This data-driven approach successfully transforms emotional activism into a calculated science of persuasion. It is a sophisticated example of using empirical analysis to optimize moral discourse for maximum impact.
Install our extension to search inside any video instantly.
What Even is This StreamAdded:
I think I'm live.
Hello everyone. Hello.
That's uh the intro music.
Um okay, enough intro music. That's it.
Enough intro music.
How is everyone doing?
We got enough intro music that it's good enough. I wanted to say hello to everyone first. Hello, Mr. Rich. I don't know what this is going to be, by the way. I just had a cool idea and I thought would be interesting to see together what we can get out of that stuff.
Hello, Rich. Hello, Mr. Felic. Um, hey, Twisted.
Um, toot loop to loop. And I thought also maybe afterwards we'll decide whether we watch something or maybe we do some outreach together. Julie is here. Dracul Martin. Hello. Hello.
Mr. Fel fle fel I I I said already hello to Felic Nick. Oh no. I made this plug in but now it's jumping all over. Every time you guys type a message is jumping.
Hello everyone. Hello Ali. Hello Nick.
Martin Moon Zero. Jake Lagatar is in the house. That's amazing. Matt Matias says here, "Hey, no walking." I'll be walking. I'll be walking for sure cuz I'm walking in Memphis. No, I'm walking in Amsterdam. Hello, Marcelo.
Marcelos is here. Mar, what does Marcela's wife look like?
What does Marcela's wife look like?
Hm.
Yeah. For those who know the reference.
For those who know the reference. Yeah.
Hello Brett. Nice to see you here.
Um I had me what? Six hours day was read. All right.
Except telecom PB. I have no clue what that means. Sonic. I have no clue what that means. But if it works for you, I'm I'm all for it. I I don't know what that is. Hello B12 babe. Uh, driving back from Alan now. Oh, nice. On the autoban.
Autoban driving is the best driving in the world. Uh, well, I don't know if it's the best, but you can definitely drive really fast, which is pretty cool.
Pretty pretty pretty cool. Um, yay, Marcelo. Yes, beautiful.
I see what you did there, Marcel. You you you replied to what does Marcela's Wallace wife look like? I mean, you know the reference, right? Hello, Toot Loop.
Hello.
Is everyone locked in with the face?
Yeah. Yeah, with the frowny face. Okay.
I guess some people are just listening.
So, I'll just tell because you see B12 is just driving. So, I'll just be I put a frowny face. Chip. Oh, damn it. I My thing ain't no walking. I said already I'm walking. My My thing keeps jumping all over the PL. Okay, I'm going to have to fix this. You doing Discord or something else? I might do some Discord tone. We'll see after this. Um, I also def This is definitely not because I want to test my amazing new plugin that I made for OBS to highlight the messages that was working absolutely perfectly except for a couple of bugs that I'm noticing here and there. And I appreciate you guys being here for everything. Definitely not. No, I actually I actually had um every time you see every time I come home from doing outreach on the street, specifically on the street, what I do is I put my SD card from the camera because you saw I record every conversation. I put my SD card in the computer and um then I import them into Final Cut. And I have this huge library which I had to remove some of the some of the videos actually because they were kind of like it looks not so good.
Uh they were occupying a lot of space.
Uh, and I didn't want to buy an extra hard drive. Like I already have two hard drive. Like I have six ter six terabytes of videos. Six terabytes of videos. Can you imagine six terabytes of videos?
It's a lot. It's a lot of videos. So I had to remove just to get um a little bit more space just to get a little bit more space on my on my drive. But another thing that I do every time I come home and I do all this importing and you know you saw I post all my videos on my second channel or at least nowadays only the I don't post the shitty ones. Let's just put this way. Um another thing that I do is I I use Whisper. I don't know if you guys have heard the Whisper. I use Whisper to essentially transcript everything that is within these videos.
Um, and I noticed today that I was pretty far behind uh on the Whisper videos. I made a script to automatically do that and I forgot to run it. Uh, so today I ran it. Uh, it was 50 videos that Whisper had to transcript today.
Um, so you know, long story short, every single conversation that I've been doing for a while now, I've been using Whisper on it. Uh, it's not for a long time.
It's maybe a couple of months. Uh, and I have in total 290 conversations that have been transcripted. 290 conversations.
So, I thought I thought it would be an interesting one. Um, cuz, you know, I'm I'm I'm a pretty creative guy. I mean, is, you know, I I know an orange when I see it. And uh I know that if you put an orange on top of an apple, you get a great sandwich or something like that.
Um, so I thought it would be interesting to take all this data, all of it, all the data, all of it. Just take it all, put it into chat GPT, and let's see some uh some interesting statistics based on the outreach because maybe we can do some more outreach together. Maybe we can do some more outreach. Maybe we can better our outreach and maybe we also learn a little bit about what works better, men versus women or stuff like that. I don't know. I wrote down a couple of stuff that would be interesting to see. And by a couple of stuff, I mean like around 50 things uh from all this anal analysis an yeah analysis.
And um yeah, I also ordered the new science yesterday. So the new science will come. But I want to show you. Wait, I want to show you the new signs because a lot of you I don't know if you've seen my Instagram story, but I want to show you one new sign. Okay, just and just I want to show you what kind of mistake I made. Okay, give me a second.
Okay. So, I will be going to do outreach tomorrow probably depending on the weather of course. Um, tiny mistake. Yeah. Let me show you. So, this is my usual sign. Okay.
And I'm going to get a little bit off of you. Okay.
It's relatively big, right? Like I'll put it vertically. You see?
Yeah, it's big. It's okay. It's good.
You see it from a distance. It's a good sign.
This is the new sign.
Like, I can't even fit it in the in the view. Like, look how big it is.
I'm going to try to use it during outreach on the street. Just like big signs for like a big ass sign like this.
Can I ask you something?
But the one that I'm probably going to use tomorrow, the problem that I'm probably going to use tomorrow is this one.
We got to talk. And it's huge.
Like I'm holding a pink sign. Holy [ __ ] It's nearly as big as you say, Stone.
Yeah, Tone. It's pretty freaking big.
It's pretty freaking big. I'm going to use this sign. I think you can use it like in traffic or something like people will generally see it. So, tomorrow or when I'll be doing outreach next, I'm going to try to use this sign. The we got to talk. The giant ass sign. We got to talk.
Look at somebody donated.
