah you can go through
00:37:00
all the cases a hundred times but uh you
00:37:02
know you're not going to get out of
00:37:03
those D you're not going to get out of
00:37:04
that get like a tunnel vision he's
00:37:06
saying what makes this topic so hard is
00:37:08
that we can't stop thinking about the
00:37:10
particulars which is strange it's like a
00:37:12
detective saying I need to stop thinking
00:37:14
about the clues so I can solve the case
00:37:15
or like assigned to saying I need to
00:37:16
stop thinking about the data so I can
00:37:18
come up with a theory explaining the
00:37:19
data so I went ahead and I said that
00:37:20
basically he was saying we needed to
00:37:22
disengage from the particular so we can
00:37:23
get to a more general idea so yes isn't
00:37:25
focusing on the particulars how we're
00:37:26
going to derive that bigger idea
00:37:29
the problem is you got to pull your head
00:37:31
out of the out of the specifics at one
00:37:33
point
00:37:33
so to look at the whole landscape I mean
00:37:36
Johnny is definitely right you have to
00:37:39
be well versed in all the details but I
00:37:42
don't think you're going to get the big
00:37:43
idea through a detail I don't think you
00:37:45
get the idea by squeezing the details
00:37:47
harder not going to shake out a big
00:37:49
concept still seemed really weird to me
00:37:50
so before I go on with this let me show
00:37:52
you a situation where this comes up in
00:37:53
our subject and star analysis I'm not
00:37:55
always using this technique this tool
00:37:56
but there's one great example in my
00:37:58
videos of me encountering this situation
00:38:00
explicitly and employing this method
00:38:02
explicitly it was in the madness video
00:38:04
at the beginning I had all these
00:38:05
leftover questions about Jinx questions
00:38:06
about particular quotes questions about
00:38:08
particular mannerisms and I could answer
00:38:10
these questions I did answer them I gave
00:38:11
multiple answers and I still felt just
00:38:13
as ignorant they were good answers and
00:38:15
ultimately they were all unsatisfying I
00:38:17
still felt completely lost I was hyper
00:38:19
focused on the details and they were
00:38:20
getting me nowhere okay so here's season
00:38:22
4 explaining what to do from here this
00:38:23
is him explaining the forget the facts
00:38:25
methodology and giving his own example
00:38:26
of where and how it's effective and some
00:38:28
vocab here Indian means subject matter a
00:38:30
lot of times this is true in all in all
00:38:32
thinking a lot of times you come to the
00:38:35
table with certain preconceived notions
00:38:37
and that's because you're sort of
00:38:39
accepting certain basic things is true
00:38:41
and if you're just studying the facts a
00:38:43
lot of times that means you're not
00:38:45
reassessing what you think you know yeah
00:38:47
I mean you're just trying to fit a
00:38:49
particular case into what you think you
00:38:51
already know but when you drop
00:38:53
everything and you say you know what
00:38:55
let's start from scratch let's rethink
00:38:57
the whole thing you really can only do
00:38:59
that if you forget all the facts and a
00:39:01
lot of times that's exactly the the
00:39:03
right way to go to free yourself from
00:39:06
preconceived notions that you didn't
00:39:07
realize you were harboring you know a
00:39:10
clear example of this is
00:39:12
um with Einstein of course
00:39:15
obviously
00:39:17
there's certain cases in Newtonian
00:39:19
physics that didn't work out I think the
00:39:21
um the orbit of mercury was like a
00:39:23
fraction off like slightly slightly off
00:39:26
and turned out when Einstein develops
00:39:28
this theory of uh general theory of
00:39:31
relativity explain that deviation in his
00:39:35
formulas it worked out perfectly
00:39:37
but he says I wasn't thinking about that
00:39:39
problem and and on the contrary if
00:39:41
somebody were just working on that
00:39:42
problem they would never get Beyond it
00:39:45
would never get to the right solution
00:39:47
because they are focused on this detail
00:39:49
how can I account for the deviation in
00:39:52
Mercury's
00:39:54
maybe the calculations around maybe
00:39:56
there's some other Force outside of it
00:39:58
maybe there's something a different type
00:40:01
of uh whatever it is but it's because
00:40:03
you're not reassessing what you know
00:40:06
you're just trying to fit this into what
00:40:08
I do know
00:40:09
it's what I think I know most of the
00:40:11
times when you when you're faced with a
00:40:13
particular problem it's better to forget
00:40:15
the problem fall back to the general
00:40:17
Union and think about it naturally and
00:40:21
then you'll say oh well now I see now I
00:40:23
see how to look at this
00:40:24
now that I've developed the Indian
00:40:26
properly now I'm in a better position to
00:40:28
see how things should really be you
00:40:30
always got to fall back whenever you
00:40:31
have a problem it's always bad to think
00:40:32
about the problem it's always better to
00:40:34
fall back and think about the the
00:40:36
subject matter
00:40:38
and say well now I see I was coming to
00:40:40
the subject with the preconceived notion
00:40:41
because I never really analyzed the
00:40:43
subject on its own terms because you
00:40:44
have to always find a way of looking at
00:40:48
it that these facts matter naturally
00:40:50
that's what I really mean to say and you
00:40:52
gotta look at the facts but if you're
00:40:54
treating the facts like arbitrary
00:40:56
details then you're you're not you're
00:40:58
not thinking about it right you've got
00:41:00
to look at the facts and say in what
00:41:02
realm or in what system or in what way
00:41:05
of looking at it with these facts
00:41:07
naturally be important those I I would
00:41:10
use the cases more as barometers of
00:41:12
success you know like pretend you don't
00:41:15
know about the cases and use them as as
00:41:17
predictive power it's like when they
00:41:19
model the universe you know
00:41:21
put in certain assumptions and they sort
00:41:24
of Play It Out see those come out like
00:41:26
the universe we have then you know it
00:41:28
seems like it's pretty likely that those
00:41:30
initial assumptions were uh were true so
00:41:33
he's saying like this sometimes you can
00:41:35
use the tools and the framer to adjust
00:41:36
the particular questions directly but
00:41:38
when you absolutely can't it's often
00:41:40
because your framework does not have
00:41:41
those tools and you cannot use those
00:41:43
questions to force a broad shift in your
00:41:45
perspective they are too particularized
00:41:46
to point you anywhere useful so the way
00:41:48
to change your framework is to go back
00:41:50
to what he's calling the subject matter
00:41:51
the overarching topic your investigation
00:41:53
connects to and work purely on
00:41:55
developing your understanding of the
00:41:56
subject matter on its own in abstract
00:41:58
not thinking about the questions at all
00:42:00
forgetting you were even investigating
00:42:01
any of their particulars you do your
00:42:03
best to come at the topic completely
00:42:04
fresh Blank Slate think about it in a
00:42:07
new way separate yourself from all past
00:42:09
biases we cannot explain the orbit of
00:42:11
mercury Newtonian physics does not have
00:42:13
the tools for this Einstein meanwhile is
00:42:15
rethinking the overarching center in its
00:42:17
entirety time space motion whatever it
00:42:19
is he comes at it completely fresh
00:42:21
separates all past definitions past
00:42:23
biases and reaches a novel understanding
00:42:25
of what all of this stuff is and then he
00:42:28
comes back and finds that the Orbiter
00:42:29
Mercury works out naturally in his new
00:42:31
framework in my madness video I had all
00:42:33
these questions about particulars of
00:42:34
what drinks says and does I wasn't
00:42:35
getting anywhere so what did I do I took
00:42:37
a giant step back and I thought about
00:42:39
Madness as a whole I tried to understand
00:42:41
it better on its own terms I totally
00:42:43
forgot about Jinx I was not trying to
00:42:45
address those questions at all I thought
00:42:47
about much broader versions of the
00:42:48
question like comparing Madness to
00:42:49
mental distress I left Arcane I looked
00:42:51
at other great examples of Madness
00:42:53
Gollum denethor Billy Hayes Hitler I
00:42:55
noticed specific ways of thinking they
00:42:57
had manifestations of Madness that
00:42:58
didn't seem to relate to jinx at all
00:43:00
like the Nazi parade grounds in
00:43:02
Nuremberg and what I noticed was this
00:43:04
theme coming up over and over again of a
00:43:06
delusional second world the mad person
00:43:07
conjures up and externalizes lives in
00:43:10
interacts with and yes the whole time I
00:43:12
was on the lookout for what would hook
00:43:13
me back to the problem at hand at what
00:43:15
point could I flip the switch remember
00:43:16
all the facts again and relate this back