Oh my god. Thank you so much, Andy Music. Thank you so much. I do you love my work. I do it amazingly. Well, we'll see. We'll see if we do it amazingly. We'll see. I appreciate the super chat. And maybe we can get some W's in the chat for and and music. And music and and I I don't know how to pronounce andial music, I guess. Um says, "Love your work. You do it amazingly." Thank you. We'll see. We'll see what Chad GPT says, but it's it's huge. It's huge. Yeah. So, just for the fun of it, tomorrow we're going to do some outreach with it. On the other side, it says, "Let's test our values."
Um, so we got a really some really good signs, Alexandra and I. And um yeah, it's going to be it's going to be interesting to Well, I I ordered this time. I ordered obviously the average size, the usual size that I have. Let me just put them side by side so I understand the difference.
This is my usual sign and this is my other sign. So wait I don't even Okay, you there. You got it. You got it.
They're big. They're big. It's like four times bigger. It's one is way on A1.
It's not four times bigger, is it?
Right.
I guess it's like 50% bigger.
Wait.
Yeah, that's kind of like 50% bigger.
It's a pretty big sign. Anyway, is Alexandra sign three times bigger? Yeah.
Well, I I accidentally ordered the wrong size, but I ordered some new ones with the grace of the amazing people who keep donating here and helping me out with that. And they'll be back. They'll they'll come but next week. Um because I don't want to spend on shipping. Is Chip forcing his beliefs with the sign that big? Yes, Jake. That's going to be interesting. Like we're going to be using a giant ass sign. Um Chip is always amazing. Thank you. Not always. I'm sometimes like I'm not that amazing. Chip has a massive dong. I don't know, man. It's just it's just okay. Are those the signs you forgot in one of your latest streams in the street?
Um, I guess I don't know if I forgot about them, but they're there.
Um, big data and chat GPD going to show they all love animals. I don't know.
Let's see. Let's see. Okay. Um, let me just zip the create an archive.
So, cuz it's like it's 290 conversations. I I guess my only concern is I really genuinely hope that Chad GBT interprets all of this correctly. So we might need to take this with a grain of salt obviously because um 1.9 megabytes 300 conversation all in 1.9 megabytes uh conversations um obviously we need to take this with a grain of salt because you know the whisper whisper C translate that I'm using isn't well I'm using a model that's fast. It's not perfect, but it's I'm not using the big model because that would take too long. So, I'm using a pretty fast model. But also, um the Chad GPD I'm not sure if it skips, you know, sometimes it's just it's just like lazy. I think like Chad GPD is kind of like I mean all LLMs are sometimes just being lazy about it. But, uh I'll put it to use the LA last model, right?
Not auto. I want uh the good 5.5 model. Okay, on that so that we it thinks better. Um I'm going to put in the conversations now in there. Wait, maybe I can share this with you guys. Uh so that you see exactly what I see. Let me see if I can do that.
Uh that would be cool, right? To Claude would do a better job for analysis than Chad GBT probably. I think I wanted to switch to Claude. Um but I didn't.
There wasn't a real reason why other than um I was used to chat GPT and I thought I'll just use what I'm used to.
I think that's better for now, not just continue using it because I I have to code. I also use it for coding and stuff. So, okay. So, here it is. Here is chat GPT right here. The conversations are already added as a zip there. And I say there are around 290 conversations in this zip.
They are all transcripts from videos of me having conversations with people on the street.
Sometimes I say I'm an animal rights activist. Wait, sometimes I start the no convo with I'm an animal rights activist. Sometimes with we're animal rights.
Wait, somebody else donated. Thank you so much. I I'll I'll look in a second.
Still looking at this judge video.
Sometimes we're we're animal rights activists.
Um, this could differentiate between one activist versus multiple activists based on the name of the person.
Um, you can identify whether they're men or women. Of course, obviously it's not always going to be perfect.
Um, I want you to analyze all of it, but don't skip on anything.
I'm watching you just for the fun of it. Um, don't skip on anything. And after all that analysis, I want to ask you some questions.
questions and before I ask you ask you those questions, give me uh two paragraphs summary and don't sugarcoat it.
No fluff, no buff, no tough.
Well, some tough. Okay.
Okay, I think we're good, right? Let's see if this works.
Okay. Well, while Chad GPT is thinking, um, maybe I hide it from view a little bit so that we see each other a little bit. Like, I really Oh, Andy. Oh, oh, thank you so much. Like, I really mean it. Your approach is so effective. You connect so well with people. That's all it takes for them to understand and make a change. Thank you so much, Andy. I' I've been trying recently a lot to um I've been trying a lot to to to connect more with people and get them to understand more the perspective a little bit better. I hope AI will be trained on your excellent conversations. You know, I've been thinking about that actually.
I've been thinking that I have so much video and so much data and so many conversations that I have with people that surely it could be valuable for like purposes like training AI and stuff like that. Um yeah, by the way, can we get some more W's for Andy? Thank you so much, Andy. Um AI hallucinations, a lot of fake info. Yeah, sure. But you know, as I said, we'll take it with a grain of salt and we use the last model. Uh, Claude would do a better analysis. I'm sure if you don't like a large sign, also hit the like the like button. Yeah.
And I thought afterwards maybe we'll do some Discord outreach or something. Chip didn't even say thank you. Did I not say thank you? I did say thank you. What do you mean? Thank you so much, Andy. Thank you, Andy. If I if I did not say thank you. Oh, to AI.
Felic Felic you know you know in the future when let's say AI becomes sentient they might be like why did you waste my time by saying thank you okay let's see what AI says because it's done and then they'll be like they'll just kill the people who are like you know overly nice because then they have to waste a lot more energy for that okay I processed the zip and counted 289 actual transcript files the other files were Mac OS metadata junk, so I ignored those rather than double counting. The data set is big enough to show patterns, but not clean enough to pretend it gives laboratory great answers. Exactly. Names are often mistranscribed. Many transcripts do not clearly preserve speaker labels, and man versus woman from names is only partially reliable. I extracted names from 30 237. That's pretty good. Uh, but gender was only confidentially confidently inferable for a minority without risking nonsense. Same with one activist versus multiple activists. I found 160 conversations clearly introduced as I'm an animal rights activist. 12 clearly as we're an animal rights activist and many others where the intro was unclear, missing or phrased differently. So yes, I can analyze it all but some conclusions will be strong, some will be directional and some will need manual verification before you make a strategy decisions. We already getting I already like that the blunt read your conversations are usually not failing because people don't get it. It's already judging me is already starting on the on the premise that my conversations are failing. Okay.
The transcripts show a lot of people understand the ethical point at least partly, but then retreating to convenience, taste, habit, culture, good farms, personal choice, or quote unquote, it's hard.
The most common recurring themes I detected were animal/pet comparison, habit/convenience, taste/pleasure, human/local farming, sorry, humane, local farming, personal choice, and health necessity. The strongest tactical sign so far is that your approach often gets people to concede something important. But the weak point is the transition from yeah that's wrong to so what are you actually going to do?
Actually that's something I noticed also myself. Um that I'm pretty good at getting them to acknowledge that it's wrong but not pretty good at engaging them. That's where many conversations seem to leak momentum. Ask me questions now. I've got the data set parsed and can compare openers, gender/name patterns, objections, receptiveness, conversation length, viral moments, or whatever angle you want. Okay, let's start with something easy. Let's let's start with something easy. Let's let's start with something easy.
First off, conversation length. I think that would be interesting. I saw that conversation length. What's the average conversation?
And uh if you guys have any suggestions, by the way, what we would want to know out of this analysis, feel free to shoot them up. What's the average conversation length?
Um shortest, longest, and is there a correlation between length and effectiveness?
Okay, that's cool. Yeah, interesting feedback. Uh, while it's thinking and it's doing its thing, um, maybe we talk a little bit. It's no coincidence that these objections to veganism are exactly the ones that meat industry PR firms use and spread, right? It's said it's pretty clear. Um, this is a pretty cool experiment. Thank you, Tina. Thank you.
By the way, very nice video, Vegan and Tina, you sent me today. Uh, and it's very interesting. Um, you know, you you see the thing about it is I wish like obviously because I do all this and I do it repeatedly. I wish I could have something that transcribes a little bit better that can identify who's who because that would give a lot more valuable data.
My god, Andy, so much. Thank you again, Andy.
Your you say you love animals, but in a couple of minutes, I promise you you'll try to justify the suffering animals was like, yeah, that okay, I'm going to try to use that more. I actually I've been I I think that that literally uh Thank you for the super chat by the way. Uh that will that will definitely get some more people to uh no longer use their ego against the animals, right? Like at best they'll try to use their ego in a way they're like well you see I'm not trying to justify the abuse of animals. So I think that's it's very valuable for that. AI will be the death of punctuation especially quench question marks. Oh, Satanic. I don't think AI is the death of punctuation. If you ask me, I think mobile phones are the death of punctuation. Who spends time putting punctuation? Let's face it. You just type enter. Type enter. That's it, right? Nobody puts punctuation anymore.
The people in your videos are parenting meat industry talking points that have been fed to them through PR campaigns.
We need to figure out how to counter these campaigns. Yeah. And in fact, one of the things that I wanted to to ask Chad GPT, but we'll see. We'll see going forward. Higher success rate between men and women who agrees to go vegan. Yeah, that's what that's a good one, Tina. I also have it. Let me write it down. Um, higher success rate between men versus women. Okay, it's only 200 conversations, so it's not large, but the more we do it, the more I do it, the more conversations I'll have to analyze. So, it's going to be very interesting. Be careful analyzing data like this chip. It sounds a lot like social research which is strictly bound to GDPR rules and other declarations.
Usually need informed consent forms to use their data. I ask them if I can use them for my YouTube. It's the same, isn't it? I don't take their personal data. So I it's nothing like that. You can ask how often lions ancestors and avocados are mentioned. Okay, I'll write it down. Fine, why not? We'll have some fun. L Wait, which ones? Uh, lions, ancestors, and avocados.
How often are they mentioned? I think avocados are mentioned the least to be honest. But yeah. Hey, Cucka. People are speaking in a public space. I don't think GDPR would apply all that circumstance. Also, I'm clearly asking them are is it okay for you to be live on my YouTube channel, which essentially means it will be automatically transcribed by YouTube anyway. So, yeah.
See how many times KFC is mentioned.
Okay. KFC mentions. Uh I don't think KFC was mentioned. I don't remember on the street KFC being mentioned. And religion. Oh, that's a good one. And religion. Okay. Thank you for that.
Okay. Let's see what the chat GPD says now because uh it it came up with an answer. Okay. So, we started easy with the with the with the discussion length.
The average is 9 minute and 40 seconds.
Well, that's kind of what I expected also. Maybe 10 minutes. The median is 7 minutes and 50 seconds. I mean, that's a bit more accurate. Um, oh my god, $50 from Don Tutors. Oh my god. Pair character riding a firework rocket disappearing away before bursting in the sky.
I thank you for the super chat.
Pear character riding a firehore croc.
Is that like something that was supposed to like animate? Did it animate that?
I must have missed it if it did that.
Okay. Okay. I see I see a lot of people suggesting stuff which is kind of cool.
I'm glad. Thank you so much. Don't Can we get some We can big W's for don't down don't down don't down don't down don't down don't down don't down don't down don't down don't down don't down don't downtuers dot tutors. Um because this is amazing. Thank you so much. Like I appreciate it. I appreciate all the help. All the all the help really. It's it's it comes in handy. Okay, let me let me fic let me write down also what's the craziest claim what's the craziest claim someone made about not being vegan.
Okay, we got a lot of cool stuff to watch. I feel like it's it's good data to just at least have some fun with it.
Yeah. So, thank you so much. Thank you so much. Okay, the medium is 7 minutes and 50 seconds. So, around 8 minutes. I think that's pretty accurate. I would say average 10 minutes sounds like where I lean towards a conversation to be 10 minutes and the median is kind of where it goes. Sometimes it goes shortest is 7 seconds. I guess somebody just coming in 7 seconds conversation. Hey, are you vegan? I got to go. Uh, longest is 41 minutes and 40 seconds. Um, I think there were longer conversations, but probably the battery died out. That's a long conversation. 25th percentile, 5 minutes. Oh, 75th percentile 11 minutes and 90th percentile 20 minutes. Okay.
The shortest conversation is basically unusable as a real conversation around 7 seconds only 11 words. So I would treat that the true lower bound as noise unless you want me to filter out. Okay, that's good. The longest conversation with Ibraim.
Um, yeah. I wish I could also mention um the next longest were Simone, Ben. I wish I could somehow uh is Wait, before I go into that, I wish I could somehow also mention the dates when I did that, right? Like it would be nice to somehow categorize them by the dates that I did them, but I haven't done that yet. Maybe I should do that going forward. Is length correlated with effectiveness?