00:43:17
to what I see in Jinx and when it hit
00:43:19
upon externalization what Jinx is all
00:43:21
about externalization and so on and so
00:43:23
on so forget the facts it's weird weird
00:43:25
and if it sounds aimless it's not but it
00:43:27
kind of is at first you forget the facts
00:43:29
you step back you think about the
00:43:30
general subject matter and what exactly
00:43:32
am I supposed to be thinking about when
00:43:33
I'm taking a step back teacher 4 would
00:43:34
always say let it roll around in your
00:43:36
head whatever that means but you're
00:43:37
trying to just understand the whole
00:43:39
topic more and it is a really hard
00:43:40
balance you will often fall into the
00:43:42
Trap of trying to redefine the big
00:43:43
General things for the purpose of
00:43:45
answering the questions and that is bad
00:43:46
analysis and that can look and feel the
00:43:48
same as doing it right but it's
00:43:49
ultimately contrived it's not a general
00:43:51
theory that gives you a simpler
00:43:52
understanding of the data it's more
00:43:53
complex because they're stuffing all the
00:43:54
data into this explanation of one thing
00:43:56
that's why it is forget the facts really
00:43:58
think about it freely with zero
00:44:00
constraints and yeah then sometimes it
00:44:01
is too aimless and that's why it's so
00:44:03
difficult you really need to find a very
00:44:05
precise balance here listen to the way
00:44:06
teacher 4 puts it knows I I would use
00:44:08
the cases more as barometers of success
00:44:11
you know like pretend you don't know
00:44:13
about the cases and use them as as
00:44:15
predictive power what he said in the
00:44:17
last quote is the midpoint where you
00:44:18
want to hover as a Rough Guide what sort
00:44:20
of conceptual setup creates this exact
00:44:22
situation naturally what understanding
00:44:24
of Madness makes me write Jinx in this
00:44:27
way what understanding of Cliffhangers
00:44:28
makes me end the story in this way
00:44:30
knowing it won't have the negatives of
00:44:32
cliffhanger endings what is my
00:44:33
definition of hero that generates this
00:44:35
radically different hero's journey
00:44:36
instead of the basic default Heroes
00:44:38
journey and this is why I really try to
00:44:39
get my video set and with induced
00:44:41
threading rules and tips and advice
00:44:42
because that's what I'm trying to get to
00:44:44
what principles would make me write a
00:44:45
character like this or a scene like this
00:44:47
or an arc like this or a short film like
00:44:49
this or even a comment like this so
00:44:50
anyway try this out you're still gonna
00:44:52
get stuck it's not gonna work completely
00:44:53
but practice notice when other people do
00:44:56
it you'll get better at it okay next
00:44:57
part we've gotten to the actual
00:44:59
theorizing congratulations now what does
00:45:02
a good theory look like so let's talk
00:45:04
about the invisible soccer ball there's
00:45:06
another thing you're all going to have
00:45:07
to thank teacher 4 for he didn't come up
00:45:08
with us but he introduced it to us this
00:45:09
is from a book called the God particle
00:45:11
if the universe is the answer what is
00:45:13
the question by Nobel Laureate Leon
00:45:15
Letterman it's a pretty long analogy I'm
00:45:17
gonna read the whole thing out loud
00:45:18
because I think it's a fantastic
00:45:19
metaphor so settle in and let me tell
00:45:22
you a story imagine an intelligent race
00:45:24
of being beings from the planet twilo
00:45:26
they look more or less like us they talk
00:45:28
like us they do everything like humans
00:45:30
except for one thing they have a fluke
00:45:32
in their visual apparatus they can't see
00:45:33
objects with sharp juxtapositions of
00:45:35
black and white they can't see zebras
00:45:37
for example or shirts on NFL referees or
00:45:39
soccer balls let's say this contingent
00:45:41
from the planet twilo comes to Earth on
00:45:43
a Goodwill Mission to give them a taste
00:45:45
of our culture we take them to see one
00:45:46
of the most popular cultural events on
00:45:48
the planet a World Cup soccer match we
00:45:50
of course don't know that they can't see
00:45:51
the black and white soccer ball so they
00:45:53
sit there watching the match with polite
00:45:54
but confused looks on their faces as far
00:45:56
as the twilowins are concerned a bunch
00:45:58
of short pants people are running up and
00:46:00
down the field kicking their legs
00:46:01
pointlessly in the air banging into each
00:46:03
other and falling down at times an
00:46:04
official blows a whistle a player runs
00:46:06
to the sideline stands there and extends
00:46:08
both of his arms over his head while the
00:46:10
other players watch him once in a great
00:46:11
while the goalie inexplicably falls to
00:46:14
the ground a great cheer goes up and one
00:46:16
point is awarded to the opposite team
00:46:17
the title would spend about 15 minutes
00:46:19
being totally mystified then to pass the
00:46:21
time they attempt to understand the game
00:46:22
they deduce partially because of the
00:46:24
clothing that they're are two teams in
00:46:25
conflict with one another they chart the
00:46:27
movements of the various players
00:46:28
discovering that each player appears to
00:46:30
remain more or less within a certain
00:46:31
geographical territory on the field they
00:46:33
discover that different players display
00:46:34
different physical emotions the
00:46:36
twilowans as humans would do clarify
00:46:38
their search for meaning in World Cup
00:46:39
soccer by giving names to the different
00:46:41
positions played by each footballer the
00:46:43
positions are categorized compared and
00:46:45
contrasted the qualities and limitations
00:46:46
of each position are listed on a giant
00:46:48
chart a major break comes with twilins
00:46:50
discovered that symmetry is at work for
00:46:52
each position on team a there's a
00:46:53
counterpart position on Team B with two
00:46:55
minutes remaining in the game the
00:46:56
Twilight ones have composed dozens of
00:46:58
charts hundreds of tables and formulas
00:47:00
and scores of complicated rules about
00:47:02
soccer matches and though the rules
00:47:03
might all be in a limited way correct
00:47:05
none would really capture the essence of
00:47:07
the game then one young pipsqueak of a
00:47:09
twilowin silent until now speaks his
00:47:11
mind let's postulate he Ventures
00:47:13
nervously the existence of an invisible
00:47:15
ball say what replied the Elder
00:47:17
twilowans while his Elders were
00:47:19
monitoring what appeared to be the core
00:47:20
of the game the comings and goings of
00:47:22
various players and the demarcations of
00:47:24
the field squeak was keeping his eyes
00:47:25
peeled for rare events and he found one
00:47:28
immediately before the referee announced
00:47:29
a score and a split second before the
00:47:31
crowd cheered wildly the young Twilight
00:47:33
noticed the momentary appearance of a
00:47:35
bulge in the back of the golnut soccer
00:47:37
is a low scoring game so there are a few
00:47:39
boulders to observe and each was very
00:47:41
short-lived even so there are enough
00:47:42
events for the pipsqueak to notice that
00:47:44
the shape of the Bulge was semi-spirical
00:47:45
hence his wild conclusion that the game
00:47:47
of soccer is dependent on the existence
00:47:49
of an invisible ball invisible at least
00:47:51
two of the Twilight ones the rest of the
00:47:53
contention from twilo listened to this
00:47:54
Theory and weak as the empirical
00:47:56
evidence is after much arguing they
00:47:58
conclude that the youngster has a point
00:47:59
the Elder Statesman in the group of
00:48:00
physicists it turns out observes that a
00:48:02
few rare events are sometimes more
00:48:04
Illuminating than a thousand mundane
00:48:06
events but the real Clincher is the
00:48:07
simple fact that there must be a ball
00:48:09
positive the existence of a ball which
00:48:10
for some reason the twiloons cannot see
00:48:12
and suddenly everything works the game
00:48:14
makes sense not only that but all the
00:48:16
theories charts and diagrams compiled
00:48:18
over the past afternoon remain valid the
00:48:20
ball simply gives meaning to the rules
00:48:22
this is an extended metaphor for many
00:48:24
puzzles and accents especially relevant
00:48:26
to particle physics we can't understand
00:48:27
the rules the laws of nature without
00:48:29
knowing the objects the ball and without
00:48:30
a belief in a logical set of laws we
00:48:32
would never deduce the existence of all
00:48:34
the particles okay so a lot of this
00:48:35
might sound similar to fireman's wagon
00:48:37
the meaning comes from showing what the
00:48:38
underlying thing is not just finding
00:48:40
laws to describe what's happening and
00:48:42
yeah it's a good analogy for that but it
00:48:43
does a lot more than that too I want to
00:48:45
talk about three crucial impacts of good
00:48:46
theories of this analogy showcases