Not really. Using the rough effectiveness score I built for agreement/openess/change uh Q's versus resistance cues.
Correlation type person correlation length versus effectiveness minus 000.3 spareman correlation length versus effectiveness plus 00007.
I honestly don't know how to read that.
That b that is basically no meaningful correlation. The more interesting pattern is um average effectiveness score under two minutes 12 conversations 1.25 25. Okay. But out of 10 is this like what's the score that it gives me?
Wait, maybe I have to Can you explain Can you quickly explain that score? I don't know how to read.
Yeah, the effectiveness score is not a perfect did they go vegan score. It's a rough transcript based on signal on how well the conversation seem to move to the person. Uh, okay. Cues in transcript. They agree animals are exploited/harmed. Uh, effect on score high. They admit inconsistency or hypocrisy. Higher effectiveness. They say they will think about it higher.
They are practical vegan. They ask practical vegan questions. Higher. They say they might try vegan reduce/change.
Higher. They clarify, resist, joke it away or dismiss this issue. Lower. They repeat excuses like personal choice, taste, culture, but protein without moving lower. They explicitly say they won't change lower. Okay. So when I said 15 20 minutes 5.9 average effectiveness, that means the 15- 20 minutes conversation had more positive change/open min while the 20 minutes one had more looping resistance signals on average.
Oh, because it's 1.6 a 5.9 conversation. It's objectively three point times better than a 1.6 conversation. Okay. So, we don't have a m is there a maximum score out of this?
Is there a maximum score?
So, the or is the score strictly relative?
Strictly relative.
Um, Chip, I would love to discuss with you a plan to create a platform social media response of vegans to meet in industry PR. Oh, please. Let's do that.
That would be amazing. That combo where the lady approached you guys and just walked away as soon as you asked her about animal rights and eating animals.
That was hilarious. Yeah, Tina, it happens. It happens, doesn't it? Um, okay. It was strictly relative, not a fixed out of 10 score. So 5.9 does not mean 5.9 out of 10. It means that on average those transcripts had more positive effectiveness. Okay. Okay. So it's relative. Okay. We kind of learned something about this. Okay. How the way it does score. So then what we can say safely uh out of this interesting pattern of all the conversations uh well most conversations are within the 5 to 10 minute mark 125 conversations the average effectiveness is 2.7 so that means that uh I think the sweet spot is somewhere here 10 15 minutes conversations uh because the average effectiveness score is 4.3 obviously the ones that are 15 20 minutes are the best it says the 5.9 effectiveness score uh but I would take this with a grain salt because this could also just mean like the person asked more questions, right, than anything? Um, that doesn't necessarily mean more effective. Wait, let's ask.
If the person asks more questions, does that make it more effective?
Oh, Sky is here. Hello, Mr. Skyjack Morgan.
Love to see you here. Thank you for being here.
Um usually yes but only depending on the type of the questions. Questions are often good sign uh because they mean the person is not just waiting for you to stop talking.
They are engaging, testing the idea or trying to understand the implications.
So what should I eat instead? Practical openness. Is there also bad curiosity?
What about protein? Yeah. Okay. But if the per surely if the person asks the same question multiple times then they should score lower.
Remember when Chip told me I should not trust Chat Gvt because it's bad at math?
Yes, Sky. The new model is better though. The 5.5 is it's it's it's better than a human almost at math, I think.
1020 seems pretty relatable to Discord also. Oh, okay. So, 1020 minutes is the magical number. Uh, okay. Let's see what Chivity says. Yes, repeatable questions should only should usually lower the score especially when they show the person is looping rather than a processing. Okay, I'm not going to go through all that. Um, okay. Perfect.
Perfect. So, we started with one. Wow.
We started with one simple thing which was a conversation. We had to understand a little bit. It it was it was obvious the length of the conversation. Uh and we realized that um 15 20 minutes is the best length. Uh so maybe when a conversation gets too too short, we can infer something from it. That's pretty cool to know. Um okay, let's see what else uh was here.
Okay.
Okay. Okay, I'm going to go through a little bit of what I uh what I wrote down. Okay, what is the most effective opening out of all these conversations?
Uh this is what I'm curious to be honest. This is this is what I'm here for. What is the most effective opening out of all these conversations? Okay.
And until chat GPD comes up with an answer, we'll talk to the chat a little bit.
Linda says, "This is interesting." Thank you, Linda. I I thought that I I said I don't know what this stream is going to be about. I don't know. Like it's it's interesting to see kind of like like the data, right? Because I do a lot of outreach. I'm obviously not the best outreacher, right? Like there's people who are doing it better than me, but at least I record all of it and at least that's that's see it. There's a lot of value to to being meticulous.
Meticulosity adds a lot. Chip and I are going to talk about why no one wants to grow up anymore on Sunday. Yeah, we we do definitely need to talk about that, Sky.
You just know Sky, I'm going to be a little bit on their side. Like, let people not grow up a little bit. You know, you know that we always go back and forth like that. Sky, don't start [ __ ] spamming.
Well, or if you start [ __ ] don't spam at the same time. Just [ __ ] if that's what you like doing.
Okay, let's see what JGBT says. I'll compare opener varants across the transcripts rather than just eyeballing one or two. I'll treat effective as the same rough outcome signal we discussed.
But I'll also flag where the sample size is too small to trust. Bro, I I am loving this. This is ex exactly what we want, right? Like how much can we trust it? Also, based on the rough effectiveness scoring, the best performing opening category was how do you feel about animals?
How do you feel about animals amongst opener types with at least semi-usable sample size? Um, okay. I'm an animal rights activ. Yeah, but I I think I think you see I think it made a mistake here. Um, no. Okay. When I say opening, I mean more than just I'm an animal rights activist, but rather damn it, I can't type well.
but rather the whole experiment that I'm doing to get to the injustice towards animals and the position the person has towards it.
Okay, let's see. Maybe it analyzes better this time. Got you. You mean the full opening role? Okay, it's thinking.
Is this your chat highlighter tool? Yes, Kai. This is my chat highlighter tool right now. I'm in um I'm in uh what do you call it in OBS? Uh my chat is on the left in OBS. The previous one was in in in Chrome or something. So, it's very nice. Yeah. Uh I can see everything.
There is some bug that I saw. Uh I think the donations don't look really good. I think because I I couldn't test it for the donations for the super chat. So, I'm going to work on making them look nicer. Uh, but otherwise, yeah, this is this is what it is. It's pretty cool, huh?
Nice and easy. Yeah, that makes sense to be honest. It's open enough and still intriguing. And obviously, you can put it sky on top, middle, or bottom.
Um, I like to experiment with my animals, such as how to best rub their tummies and give them back scratches.
Oh, that's cool. That's cute. Why not?
Optimizing the efficacy of your conversations is important, but it's more important to glean what people think so it can be countered using PR.
That's the piece vegans are missing.
Okay, let's go through that. Yeah, interesting. I think AV says five 10 minutes is optimal, but chips data shows 15 minutes could be optimal. Maybe AV's methodology is is more optimal than 5 10 minutes, right?
Um, yes, that changes the answer. When I classified opening as the whole route into the issue, the best performing route is I'm an animal rights activist.
I fight for the animals. How do you feel about animals? that wrote appeared 119 conversation. So it had a much better sample size than the tiny how do you feel about animals first category activist identity/feilling about animals average rough effectiveness 4 4.5 feeling about animals first um 47 rights question uh 2.67 67. So, the respect question, uh, should animals have rights? Hypothetical harm route. That's the one I was curious about. Oh, it's the least effective. I see. No, it's not the least. Activist identity and direct animal ethics. I've done this for a while and it's it's the least effective one. Wow. Christmas/indirect topic route. Well, yeah, that let's not put that one. So, the strongest reliable pattern is I'm an animal rights activist. I How do you feel about animals? Do you think animals des seems better than going straight into do you think animals deserve rights? Do you think that we do what we do to animals is wrong? Imagine someone hurting an animal. Do you think exploiting is wrong?
Okay.
What follows after the how do you feel about animals?
Can you also inspect effectiveness of that?
Okay, while Chad GPT is thinking, I'll go through the I'll go through the chat a little bit.
Hey, CH, pull up the effectiveness of the dumb cannibal argument. Okay, right now dumb cannibal argument. What is the dumb cannibal argument?
Do you mean like do you mean the entity?
I don't know what you mean by that.
Don't some people don't get there in a lifetime. Yeah, we can't leverage money, but we can leverage our enthusiasm. That's the key.
That's the thing vegans have that they don't 100%.
Uh, bro, ask Chad GPT how to convert people to veganism. Uh, no. Uh so if you're just dropping in Rafal what we're doing is I have transcribed uh 300 conversations or nearly 300 conversations that I did on the street with people uh and I put them into chat GPT to analyze them to get some data off of uh what is the most effective and what people think in general.
You forgot to put the scary V-Word into your live stream titles to bring out the non-vegan nonsense.
Yeah. Okay. Okay, let's see what Chad Givvity says. Uh, yes, I inspected what usually comes after. How do you feel about animals? Uh, the best looking follow-up route is not immediately going for the kill shot contradiction. It's more like do you have animals? What are they like? Do you use them as individuals? So, if animals are individuals, should we treat them like objects for food? That performed better than jumping straight to can we love animals while paying for them to be killed? I actually have noticed that myself, right? So, a lot of the times, I think, what was it called? Um I think when we when people well human when human rights uh activists advocated for the rights of gay people to get married uh they use this technique. I forgot the name of technique. Maybe somebody in the chat can mention it. Um but this technique does does work right when you can relate to the animals a little bit better. So asking if they have pets is something that relates to them a little bit me better which is [ __ ] awesome to know. It's it's very good to know, right? Um, okay. Rough effectiveness by follow-up route.
Um, followup after how do you feel about animals? Okay.
Oh, okay. Okay. Look at this. So, pet/individual connection has a strong uh average score, right? Necessity/fairness has a strong one. Object versus individuals has a decent one. Okay. Wow. The object versus individuals is the least one.
That's interesting to know. I use that often. Uh, love versus killing. Um, the lowest, weaker than expected. Okay.
I'm sorry. The scroll horizontal scroll is kind of shitty. Uh, hunting/specific issue tangent. Uh, yeah, that's not that. There's too few conversations like that. And oppression looks amazing, but sample to too tiny.
Yeah, I get that. and other slash unclear mixed bucket not useful enough.
Okay. Okay. So the strongest reliable pattern so far is relationship individuality moral principle and animal agriculture not relationship immediate accusation/contradiction. Right. So relationship individuality of animals moral principle how should we see animals right? So that's why when we uh relationship is so that they can relate to animals first I guess individuality so that they can identify that animals are individuals.
then how should we treat them and then go to animal agriculture that actually is very useful because this is like baby steps what we've been doing right it's it's a very interesting pattern to know I'm actually let me take a photo of this because I want to I actually want to use this more often okay yeah so this is this is really good this is really good okay okay uh let's see what else it says Um, so instead of you love animals, can we love animals while paying for them to have their throats cut? The data suggests something softer but still sharp works better. Do you have any animals in your life? What's their personality like? So you see them as someone, not something.
Do you think farmed animals are also someone and not something? Then is it fair to treat them like products? Then we when we don't need to. The blunt takeaway, your best opening is probably when you let them humanize animals themselves before you challenge them.
That's that's that's very valuable information. I think when you jump too quickly to you love animals but pay for killing. It can be true but it often makes them defend their identity instead of examine their values. [ __ ] that's that's good data. [ __ ] yeah.
I mean don't tell me that's not good data. Don't [ __ ] tell me. Oh I was excited about this. I can hardly wait to get more data. Like this is just 300 conversations.
If anybody by the way everybody if all of you guys have been recording your conversations and you want to send them to me I can help you with not even you don't have to send them to me I can help you transcribe them so contact me if you if you have a lot of conversation and they say chat GPT is bad right Linda look at what it what's helping I tried speaking while drinking at the same time god damn I'm so excited I'm like a child right Wow. Like a child in a candy store.
Sorry, I did a hiccup. What's the effectiveness of making up terms like animal slavery? Or do people just think that you are dumb? Uh, sure. I'll write it down.
Um, what's the effectiveness of making up terms like animal slavery?
Um, you can say it's made up. Um, I don't mind, but it represents something that is real. So, doesn't really matter uh if it's made up or not. All terms at some point were made up to represent something that is real. And uh it is representing a form of slavery towards animals.
Part of the reason I love Chip is because he gets this excited of data like how can it not be excited? It makes our it makes us so much more efficient, doesn't it?