00:48:48
really clearly the first is Simplicity
00:48:50
which I think is part of what this guy
00:48:52
is calling meaning if I'm explaining
00:48:53
falling objects and I tell you A rock
00:48:55
falls to the ground because the nature
00:48:57
of Rocky matter is to fall Rock
00:48:59
particles go down and this feather see
00:49:01
how it falls differently that's because
00:49:02
it's falling is caused by something
00:49:04
totally different than Rock particles a
00:49:05
substance we've termed feather particles
00:49:07
and these fall slower and this bird
00:49:10
doesn't fall because bird particles
00:49:11
glide on the air and then yeah balloon
00:49:13
particles whose nature is to rise upward
00:49:14
and yeah look Mom I'm doing science I'm
00:49:17
answering all the questions I'm
00:49:18
explaining the reality by theorizing
00:49:19
about the underlying substances behind
00:49:21
physical phenomena but no obviously
00:49:23
these are bad theories if I'm expanding
00:49:24
four distinct phenomena with four
00:49:26
distinct causes you might have
00:49:27
substantial they are that theory is
00:49:29
maintaining the same level of complexity
00:49:31
I started with which is a bad thing my
00:49:33
understanding has not Advanced because
00:49:35
all analysis aims to get to a simpler
00:49:37
not more simplistic but simpler more
00:49:39
foundational understanding of the
00:49:40
phenomena I think that's where meaning
00:49:42
comes in because when you find a single
00:49:44
idea that expresses itself in all these
00:49:46
seemingly different manifestations but
00:49:47
it's really all one cause you've found a
00:49:50
deeper level of reality which is really
00:49:52
the end goal of your investigation in
00:49:54
the example all the other twilins were
00:49:55
trying to answer all the questions about
00:49:56
what was happening and they did get
00:49:58
answers they had a whole system in
00:50:00
charge some formulas explaining all the
00:50:01
movements so well that may have been 100
00:50:03
accurately predictive so why wasn't that
00:50:05
good enough why didn't give the sense of
00:50:07
meaning because it wasn't simplifying
00:50:08
anything it didn't penetrate any deeper
00:50:10
more foundational level of what they
00:50:12
were trying to explain the mess of all
00:50:13
these formulas and positionings and
00:50:15
whatever it was all qualitatively as
00:50:16
complex as what they started with but
00:50:18
the soccer ball that is one thing that
00:50:20
explains all of it that's perfect that's
00:50:22
what you should be aiming for you won't
00:50:23
always get there so times you'll be
00:50:25
stuck at some level complexity but
00:50:26
invisible soccer ball level
00:50:27
simplification is exactly the type of
00:50:30
theory you should be aiming for I don't
00:50:31
want to call out other types of analyzes
00:50:33
I've seen on YouTube and so I'll use a
00:50:35
widespread problem but it definitely
00:50:37
seems like some YouTube analysis aims to
00:50:39
make a topic more complicated through
00:50:41
their analysis they're taking something
00:50:42
that may be simple and layering on extra
00:50:45
levels of complexity Often by tying it
00:50:47
to all these kind of unrelated topics or
00:50:49
tying it to these entire systems of
00:50:50
ideas and then using like a metric ton
00:50:52
of jargon to make all that sound
00:50:54
exponentially even more complicated
00:50:55
maybe there's a value that I'm missing
00:50:57
in this kind of analysis but I am
00:50:59
missing it entirely it is the opposite
00:51:01
of what I'm trying to do and I think
00:51:02
it's just bad analysis again I don't
00:51:04
think it's that common but I have seen
00:51:05
analysis content like this and it's just
00:51:07
mystifying to me but I can speculate on
00:51:09
the reason why people fall into this
00:51:10
trap that I think they're associating
00:51:11
gaining understanding with confusion
00:51:13
because sometimes the process is
00:51:15
difficult and you do get confused but
00:51:16
then they take that feeling and think
00:51:17
that's how learning must feel they play
00:51:19
it almost as an aesthetic to every step
00:51:21
of the process like you're supposed to
00:51:23
go through this frustrating scatterbrain
00:51:25
roller coaster ride of an intellectual
00:51:27
journey and that's how you earn your
00:51:28
understanding and then that
00:51:30
understanding itself that also has to be
00:51:32
confusing because otherwise it's not
00:51:33
learning learning has to feel confusing
00:51:35
and no it's the opposite the point is to
00:51:38
simplify and that doesn't mean dumb down
00:51:39
the idea so they're easier to understand
00:51:40
no it's gonna be a confusing process
00:51:42
sometimes but confusion is a bad thing
00:51:43
in presenting the idea we want as little
00:51:45
of it as possible obviously and the
00:51:47
final product may be hard to understand
00:51:48
but essentially it has to be the
00:51:51
simplest part of the entire thing that's
00:51:52
the whole point I just don't get what
00:51:53
you're doing otherwise okay second thing
00:51:55
the final Theory looks and feels
00:51:57
categorically different than the more
00:51:59
superficial explanations this talk about
00:52:00
Theory isn't made of the same conceptual
00:52:03
stuff as the explanations of the other
00:52:04
Twilight ones and this may seem
00:52:05
superficial actually it is superficial
00:52:08
but I think it's a Dependable
00:52:09
superficial sign that the theory is
00:52:10
pushing towards a deeper level of
00:52:11
understanding it's pushed into an
00:52:13
underlying reality that's new that you
00:52:14
didn't see before and at this new level
00:52:16
the entire phenomenon looks different
00:52:19
your understanding isn't just broadening
00:52:21
it's transforming I can't help but think
00:52:22
about the way that people describe high
00:52:24
level competition like it's a totally
00:52:26
different game if I'm a chess player
00:52:28
what I'm doing as a beginner is a
00:52:30
fundamentally different activity than
00:52:32
what like a 1000 rated player is doing
00:52:34
and then compare them to a master and
00:52:36
then compare a master to like Magnus
00:52:37
Carlson the deeper your understanding
00:52:39
gets the more radically different the
00:52:41
phenomenon is in your mind it's one of
00:52:43
those videos on YouTube that so and so
00:52:44
explains X and five levels are so
00:52:46
interesting no matter what the subject
00:52:47
because what's being said and explaining
00:52:48
the phenomenon to a child is completely
00:52:50
different than what's being said to the
00:52:51
teenager which is completely different
00:52:52
from two experts talking about it and
00:52:54
it's not just difference in degree it's
00:52:56
transformatively different levels of
00:52:57
understanding of things so I think
00:52:59
that's important to keep in mind when
00:53:00
you're searching for a good theory and
00:53:01
I'll just reiterate as a disclaimer I
00:53:03
don't think this is a necessary quality
00:53:04
of a good theory but is present in good
00:53:06
theories often enough that I think it's
00:53:07
a good thing to look out for third thing
00:53:09
and this is both very important and I
00:53:10
think very hard to understand I still
00:53:12
don't understand this but I know it's
00:53:13
important if I summarize what happened
00:53:14
in this story as the other twilowans
00:53:17
tried to explain the soccer game without
00:53:19
being able to see the ball they studied
00:53:20
the data came up with complex theories
00:53:22
and then the young pipsqueak who studied
00:53:23
the same data came up with his simple
00:53:25
elegant unified theory if that's my
00:53:27
summary I'm leaving out possibly the
00:53:28
most important step the Twilight study
00:53:30
the data came up with their complex
00:53:31
theories but this week also study the
00:53:33
data also came up with a theory but not
00:53:34
using the same data not basing his
00:53:37
simpler theory on that same data no he
00:53:39
did not come forth with his theory until
00:53:40
one crucial new piece of data came to
00:53:42
light he saw that semispherical bulge in
00:53:45
the net that appeared in the moments
00:53:46
before the cheering only then did he
00:53:48
feel like he had enough data to base his
00:53:49
therion meaning even though his theory
00:53:51
would have still been just as much of a
00:53:53
simplifying force that cut through all
00:53:55
the complexity with a single elegant
00:53:57
cause he was still looking for evidence
00:53:59
that unmistakably pointed in specific to
00:54:02
his exact Theory and no other Theory
00:54:04
without that he still considered his
00:54:06
theory to be too speculative and this
00:54:07
aspect also like the last thing I don't
00:54:09
know how necessary this is you can
00:54:11
absolutely have good theories without
00:54:12
this kind of evidence but great theories
00:54:14
often will have it and something you
00:54:16
should absolutely be looking for I
00:54:17
personally am not capable of producing