Like I don't know if this is the final methodology that I'll use where I ask all of the people about um oh how about your pet or all this but this alone this this right here right that it says uh relationship individuality moral principle and animal agriculture is [ __ ] great or what it says your best opening is probably when you let them humanize animals first before you challenge them right so we have to Like that's a very very good thing to know. Humanize animals first before we go into having conversations with people about them. Okay. Let me see what else I wrote down here.
Uh okay. Shall we go into Let's since we started Okay. What's the most effective ending it?
Um again, don't just look for one sentence.
Okay, while chat GPT is doing its thing, we get to chat a little bit, everyone.
We get to chat. I recently read about effective activism and they suggested nearly the exact same thing.
It's this is why I get excited about this. This is why I love data. It shows us how we can be better, right? When you do a lot of outreach, even when you do a little outreach, it's very important that you're effective of how you do it.
So relate to the So humanize the what did we learned so far? Humanize the animals, right? Humanize the animal. Let the person connect with the animals first and then jump into animal agriculture.
What was it? Just to repeat it again. I took a snapshot. Let me see.
Relationship, individuality, moral principle, and animal agriculture. So you let the person relate to the animals. Let them admit that they are individuals and that they see them as individuals.
Ask how you should treat them. So the moral principle should treat them and then move on on how do we treat other animals. I think that's actually very valuable to do. Okay. Let's see what JP said next.
Okay. I'll treat ending as a I'll treat ending as a final route of the conversation where it ends with a pledge or a practical next step, a video resource or effective concession, a friendly goodbye or a debate loop. I'll compare those against the same rough effectiveness logic while being careful not to overclaim from messy endings.
Well, I love that the most effective ending route seems to be get a clear concession.
Good to know.
Ask what they can do about it. Push for a concrete action. Give a resource card.
Ask them for a short-term commitment.
Actually, I noticed myself that resource card plus short-term commitment have been extremely um valuable, but I guess you see you have to be a little bit more pushy, which I don't think I'm pushy enough.
Not just thanks for the conversation, watch this video. The strongest endings look like this kind of sequence. So, do you agree this is wrong? What do you think you can do about it? Would you try going vegan challenge 22? Can you watch this video? Until you watch it, can you avoid animal products? Do it for them, not for me. I like this. Do it for them, not for me. I think it's very valuable.
Uh, that kind of ending is powerful because it doesn't leave the conversation as interesting chat by. It forces the moral point to become a decision. Of course, it's also, by the way, everyone, we have to take this with a little bit of a grain of salt because, as we all know, the endings aren't always great, right?
Like sometimes people leave um sometimes people get upset and I don't ask them right like uh like the all this let me let me hide this so all this ending stuff it's it's more it's even more imprecise I think like all this ending stuff is kind of like because I only give them the card and I ask them to watch a video and and until then I tell them to avoid animal products and I only do this for people that I know can right so it's a little bit biased and That's the scenario, right? So, this data is a little bit more biased, but it's still interesting nevertheless.
Um, okay. Concrete commitment, try vegan ending, average rough score 4.7. It's the best. So, telling people to try to go vegan is out of 197. That's almost half the conversations. That's that's a good score. Um, reflective concession ending.
Yeah, that's that's the next I don't like that as much. Reduction SLB step ending. Uh that's not as effective.
That's like half resource only ending.
That's the lowest scoring. No change slash. But yeah, but this just says, right? Because this is the other way.
This is the opposite. Let me just explain this data could also be biased because I only ask people for a short-term commitment if the conversation seemed good enough.
Um, asking for a short-term commitment makes conversation more effectiveness.
Uh it may simply mean you ask for a short-term commitment when the person already seems more receptive. Yeah, exactly. So the causal direction is unclear. That's exactly my point. Yeah, there are three possibilities.
Commitment asks be ask commitment ask causes better outcomes. The ask itself pushes people from agreement into action. I don't think so. Better conversation cause commitment asks.
That's what I think is happening. You only ask when they're already open, so their endings naturally score higher.
Both are true. receptive people get asked and the ask still helps them convert openness into action. I think maybe two or three are true, right? So the better interpretation is concrete commitment endings are associated with more effective conversation. But we cannot say from this data alone that they cause the effectiveness.
Okay, whatever. There's a lot of data there. I'm kind of getting lazy to reading all of that stuff.
Uh I should have said I love that chip also gets this excited over data. Yeah.
Yeah, you get excited over data too.
That's amazing. I that's kind of how I read it. Also, by the way, hey, Deborah is here. Nice to see you, Deborah.
Uh, okay.
Most effective follow-up question. Okay, let's uh let's dive into the funny thing. But before that, just going to drink some water and start walking on this treadmill.
Okay, I'm walking walking slower. Okay.
Uh Okay, so which direction should we go to? I was I was really excited to see what the most effectiveness effective is. And um yeah, let's let's let's ask.
Okay, next. Oh, I'm sorry. Let me type this. Uh okay, next question.
Calm versus confrontational.
Which one is the most effective? I think we know which the more effective I think we know which one that will be right like we already know and uh I think somebody mentioned it I forgot to put it in the chat um but somebody said let's look at the data of u GPT is dead for me oh it's working for me.
Beep beep. Oh, sorry. Hey, Chip. You can save a lot of time by asking people if they are prepared to kill to kill all the animals they want to eat.
No, because I'm not interested in that.
Some people might say that. In fact, a lot of people who a lot of people who who whose ego is high, they'll be like, "Yeah, I'll kill an animal right here. How you telling me I can't kill an animal? You know, people who think they're tough or something?
Hey, you're the vegan guy protesting on the street. Yeah.
Okay. Well, this should come to no surprise, but uh yes, calm, direct seems more effective than highly confrontational.
But the important distinction is the best zone seems to be calm, morally clear and persistent. I measure this roughly by looking for sharp such confrontational language across transcripts, words and patterns like hypocrisy, abuse, murder, rape, slaughter, throat, gas, chamber, responsible complicit, selfish corpse.
Then I compare that against the rough effectiveness score very calm/low sharpness average effective 3.6. So too calm is not good. Com and direct 3.7. Okay. Direct SLS sharp. That's where that's where the sweet spot is.
4.3. So I need to be direct and sharp.
Most confrontational, the lowest score, right?
It's kind of annoying to be honest.
It's kind of annoying that that's the the way we got to go because that's the hardest line to cross, right? to just be direct and sharp. Somewhere between con direct and sharp, right? Like that's what we go for. Cal, direct, and sharp.