00:54:19
theories like this most of the time but
00:54:21
let me show you an example where I did
00:54:22
accomplish this it was in the middle
00:54:23
video was this character with all these
00:54:25
different parts that seemed really
00:54:27
separate he got her relation to the city
00:54:28
and her relationship to her mother fine
00:54:30
not too hard to see some connection
00:54:31
there but in terms of what's extra you
00:54:33
had all the stuff about her brother that
00:54:34
seemed like a total non-sequitur totally
00:54:36
unrelated to the rest of her plot
00:54:37
involvement and then he had this random
00:54:38
thing at the end her using her magic
00:54:40
saving everyone what did that have to do
00:54:42
with the character and the painting was
00:54:43
this just a random hobby what was the
00:54:45
point of this then he had a relationship
00:54:46
to Jace what was that all about and then
00:54:48
her actual Arc about hex second
00:54:49
technology and politics lots and lots
00:54:51
and lots of parts so I did come up with
00:54:52
a theory that simplified all this and
00:54:54
that was fine but the part of my theory
00:54:56
that involved the painting led me to
00:54:57
this red gold symbolism when she was
00:54:59
being a Madara like her mom it was
00:55:01
always red and then in the end she
00:55:02
paints over her painting in gold and
00:55:04
then I noticed her back thing is also
00:55:07
gold huh interesting and that led to
00:55:10
some huge developments in the theory
00:55:12
that were really really speculative
00:55:13
reading Big Ideas into color symbolism
00:55:16
that's always gonna be kind of shaky
00:55:17
ground I needed my semi-spirical bulge
00:55:19
moment and then I found it there's this
00:55:22
little Split Second of a scene a half of
00:55:25
the line of dialogue totally out of
00:55:27
nowhere totally extra in this context
00:55:28
not drawing any attention to itself
00:55:30
almost a non-sequitur we'll paint the
00:55:33
walls in gold but at the same time
00:55:35
confirming everything about my color
00:55:37
theory pointing directly to my exact
00:55:39
idea in a way which was so specific that
00:55:41
it was a total shock to me and yeah not
00:55:43
quite as specific as the soccer ball so
00:55:44
pretty specific though the photos I
00:55:46
talked about in the let me in video was
00:55:47
also this although with that analysis I
00:55:49
noticed it early on and it led to the
00:55:51
theory instead of confirming it but
00:55:52
similar function as far as providing
00:55:53
super specific evidence okay so this is
00:55:55
obviously a very small list of qualities
00:55:57
a good theory should have but these are
00:55:58
the three that consciously guide me the
00:55:59
most Simplicity transformativeness
00:56:02
meaning it's made of different stuff
00:56:03
than the more basic theory is and
00:56:05
extremely particularized evidence moving
00:56:07
on okay so we are in the middle of our
00:56:10
analysis process what I want to talk
00:56:12
about now is some general analysis do's
00:56:15
and don'ts let's start with the don'ts
00:56:17
number one don't be afraid of over
00:56:19
analysis yes yes here it is let's talk
00:56:22
about it this is a criticism I get at
00:56:24
some level almost every video and I
00:56:25
would say about 80 of the time it's from
00:56:28
people who just aren't interested in
00:56:29
learning anything about whatever subject
00:56:31
I'm talking about and I'm saying this
00:56:32
without judgment it's not a condemnation
00:56:34
but something about the Simplicity of
00:56:36
the thing without the questions I ask
00:56:37
that appeals to them and the active
00:56:39
analysis ruins that Purity they'd rather
00:56:41
have the good feeling of that Purity
00:56:42
than the good feeling of a deeper
00:56:44
understanding and that makes them deny
00:56:45
that any deeper understanding exists
00:56:47
that's what I think is going on most of
00:56:48
the time I see the word over analysis
00:56:50
that really almost any analysis is going
00:56:52
to be over analysis this thing is simple
00:56:53
I like it simple I don't want anything
00:56:55
more and I'm going to deny it if you
00:56:56
think that there's anything more there
00:56:57
and I as you can imagine really don't
00:56:59
like that I'm fine if you want to do
00:57:00
that you do you I really really don't
00:57:02
like that 10 of the time it's a
00:57:04
legitimately great question it's saying
00:57:05
what you're analyzing and how you're
00:57:07
looking at it the questions you're
00:57:08
asking those are good questions but
00:57:10
isn't the answer just this simpler thing
00:57:12
that's great I love seeing that comment
00:57:14
that's something that starts a great
00:57:15
discussion if you're not asking that way
00:57:17
you don't want to start a discussion and
00:57:18
you're just using it to criticize if
00:57:19
you're using it to stop further
00:57:21
discussion then we have a problem but it
00:57:22
has a legitimate critique I am all for
00:57:24
this line of questioning and I
00:57:25
frequently engage in myself like I said
00:57:26
before complexity is a bad thing so
00:57:28
overanalysis meaning that the analysis
00:57:30
is producing something that is more
00:57:32
complex than I think it should be
00:57:33
because of this other thing that's
00:57:35
exactly the kind of question you need to
00:57:36
be asking this last category is the
00:57:38
critique of your treating things as
00:57:40
intentional that I don't think are
00:57:41
intentional did the writers really
00:57:43
intend this little thing you're basing
00:57:44
your whole theory on it's too small of a
00:57:46
detail it can't have been intentional so
00:57:48
it should come as no surprise to you if
00:57:50
you've seen my content that way I think
00:57:51
that this is an excellent criticism in
00:57:53
terms of the discussion it prompts my
00:57:55
actual position on this practically is
00:57:56
to treat everything as intentional even
00:57:58
though I know that it's not intentional
00:58:00
you can probably tell that I do this
00:58:02
consciously even Alex ye and the AMA
00:58:04
sounded like he understood that I do
00:58:05
this and he understood why I do it also
00:58:07
it has to do with understanding what
00:58:09
you're analyzing and why you're
00:58:10
analyzing it first of all let's say I'm
00:58:12
an engineer and I'm trying to analyze
00:58:13
the structure of a particular bridge in
00:58:15
this analysis I am not going to bring in
00:58:17
color symbolism for two reasons number
00:58:19
one because that is not the language of
00:58:21
Structural Engineering color doesn't
00:58:23
play a part in What Bridges do in a
00:58:25
structural sense number two engineering
00:58:26
a bridge is I think I'm not an engineer
00:58:28
but I assume engineering a bridge is
00:58:30
completely conscious and intention
00:58:31
driven as a process every aspect down to
00:58:33
the details must be consciously designed
00:58:36
and calculated now with storytelling
00:58:38
number one color symbolism is in the
00:58:40
language of Storytelling so best case
00:58:41
scenario I'm understanding the conscious
00:58:43
intention of the author but worse comes
00:58:44
to worse I'm understanding how to use a
00:58:46
storytelling thing better in conducting
00:58:48
this analysis and investigating this
00:58:50
particular aspect even if it's not the
00:58:51
author's intention I have found an
00:58:53
effective way to use color and I can
00:58:55
take that and I can abstract it come up
00:58:57
with principles come up with ideas maybe
00:58:58
use it in my own writing and I never
00:59:00
would have advanced my understanding of
00:59:01
how to use symbolism in that way if I
00:59:03
had been concerned about overthinking
00:59:05
over analyzing if I'd been concerned
00:59:07
about authorial intent that is not the
00:59:09
point of my analysis the point is to
00:59:10
learn something the point is to advance
00:59:11
my understanding of The Craft of writing
00:59:13
and number two storytelling is
00:59:15
absolutely not completely conscious and
00:59:17
intention driven as a process artists
00:59:19
will very often do things for reasons
00:59:21
they cannot articulate they'll be moved
00:59:22
by their subconscious creative Instincts
00:59:24
by some inner voice that tells them this
00:59:26
is how it has to be it will be better
00:59:28
this way maybe gold was intentional for
00:59:30
the reason I said or maybe it just felt
00:59:32
powerful in the scene it felt right and
00:59:33
me as a writer I'm not going to think it
00:59:35
did any more than that I don't need to I
00:59:37
don't want to it just has to be gold
00:59:38
here end of story or alternatively maybe
00:59:40
there was Zero intention behind it at
00:59:42
all maybe gold was completely arbitrary
00:59:44
but then still it had this powerful
00:59:46
emotional impact oh man when I saw that
00:59:48
gold I really felt something and that's
00:59:50
something we absolutely need to explain
00:59:52
no matter what the intention was if I
00:59:54
make a cookie and I have no idea what
00:59:56
I'm doing but then it tastes amazing I
00:59:58
can analyze that product no matter the
01:00:00
intention or lack thereof and often it's
01:00:02
because it completed some circuit in our
01:00:04
brain subconsciously it aided some Arc
01:00:06
it expressed some emotion it meant
01:00:08
something and that can happen with or
01:00:09
without intention intention does not
01:00:11
matter the cookie still tastes great
01:00:13
even if I know nothing about food
01:00:14
chemistry so that's my role when I'm
01:00:16
analyzing I'm not trying to analyze the
01:00:17
intentions of the creators I am the food
01:00:19
chemist analyzing why all the various
01:00:20
cookies taste so delicious food chemists
01:00:22
do not care about intentions unless
01:00:24
practically it aids their investigation
01:00:25
of what's in front of them an example I
01:00:27
can't help but think of is Daniel Day
01:00:28
Lewis who is undoubtedly a master of his
01:00:30
art and have seen him interviewed
01:00:31
sometimes about the subtleties of his
01:00:33
performance and at times he'll sound
01:00:34
almost clueless as though he hasn't
01:00:36
thought through any of it because it's
01:00:37
created process at times is that
01:00:39
subconscious tell me what you wanted
01:00:41
this character what did you wanna
01:00:43
from within you what you wanted to show
01:00:45
about Bill
01:00:48
you know what I really I really wouldn't
01:00:50
know how to answer that there was there
01:00:52
was no conscious intention I don't think
01:00:54
certainly like
01:00:56
I remember
01:00:59
feeling as I approached him a great
01:01:01
sense of
01:01:04
it was something I found I don't know
01:01:07
I'm kind of Reinventing the truth
01:01:08
because I honestly can't remember
01:01:10
those because you're making so many
01:01:12
decisions every day but most of them if
01:01:15
things are going well in Martin's case
01:01:17
that for the most part conscious
01:01:18
decisions and if things are going well
01:01:20
for me for the most part they're they're
01:01:22
they've completed some other level so so
01:01:25
you have no sense of control for the
01:01:27
most part of those decisions that are
01:01:30
being made nonetheless and just because
01:01:31
there's no specific intention behind the
01:01:33
nuances doesn't mean that other actors
01:01:34
can't learn from those nuances of course
01:01:36
not that is nonsensical obviously there
01:01:38
are tons of these subconsciously
01:01:39
generated aspects of Lewis's performance
01:01:40
that make it effective in all these
01:01:42
complex ways and by setting those
01:01:44
aspects as if they were intentional we
01:01:46
can apply those ideas intentionally even
01:01:48
if he doesn't and it will make our art
01:01:50
more effective as well next don't this
01:01:52
is a two-parter first part is
01:01:53
straightforward based on what we talked
01:01:55
about don't worry about contradicting
01:01:56
your own past theories remember these
01:01:58
are models to help you explore the
01:01:59
phenomenon and you don't want to set up
01:02:00
Roblox instead of any potential roads
01:02:02
that may lead you to where you want to
01:02:03
go which is as I keep saying advancing
01:02:05
your understanding the most harmful form
01:02:06
that mistakes in terms of that goal is
01:02:08
when I see usually in my comment section
01:02:10
someone rejecting a new idea because
01:02:12
they're afraid they have to give up
01:02:13
their old idea which is an idea that
01:02:15
they really like both ideas even if
01:02:17
they're contradictory are quote unquote
01:02:19
words of the Living God as we talked
01:02:20
about earlier both of them can be good
01:02:21
models one of them doesn't need to win
01:02:23
so that's the conceptual stubbornness I
01:02:25
see at play here there's an emotional
01:02:27
component to the stubbornness as well
01:02:28
which has its own accompanying don't let
01:02:30
me play some audio from one of my other
01:02:32
teachers this is actually that other
01:02:33
mathematician I mentioned in the beauty
01:02:34
video the one who led me to that Stephen
01:02:36
Weinberg quote there's a certain
01:02:37
Conquest involved in learning it's like
01:02:39
they're problems and the problems are
01:02:41
coming at you and yes they're they're
01:02:43
bothers on the problem
01:02:45
you're there's some frustration you want
01:02:47
to work it out and you finally you get
01:02:49
the idea and there's a certain personal
01:02:51
involvement in the thing because
01:02:53
certainly I got I worked it out there's
01:02:55
a certain can't help but feeling happy
01:02:56
or proud proud it's a better word you
01:02:58
know you work out an idea there's a
01:03:00
certain type of uh Caterers the whole
01:03:02
experience caters to uh to certain
01:03:06
certain uh certain emotions it's too
01:03:08
mixed in with your own uh the self and
01:03:11
the appreciation is partially
01:03:13
appreciation of your own intelligence so
01:03:15
your own ability to work it out don't
01:03:17
let your judgment of an idea be clouded
01:03:19
by the excitement or Pride or ego
01:03:21
pleasure in discovering it this I see so
01:03:23
often in myself but also my comment
01:03:25
section especially aggressive comments
01:03:27
people often have this unhealthy
01:03:28
attachment to the first answer they
01:03:30
encounter to some question it's almost a
01:03:31
front to this idea that's my idea even
01:03:34
because I came up with it are you saying
01:03:35
my idea I came up with is bad it's
01:03:37
flawed there's something wrong with it
01:03:38
there's something wrong with me then my
01:03:40
hard work was for nothing because
01:03:41
there's this better idea out there or
01:03:42
even if I didn't come up with it even if
01:03:44
it was someone else's idea I worked hard
01:03:46
to understand this and I had this
01:03:48
difficult painful ignorance that this
01:03:49
saved me from either way this has become
01:03:51
an idea that means a lot to me and
01:03:53
that's good it's good for ideas to mean
01:03:55
something to you but there are hundreds
01:03:57
of ways to answer any given question
01:03:58
thousands and thousands of ways and you
01:04:01
need to make room for those ideas too
01:04:02
regardless of whether or not you already
01:04:04
have a favorite idea and especially that
01:04:06
favoritism isn't connected to the
01:04:07
substance of the idea but just to your
01:04:09
own ego investment in coming to it okay
01:04:11
next another two-parter don't agree with
01:04:14
anything you hear and don't disagree
01:04:17
with anything you hear this is not like
01:04:19
actual advice this is a thought exercise
01:04:20
but it's also good for me you're
01:04:21
thinking more nuanced as well anytime
01:04:23
you hear something even if it's pretty
01:04:24
close to what you yourself would say
01:04:26
find some part of it you disagree with
01:04:28
and Define why you would disagree with
01:04:29
that one part and then anytime you hear
01:04:31
something that you absolutely do
01:04:32
disagree with try to figure out where
01:04:34
common ground is and then Define the
01:04:36
exact point where you diverge and it may
01:04:38
be pretty far back conceptually but
01:04:39
it'll help you come to more nuanced
01:04:40
understanding of what this person is
01:04:42
saying it'll help you define any
01:04:43
marriage about the position that you
01:04:44
missed because of what was the loudest
01:04:46
part the party you disagree with and I
01:04:47
hope you understand your own position a
01:04:48
lot better too next on a similar note
01:04:50
this will lead us into our analysis Do's
01:04:52
another two-parter here don't let your
01:04:54
ego get in the way of understanding
01:04:56
descending opinions if someone says
01:04:58
something in a hurtful way that's not an
01:05:00
excuse for you not to think about what
01:05:01
they said it's something that changes
01:05:02
the way that you see a lot of these
01:05:04
comments is What's Happening Here is
01:05:05
that people get excited about ideas they
01:05:06
get passionate they get frustrated they
01:05:08
get confused and that's painful and
01:05:09
that's usually what's behind the
01:05:10
aggression you're seeing and it's not
01:05:12
you it's how they feel about the idea so
01:05:14
don't take aggression personally and yes
01:05:16
do make an effort to understand just
01:05:17
sending opinions try to figure out where
01:05:19
the person is coming from this is a
01:05:20
super valuable opportunity you have a
01:05:22
person who's letting you know that they
01:05:24
see things very differently from you
01:05:25
this is someone who you can almost
01:05:26
definitely learn something from and
01:05:28
while the aggression and frustration can
01:05:30
absolutely obscure the valuable
01:05:32
perspective they're trying to share just
01:05:33
as often as it obscures it the way they
01:05:36
express themselves is just as often
01:05:37
Clues to understanding them you can
01:05:39
watch my Lord of the Rings versus Arcane