Okay, I'm also going to write this. It will help me with my outreach.
Um, okay. Okay.
By the way, if you guys have more questions that you want me to ask about the data, let me know, okay? because I can ask them.
Okay. I want to also know right now if sorry just have so much data to ask is the is mentioning what happens in dairy farms more effective than not.
I think I think it is. That's what I noticed personally.
That that has been my feeling.
Okay.
Also, my babies Betsy, Fluffy, and Melissa absolutely do deserve rights.
How dare you? Yeah. Yeah. All animals deserve rights.
Feel like I got a bakery in town that makes massive vegan donut cakes. Damn, massive vegan donut cakes. That sounds amazing.
Yeah, all this data obviously takes a while. I want a vegan donut. Felic in Berlin. They have this thing called braigans donuts, bro. There's Boston cream donut. Oh my god.
Oh, like you can't imagine just how good it is. It's like Oh, it's it's all covered in chocolate. You bite into it and there's this vanilla ve v vanilla stuff inside.
And it's all fully vegan, of course.
Delicious.
Freaking delicious.
Oh, I see already some non-vegans having conversations in the chat. Okay. Well, let's see. Either way, dairy mentioned versus no dairy mention.
The answer is messy. Dairy mentions versus no dairy mentioned 68. Any dairy mention 221?
The effectiveness is fairly similar.
Our conversations with dairy mentions more effectiveness. The answer is barely. Almost no difference.
That's my my my uh instinct would have said otherwise, but that's too crude because there's a big difference between casually saying milk says cheese and actually explaining the dairy system.
Repeated dairy discussion average rough effectiveness 4.8. So that's the strongest system/detail explanation 3.2 slightly positive. No dairy mention is the best baseline.
Brief dairy mention is the weak. So if we're going to be speaking about mention about dairy, we better speak all the way.
calf baby separation theme appears rough effectiveness 3.8 Rotate. So it's a bit better.
So the stronger pattern is not just mentioned dairy. Mentioned the mother baby injustice behind there. Yeah, that that's has what I meant. A brief my read a brief dairy mention does not seem especially effective. It may even show up in weaker conversations because it's thrown in as more fact without becoming the moral center.
But when dairy is explained as a cow has to be pregnant to produce milk, her baby is taken away. The milk is taken for the humans. The common cuff are both eventually used such killed by the industry that seems to perform better.
Important bias. There is probably selection bias here too. Dairy details may come up with more often when the person already says they are vegetarian.
The person says they love cheese. The conversation has enough time to go deeper and the person is already open enough to hear the details.
Um so I would say the person already says they are vegetarian. Yes, we definitely always mention dairy when that happens.
I would also say um the person says they love cheese. A lot of times I do mention that the conversation has enough time to go deeper.
I feel like we it's not always but sometimes we do rough into so that's a good bias also indeed. And the person is already open enough to hear the details.
No, I don't believe this is a bias. No, we mention dairy even for people who are not open.
So I would not conclude mentioning dairy causes higher effectiveness. The safer conclusion is when the conversation has room for it, explaining dairy through the mother/bab separation from frame is associated with better conversations than not doing it. Okay. Okay, that's good to know.
Okay, let's get to the interesting part.
Okay.
Men versus women.
who are more open to conversations slashgoing vegan.
Okay, getting into it.
Here it comes. Milk is an energy stimulator and I def definitely need to the D vitamin. So yeah, I'm drinking some milk.
Some reason I eat potatoes is good for our lives.
Bro, just go into the sun and you get your vitamin D. Otherwise, take a supplement. Stop exploiting innocent animals.
Imagine saying I need vitamin D and saying the only way for me to get it is through dairy.
Such a weird thing to say, isn't it?
Okay, based on the current name best gender tagging, women look more open, more receptive than men in your transcripts.
That's also what I noticed. But big caveat, I only con confidently classify a small subset.
Yeah. So, women, yeah, a lot of them are unclear, huh? 200 conversations were unclear.
Women, 5.6.
Men 3.4 probably women 4.2.
So from the confidently identified names women were more likely to be high slash open had higher average and median scores and almost never landed in the clearly resistant bucket. Men were not bad overall but they were more polarized. Some men were very open when also but men also had more of a resistant argumentative debate loop type conversations. I wonder if that's because of me or because of them. That's also interesting to ask.
Uh that suggest men may be more willing to stay and debate, but that does not necessarily mean they are more open.
Longer male conversations may include more arguing, intellectualizing, or defending their position. The blunt takeaway, women seem more receptive, men more likely to turn it into a debate.
Again, I wonder if that's because of me or because of them.
Women more likely to engage in emotionally slasheth ethically and move faster towards perfection. More and more likely to need men more likely to need ego slash safe framing.
Look at that everyone.
Oh women are emotional. Women are so emotional. Look at that. Women Women are more likely to engage emotionally, ethically and more faster towards reflection. That means their emotions are very much under their control. Men more likely to need ego safe framing, less accusation early, and more you're smart enough to see the logic style pressure rather than the you're wrong pressure.
Oh, that's so funny. That's so funny that this shows exactly what that that actually men are the more emotional ones. That's kind of funny.
True vegan. I'm 76 with almost no arterial plague after a lifetime of a vegan diet.
Bravo.
Bravo. That's amazing.
Okay, so men versus women. Women are the most effective.
Uh, okay. Let's go into another question.
What is the I like felic questions a lot.
Wait, lions. No, let's go for lions as ancestors and avocados.
What are the most common excuses used?
Let's say the five most common excuses used.
Male safe spaces are needed. Yeah.
Okay. While Chad GPT is thinking, I think there's a larger problem than eating meat.
Um well not to the innocent animals. No.
Can you speak about vitamin B12? Sure.
Take a supplement.
Circular reasoning.
We have some circular reasoning in the chat right now.
Okay.
Approximate count across 289 transcripts grouping similar excuses together.
It's hard inconvenience/habit.
215 conversations.
Changing my lifestyle is difficult.
That's the number one excuse brought by everyone.
Lifestyle change. It's hard. So, convenience is the number one excuse brought by everyone. Interesting.
Taste pleasure. I like meat or cheese.
That's the second one with pretty close together. I know, but I enjoy it very often. Also, I was expecting that. One person won't change anything. Holy [ __ ] I was not expecting that one to be the third.
My choice won't make a difference.
Interesting. healthnutrition.