01:05:40
video to see the set of do's and don'ts
01:05:42
in action and yes granted sometimes
01:05:43
there is absolutely nothing to learn
01:05:45
from these people sometimes they're just
01:05:46
being aggressive with no substance but
01:05:48
at least stop and think at least take
01:05:49
some time to figure out if there is
01:05:51
anything there okay next do tackle
01:05:54
really really hard questions questions
01:05:55
that may feel impossible to answer if
01:05:58
you're stuck in analyzing a tragedy in
01:06:00
at its most basic level you realize that
01:06:01
you just don't understand what makes
01:06:02
tragedy compelling and you're looking at
01:06:04
that question and that seems like a
01:06:06
gigantic question it's Monumental how
01:06:08
are you ever supposed to answer that
01:06:09
that is good go for it go try your best
01:06:12
to figure that out think about it see
01:06:13
what you can come up with discuss it see
01:06:15
what other people are saying try to
01:06:16
learn more about it however you need to
01:06:17
do it get yourself to that level of
01:06:18
understanding that you need to be at to
01:06:20
continue your analysis and Advance your
01:06:21
understanding remember that is your goal
01:06:23
you don't need to solve tragedy you
01:06:24
don't need the answers you're looking
01:06:26
for a better model of understanding so
01:06:28
try to define the undefinable try to
01:06:30
push for new theories about what makes
01:06:31
characters good what makes writing good
01:06:33
What conflict is what beauty is if you
01:06:35
try if you make the effort you will find
01:06:36
better models not the truth but better
01:06:38
models and then down the road you'll
01:06:40
encounter questions on those and you'll
01:06:41
reinvent your understanding again and
01:06:43
come up with something even better the
01:06:44
school of advancing or understanding
01:06:45
this is a long-term goal you're not
01:06:47
trying to answer this question because
01:06:48
you care so much about just this
01:06:50
question you're in a lifelong pursuit of
01:06:52
Greater understanding and this
01:06:53
particular experience is just another
01:06:54
step up that mountain next do separate
01:06:57
points probably the most mundane
01:06:59
sounding bit of a device in this entire
01:07:00
video but so important t-shirt number
01:07:02
two was the one who nailed this into my
01:07:04
brain some background most famous
01:07:05
commentary in Tommy to study is this
01:07:07
little guy over here called Rashi he
01:07:09
gives all the background you need to
01:07:10
know to read the main body of the Tech
01:07:11
switches here and the crazy thing is
01:07:13
that this guy is super concise it is
01:07:17
absolutely insane how concise this guy
01:07:19
is and for three years straight in
01:07:20
teacher two's class basically every day
01:07:22
it was how many points is Rashi making
01:07:25
this guy would say like 10 words and
01:07:27
sometimes he'd be making three entirely
01:07:28
separate points in 10 words because he
01:07:30
is that concise and teacher too would
01:07:32
Grill us on separating these points
01:07:34
precisely because if you cannot identify
01:07:36
how many different things you're trying
01:07:38
to think about you will probably
01:07:39
misunderstand them you will confuse one
01:07:42
point to another you will miss Nuance
01:07:43
you will miss questions you'll miss
01:07:45
tools that will lead you to answers let
01:07:46
me give you an example of this in our
01:07:48
subject matter I thought you could love
01:07:49
me like you used to but you changed to
01:07:51
Four Points one I thought you could love
01:07:53
me two like you used to three but you
01:07:57
changed four two meaning one she thought
01:08:00
vika love her that's something that's
01:08:01
orange one we can talk about we can talk
01:08:03
about the why we can talk about the how
01:08:04
two she thought Vai used to love her in
01:08:07
a specific way what way how why three
01:08:10
she thinks if I change what was it
01:08:11
change how did you change why did you
01:08:13
change and four she thinks she herself
01:08:15
also change again same questions
01:08:16
separating aspects and characteristics
01:08:18
it's the same principle Legolas is a
01:08:20
cool character how so he does cool
01:08:22
things he looks cool let's separate all
01:08:23
the different aspects of this what
01:08:24
comprises his coolness well he's super
01:08:26
handsome he's super capable he is quiet
01:08:28
and aloof he is graceful he does other
01:08:31
things characters can do and often be
01:08:32
seen no explanation for that and he
01:08:34
doesn't even seem to care about being
01:08:35
cool in all these different ways I can
01:08:37
go on and on but this tool is saying
01:08:38
things we have a general idea of that
01:08:39
may be a simple thing and doing our best
01:08:41
to break it down to its most basic
01:08:43
components it's particles it's atoms
01:08:45
extremely useful in preparing to analyze
01:08:47
and discovering Nuance in your data and
01:08:49
in ideas you're working to develop and
01:08:50
communicating those ideas in the
01:08:52
clearest form people often compliment me
01:08:53
in my clarity of presentation imagine an
01:08:55
hour and 10 minutes a day three years
01:08:57
straight with the clearest Communicator
01:08:59
of anyone you've ever met demanding that
01:09:01
you separate points and everything you
01:09:02
read you can thank teacher 2 for any
01:09:04
Clarity that happened to rub off on me
01:09:06
next do name ideas moving right along
01:09:09
this is a teacher three habit this one
01:09:10
I'm sure you've noticed do all over my
01:09:12
videos and it may strike you as strange
01:09:14
considering I had a whole section in
01:09:15
this video about how names aren't ideas
01:09:17
inertia and all that and yes that is
01:09:19
true but once you do have ideas name
01:09:22
them instead of just leaving ideas as an
01:09:24
abstract definition a complicated jumble
01:09:25
of thoughts in your brain shortcut all
01:09:27
that by giving it a name so that you can
01:09:30
refer to it easily so that it becomes a
01:09:32
distinct entity in your mind and yeah
01:09:34
personally I really really don't like
01:09:35
academic jargon mostly because of how
01:09:37
people use it as a site of hand to make
01:09:39
ideas sound fancier and more complicated
01:09:40
or as a substitute for ideas like I
01:09:42
mentioned earlier so don't take your own
01:09:44
jargon and do that with it that is bad
01:09:45
but do make your own lexicon of your own
01:09:48
ideas only use in ways that makes things
01:09:50
simpler for you and more palatable for
01:09:51
you and this also helps you to more
01:09:52
efficiently start building a bunch of
01:09:54
separate ideas into a whole system of
01:09:56
ideas a system of how you personally
01:09:57
think and that's something which is very
01:09:58
useful to have next do compare
01:10:01
everything to everything else when you
01:10:03
find a new character you like compare
01:10:04
that to other favorite characters of
01:10:06
yours see if you can find a pattern
01:10:07
compare that character to a version of
01:10:08
the archetype you don't like see if you
01:10:10
can figure out why and do more
01:10:11
comparisons if they're a hero compare
01:10:13
them to a villain if they're a side
01:10:14
character compare them to a main
01:10:15
character compare plots you like plots
01:10:16
you hate questions as I keep saying are
01:10:18
your only tool for understanding
01:10:19
anything and compare contrasting is like
01:10:20
the 7-Eleven of questions it is the most
01:10:22
easily accessible source of good
01:10:24
fruitful questions that you can always
01:10:25
turn to 24 7 at any moment of the day
01:10:27
okay next do advice is from this guy
01:10:30
sarigo and a famous scholar who lived in
01:10:31
the 900s do be 100 confident in your own
01:10:35
ideas a hundred percent of the time
01:10:37
until you are proven wrong and then be
01:10:39
100 willing to retract everything and
01:10:41
100 willing to admit you were wrong the
01:10:44
smarter you get hopefully if you're on
01:10:45
the right track the more humble you will
01:10:47
also get you'll start seeing that
01:10:48
there's a lot of smart people out there
01:10:49
and Meanwhile your ideas are kind of
01:10:51
Dopey at times you can be pretty sloppy
01:10:53
you can be pretty incoherent there's so
01:10:55
much you don't understand there's a
01:10:57
natural imposter syndrome feeling you
01:10:58
get but you cannot let that feeling
01:11:00
impact your actual analysis humility is
01:11:02
important but finding new ideas is far
01:11:05
more important you cannot let a single
01:11:07
great idea slip through your finger
01:11:08
simply because you were too timid to
01:11:09
explore some notion you have some
01:11:11
direction or some question if you're
01:11:13
stuck saying oh I had this idea but it's
01:11:15
probably nothing I thought of this
01:11:16
question but it's probably a bad
01:11:18
question I had the steering kind of
01:11:19
shaky about it no one is really saying
01:11:21
anything like it no suck it up and
01:11:23
plunge full steam ahead like you are the
01:11:25
smartest person in the world and all
01:11:26
your little Notions are going to lead to
01:11:27
Big Ideas and everything you have is
01:11:29
worth developing because it's going to
01:11:30
be so cool and then once you're finished
01:11:32
with your analysis if someone has a good
01:11:33
criticism of it if you're wrong or if it
01:11:35
just ends up being not great and full of
01:11:37
holes and lackluster then be humble tail
01:11:39
between your legs you know the routine
01:11:41
and retract and try again I'm not
01:11:43
suggesting that you actually be arrogant
01:11:45
just use confidence as a tool to get
01:11:47
better ideas and also use humility as a
01:11:49
tool to get better ideas being able to
01:11:51
confidently March forward and being able
01:11:53
to admit you're wrong are both useful in
01:11:55
different situations just because
01:11:56
they're opposites doesn't mean that you
01:11:57
can't use both when necessary to get
01:11:59
better ideas just don't let either
01:12:00
disposition be an impediment to you and
01:12:02
let me add to this do be the first one
01:12:04
to question your own ideas it is totally
01:12:06
fine totally reasonable and productive
01:12:08
to be like here's my idea and here's my
01:12:11
question on it here's my idea and this
01:12:12
is what I like about it and this is what
01:12:14
I don't like about it it's productive in
01:12:15
your own head when you're working on the
01:12:16
idea by yourself but especially if
01:12:18
you're discussing it or presenting it
01:12:20
criticize your own ideas ask questions
01:12:21
on them why because I'm gonna say it
01:12:23
again questions are your only tools to
01:12:25
understand anything if there's more
01:12:27
understanding to be had from your answer
01:12:29
it will happen through asking questions
01:12:31
on it next do obsess over formulation if
01:12:34
you can't talk about it clearly you are
01:12:36
not thinking about it clearly find the
01:12:38
absolute best ways to express your ideas
01:12:40
that is the sign that you're coming to a
01:12:43
clearer understanding of those ideas if
01:12:44
you're having trouble expressing
01:12:46
yourself that's good that's part of the
01:12:47
process that is your clue to do more
01:12:49
thinking to understand more last do
01:12:51
different from the rest do think
01:12:54
silently for long extended periods of
01:12:56
time this is something which is a
01:12:58
totally normal thing in the environment
01:12:59
I come from you can walk into the study
01:13:00
room and my old Tommy look Academy and
01:13:02
it will not be uncommon to see people
01:13:04
sitting at tables no books or notes or
01:13:06
anything in front of them and they're
01:13:07
just staring and thinking for like an
01:13:10
hour sometimes more staring at the
01:13:12
ceiling sometimes they're sitting and
01:13:14
just spinning a pen or muttering to
01:13:16
themselves or pacing back and forth
01:13:18
you'll see two people sitting across
01:13:19
from each other two study partners
01:13:21
apparently studying together working on
01:13:23
the same problem and they're not talking
01:13:25
at all just thinking for like an hour
01:13:27
but I understand in the outside world
01:13:29
it's not a normal thing it's not really
01:13:30
socially acceptable but it should be and
01:13:32
I heavily recommend it to you spend long
01:13:34
periods of time just thinking not on
01:13:37
your phone not reading not typing notes
01:13:39
not discussing things with your friend
01:13:41
just thinking and that's it and it
01:13:43
doesn't need to be like a sensory
01:13:44
deprivation thing or anything crazy like
01:13:46
that pace around talk out your thoughts
01:13:47
to yourself or write them out whatever
01:13:49
helps but just think take time to think
01:13:52
and that's it it is invaluable to get
01:13:55
into the habit of just doing that okay
01:13:57
final section of the video we've gone
01:13:59
through all these techniques you can use
01:14:00
but there's obviously way mortar than
01:14:02
that I'm just scratching the surface
01:14:03
here I'm doing my best and again I'm
01:14:04
just a random guy on YouTube I'm a
01:14:06
nobody this is very much like writing
01:14:08
advice you can go to your favorite
01:14:09
author in the world have them tell you
01:14:10
all about their processes you can listen
01:14:12
to all the Brandon Sanderson lectures on
01:14:14
YouTube and you still won't be able to
01:14:15
write books like Brandon Sanderson so
01:14:16
the real question is what's the best way
01:14:18
to improve on your own how do you get
01:14:20
better at analysis on your own and I'm
01:14:22
saying beside practice obviously just
01:14:23
like writing the best ways to practice
01:14:25
get in the hours getting the feedback 40
01:14:27
hours blah blah blah but is there more
01:14:29
you can do yes there is more I'm calling
01:14:31
this the Sammy method even though he and
01:14:33
I came up with it together to compare
01:14:34
the star king Sammy is my Victor comedic
01:14:36
Academia functions and pairs you have a
01:14:38
study partner you have more than one and
01:14:39
it can be different study partners for
01:14:40
different subjects and at different
01:14:41
times throughout the scholarly part of
01:14:43
your life but most often people will end
01:14:45
up finding like their OTP study buddy
01:14:46
who you just work so well with and for
01:14:49
me it's this guy Sammy we've studied
01:14:50
talmud together for like 14 years and we
01:14:52
still studied together like four times a
01:14:53
week he's not into analyzing stories
01:14:55
like I am he's not a content creator or
01:14:57
anything like that he's a dentist but
01:14:58
anyway so we were in teacher Forest
01:14:59
class for three and a half years and the
01:15:01
way teacher 4 ran his class would be to
01:15:03
prepare all the data beforehand but not
01:15:05
theorize until class time and then we
01:15:08
his students we'd get to see him come
01:15:10
with this theories on this spot he would
01:15:12
talk through his entire process he'd ask
01:15:14
questions he'd talk it through with us
01:15:15
he would hear our theories he would talk
01:15:17
about what he liked what he didn't like
01:15:18
about them we would watch him move on
01:15:20
his own around different parts of the
01:15:21
data set and he'd propose rough ideas
01:15:23
and we'd see him tweak them expand them
01:15:25
question them perfect them until they
01:15:27
became the brilliant beautiful theories
01:15:29
that we were there to hear it was a
01:15:31
great way to teach and the way Sammy and
01:15:33
I took advantage of that class structure
01:15:34
was to review his class like almost by
01:15:36
the minute we were breaking up into the
01:15:38
tiniest steps we could lay it all out
01:15:40
and our goal was to find three things
01:15:42
how exactly precisely does each step
01:15:45
lead to the next what would we have
01:15:47
thought to do at that stage or what did
01:15:48
we do when we were that stage and why
01:15:50
did he do what he did instead if he
01:15:52
fixated on a random data point we didn't
01:15:54
see as very important what did he see in
01:15:56
that and what were we missing and why
01:15:58
did we miss it if he has a question that
01:16:00
was different from what we asked a
01:16:01
different question entirely like a
01:16:03
question we missed or just a different
01:16:04
formulation of a question we have again
01:16:06
why did he do it his way what was our
01:16:08
Instinct why did his way lead to more
01:16:10
and Arsley to dead end what was his
01:16:12
first step in answering the question why
01:16:14
did he see that as the first step did we
01:16:16
see it also as the first step why not
01:16:18
and then how did it lead to the next
01:16:19
step would we have gotten to the next
01:16:20
step why not why was he able to get
01:16:22
there what did he seen it what didn't we
01:16:23
see why not Etc obviously there are a
01:16:25
lot of creative leaps in theorizing you
01:16:27
cannot connect each step precisely which
01:16:29
is what we were trying to do you cannot
01:16:30
do that but our goal was to get as close
01:16:32
as we possibly could get and yes this
01:16:34
was as obsessive as it sounds we knew
01:16:36
that it was over analyzing we knew that
01:16:37
too we were very realistic about what we
01:16:39
were doing here a lot of it led nowhere
01:16:41
and we expected that going in but that
01:16:43
said it was Far and Away the best tool
01:16:45
we had and it was incredibly effective
01:16:47
for us we did for about two years two
01:16:48
and a half years in teacher divorce
01:16:49
class his style was perfect for it as I
01:16:51
described and his ideas had the right
01:16:53
kind of Brilliance I would say for that
01:16:55
type of process and doesn't work for
01:16:56
every type of idea after this we moved
01:16:58
on to teacher 5's class and we couldn't
01:16:59
do this because his ideas were just a
01:17:01
level Beyond and that was that you just
01:17:03
can't always do this method but yeah
01:17:04
that's what we did analyze analysis kind
01:17:07
of obvious when you say it out loud I
01:17:08
definitely recommend trying this where
01:17:10
you're able to do it to whatever degree
01:17:12
you're able to find ideas you like see
01:17:14
how the people got there try to define
01:17:15
the steps and try to figure out what you
01:17:17
did differently at each step it is often
01:17:19
incredibly speculative you often don't
01:17:21
get answers but in the long term very
01:17:24
very fruitful process okay that is it
01:17:26
did you find this video helpful let me
01:17:27
know I can definitely relate to wanting
01:17:29
methodology content my friends and I
01:17:30
used to beg our teachers to do
01:17:32
methodology lectures or discussions or
01:17:34
to just give us advice about it and part
01:17:35
of the reason why people don't talk
01:17:36
about it is because it's very difficult
01:17:38
to talk about it is hard to isolate
01:17:40
patterns of your own thought when
01:17:41
thinking itself isn't something you
01:17:42
focus on when thinking it is incredibly
01:17:45
difficult and I think it falls into the
01:17:46
Trap I mentioned in one part of the
01:17:47
video but certain topics people want to
01:17:49
be mysterious they don't believe you
01:17:50
should think about them that you should
01:17:51
try to understand them like when I made
01:17:53
that beautiful video anytime you try to
01:17:54
analyze Beauty you always get people
01:17:55
saying no Beauty cannot be defined by
01:17:57
definition everyone is tried and failed
01:17:59
you can't do it and they might be saying
01:18:00
that because beauty is this difficult
01:18:02
Topic in terms of the variety of how it
01:18:04
manifests and how equivocally we use the
01:18:05
term but more often is because people
01:18:06
see beauty as this pure thing and they
01:18:08
don't want to Sully that Purity with
01:18:10
icky yucky mundane thinking it's the
01:18:12
same with thinking itself people are
01:18:14
very comfortable with the idea that
01:18:15
thinking and coming up with Big Ideas
01:18:16
profound ideas uncovering fundamental
01:18:19
truths is this magical mysterious
01:18:21
process because the ideas feel cool in
01:18:23
that way and they want the mechanism
01:18:24
that generates those ideas to feel cool
01:18:26
in the same way but that's just not the
01:18:28
reality if you want to get better at
01:18:29
thinking you're just like anything else
01:18:30
you study it you practice it and you
01:18:32
learn how it works sports fans are the
01:18:33
ones who love the idea of natural talent
01:18:35
but actual athletes will often tell you
01:18:36
yeah there is some talent but it's often
01:18:38
more about hard work and experience and
01:18:40
understanding specific things and that
01:18:43
may be more boring and may take the
01:18:44
magic out of it but it's true I want to
01:18:46
end this by saying I don't know if
01:18:47
people are sick of hearing this for me
01:18:48
especially my patrons endless thanks to
01:18:50
my teachers and that's also part of what
01:18:52
made me really apprehensive about making
01:18:53
a video like this I don't think I'm like
01:18:54
this big smart guy just because I make
01:18:56
videos on YouTube and it does make me
01:18:57
uncomfortable that people want to know
01:18:58
how this brain of mine works how it
01:19:00
functions how it comes up with all these
01:19:02
brilliant intricate wires deep whatever
01:19:04
that's not me I don't see myself that
01:19:05
way if you've watched my videos if
01:19:06
you've seen me discussing things in
01:19:08
comments you know that I am always
01:19:09
finding problems with my own ideas I'm
01:19:10
off often agreeing to other people's
01:19:12
critiques I'm trying my best to rethink
01:19:13
things and Shore up the weaker parts of
01:19:15
my analyzes because I am pretty sloppy
01:19:16
and my ideas have a lot of holes they're
01:19:18
often inelegant and don't really get to
01:19:19
the depth I'm hoping for or they're
01:19:21
super speculative or not fully developed
01:19:22
or they're formulated more for an
01:19:23
impressive impact than for strict
01:19:25
accuracy there's a lot of problems that
01:19:26
is fact that is not arguable so it's
01:19:28
weird making something like this that's
01:19:30
probably why I wanted to stress and to
01:19:31
prove that so much of the stuff people
01:19:33
compliment me on in my videos isn't like
01:19:34
me being this amazing thinker because
01:19:36
I'm amazing I'm a beneficiary of a
01:19:37
fantastic education and a fantastic
01:19:39
tradition of Education I really did want
01:19:41
to play for yourself like teacher 5
01:19:42
outlining literally in the most
01:19:44
important methodology rule I know of ask
01:19:46
what not why in a recording from 50
01:19:48
years ago and to play for you the moment
01:19:50
teacher 4 actually taught me sitting in
01:19:52
his class in 2010 the forget the facts
01:19:54
idea and also if you happen to notice
01:19:55
the background footage was from all
01:19:57
these places that had to do with my
01:19:58
academic tradition there's a little walk
01:20:00
through tummy to history 1800 ish years
01:20:02
of it because my teachers didn't come up
01:20:04
with a stuff either although to be fair
01:20:05
teacher 5 came up with quite a lot of it
01:20:07
but he was a beneficiary of the Brisco
01:20:08
Dera which originated here more or less
01:20:10
close to here in an area known as breast
01:20:12
and Belarus then known to Jews as brisk
01:20:15
in Lithuania in the 1800s welcome to
01:20:16
brisk sort of and brisk was told by his
01:20:20
father who is the head teacher of this
01:20:22
place who learned under a student of
01:20:23
this guy we call the genius of vilna who
01:20:25
lived here in Vilnius Lithuania in the
01:20:27
1700s that commentary mentioned teacher
01:20:29
3 grilling us on with that separation of
01:20:31
points thing he lived right here in this
01:20:32
French Town Tua about 900 years ago and
01:20:35
then further back we get here to
01:20:36
Fallujah one of the two places in Iraq
01:20:38
where the talmud was written between the
01:20:39
third and sixth centuries I am a very
01:20:41
lucky person to be exposed to this 2000
01:20:43
year old culture of exactly this kind of
01:20:45
analysis in one form or another and I'm
01:20:47
so grateful that it's something that I
01:20:49
can share with you because I love this
01:20:51
kind of analysis more than any of you I
01:20:53
can say that confidently I live for this
01:20:54
it's brought a kind of light to my life
01:20:56
that nothing else will ever approximate
01:20:57
in any form and I'm happy when I can do
01:20:59
my part in lining up little parts of
01:21:01
your lives in the same way but anyway
01:21:03
this video was in response to hitting
01:21:05
200 000 subscribers I cannot believe all
01:21:08
the support you guys have given me it is
01:21:09
just unreal to me I I uploaded my first
01:21:11
Arcane video in November 2nd 2021 so
01:21:14
it's been almost exactly a year and a
01:21:15
half a few days short for getting 200
01:21:17
000 subscribers that is nuts that's
01:21:20
crazy to me this whole Channel what
01:21:21
you've done for me has transformed my
01:21:23
life in so many ways it's transformed my
01:21:25
livelihood what I do every day how I
01:21:27
think how I write and transformed
01:21:29
fundamentally how I enjoy fiction now
01:21:30
and who I enjoy it with so all the
01:21:32
Gratitude in the world to all of you if
01:21:35
you're subbed if you're not sub doesn't
01:21:36
matter even if you just watch the
01:21:38
channel every so often a couple videos
01:21:39
here and there it is the most incredible
01:21:41
feeling to have found people who
01:21:43
appreciate what you have to contribute
01:21:44
so truly thank you I'm gonna keep making
01:21:47
videos I'm not stopping or anything like
01:21:49
that so I'll see you again in a week or
01:21:51
two for more analysis content shout out
01:21:52
to the patrons as always consider
01:21:54
joining for two dollars getting access
01:21:55
to our wonderful thriving patreon
01:21:57
Discord server where we talk about all
01:21:59
the writing stuff we love to talk about
01:22:00
and make writer friends and help each
01:22:01
other with projects and volunteer to
01:22:03
read and give feedback and start writing
01:22:04
groups Etc it's a bunch of writing nerds
01:22:06
being ready nerds so hop on board if you
01:22:08
want we'd love to have you special shout
01:22:09
out to new High tier patrons and
01:22:13
anyway I really hope you enjoyed this it
01:22:15
was hard to make in a different way than
01:22:17
my other content but it was also super
01:22:18
rewarding and super fun so thanks for
01:22:20
200k and thanks for watching

タグ

analysis methodology
critical thinking
questioning strategy
unique style
model building
self-reliance
educational content
fresh perspective
contradictions
independent analysis