But don't we need animal products? Holy [ __ ] that's still a lot. Like 186 conversations. Like this is 215. This is a 186. It's not very far off.
And then culture/tradition.
This is normally where I'm from, how I grew up. I mean culture/tradition. We can also kind of put it together with inconvenience/habit, right?
close behind personal choice a lot of people expensive aaffordability well way less so expensive is way less than health and and health and expenses are way less than one person doesn't change the system so this futility argument wow not expect that animals eat other animals appeal to nature essentially food chain 130 conversations humane/ local organic good farms 72 conversations. That's actually it's actually very low. Well, maybe 30%, right? Human humane human superiority or maybe 25. Sorry. Human superiority/ intelligence 70 conversations also not as high as I thought. Religion 57 conversations.
Religion is not used a lot and plants feel pain 51. So, religion is used almost as often as plants feel pain.
Appeal to helplessness. Yeah.
People usually think women are uh more emotionally because women are more expressive emotionally than men. Yeah, that's true. The big blunt takeaway.
Most people are not giving philosophically objections. They're giving comfort/preservation excuses. The top excuses are basically it's hard, I like it, it won't matter, maybe it's unhealthy, it's normal. So strategically, the strongest outreach probably needs to repeatedly hit these five. Hard hard doesn't justify harming someone. Taste. Pleasure doesn't justify exploitation. Impact, you're paying for demand, not personally saving one animal in front of you. Health, you can be healthy without animal products. And culture, normal doesn't mean justified.
Also, plant field pain is probably much less common than people online make it seem. It appears, but it's not one of those core street level objections.
I also think people on the street behave a little bit better than people on Discord and stuff like that, right?
Okay.
How Okay, let's go for the next uh one.
Just make some fun. I don't know. How how is everyone doing so far? Are you guys enjoying this? How often are lions ancestors and avocados brought up?
Okay, we're going to let Chad GPT think and we're going to interact a little bit. Ask what the latent objection is.
For example, I'm too insecure to change Here we go.
Across 289 real transcripts, lions was used 26 times.
Total mentioned 78. So 9% of the conversations had lions in them.
Ancestors 1.4.
Ancestors, cavemen, evolution, hunter gatherer style arguments, eight, so maybe 9.4. And avocados 1.7 very avocado is very rare.
So ancestors evolution caven arguments are about as common as lions if we count the broader theme, not just the literal word ancestors. Yeah, avocados barely came up only five conversations.
Blunt takeaway online avoc online online vegan debate makes it feel like everyone says lines though ancestors though avocados though in your actual street conversations the big excuses are still much more basic hard taste habit health culture impact lines and ancestors are secondary avocados are basically a nice a niche meme okay the latent objection to the to the most common uh very interesting yeah yeah I also thought so I like this kind analysis. That's cool. Yeah. Yeah. If you guys have more questions, by the way, I I like I mean, I have a whole list of questions to ask, but I feel like my brain is like I I get overloaded with information also. Hey, Raven. Nice to see you here.
Yeah, it's good. Appreciate you, Martin, for being here.
I wonder how different analysis of online conversations would look, right, Delten? That would be so interesting having online versus offline conversations. Did it mention humans are different from animals? Oh, that's a good one. Let's go for that.
How often are people objecting to the humans versus animals comparison?
Maybe not just that, but also how often. Wait, what did you ask again?
How often is it brought up?
Okay. Well, chat GPT is doing that.
We look a little bit more in the chat.
Uh I see that such as emerges simply address animals are not object as a prerequisite to not being anti-vegan and creating entitlement in the exploiter but then challenging it. Uh yeah but you see vegan anom uh the data says otherwise. So I don't know maybe ask how receptivity corresponds with where the people say they are from. Ooh, that's an interesting thing, Ali.
Let's see.
That's a very interesting one.
Where are the most receptive people from?
It's a good one. I wrote it down.
I guess this comparison is taking a little bit longer than usual.
Um, I am looking forward to doing some outreach cuz um with the new signs because we got this little cool sign. Let me show you.
So, we made this cool sign that's like I'll just show it to you. Okay.
Again, it's still huge because I accidentally made it too big. But you see, it kind of looks like cardboard, right? Which is kind of cool because it makes it look like a little bit a bit more raw, more like you see, it's like but it's it's not cardboard. You see, it's like just printed on. It's really cool.
Alexandra is such a talented designer. I swear to God, she's she's doing such an amazing job.
I doubt it because no matter where people are from, they all spew the same BS taking points from the meat industry.
Honestly, I've also been noticing that.
I've also been noticing that a lot. Age range of participants. I don't know if I recorded the age. That's the problem, DJ. I don't think I recorded the age because I start the recording after they mention the age.
You should ask AI, what do you know about that chip guy from YouTube? and see what it will say.
That looks real. Yeah. I thought it was actually cardboard, right? Dude, Alexandra is so talented.
Like, honestly, and like look at this little sticker that she put here.
Obviously, it's a bit too big now, but it's The talent is there. The talent is really is there. Okay, let me see if Chad GP answer. Whoa, this one's taking a little bit more time. Um, I guess they need a little bit more analysis.
Meat industry PR is so persuasive. They get to everyone everywhere, one way or the other. Yeah, I mean, they have a lot of money. Gooly, how late am I? You're very late, Goombly. That's it. We're going to end it because of you. No, I'm kidding. You're you're you're here on time. Thank you for being here.
I tell Chad GPT about your shenanigans.
I do shenanigans. What do you mean? I'm I'm cool. I know. I'm cool. What do you mean, Linda?
Shenanigans.
Wait, that isn't cardboard? No, it's not. Right.
Look at it again. I'll show it again.
You see it looks like cardboard, but it's perfectly cut. Look.
Amazing, right?
Talent is talent.
Hey, Leon is here. Nice to see you, Leon.
They have money, but we have passion.
Let's figure out how to leverage that. I mean, I think we're already doing that, right? I think uh inspecting our data uh like what I'm doing now, I think going out there on the street. I think I think what I wish more people did I I I've been saying this a lot and not enough people hear me out and honestly this is inconclusive to what we noticed also. Um community.
I wish more vegans would do community.
I would do it, but I'm not very good at that. Um, I wish more vegans would just be like, "Let me take a break now. I'm going to walk, break, walk, break, and do so that I don't walk like a neand like a Neanderthal."
But I wish more more vegans did community. Honestly, I think it's a very important part that we often neglect.
We end up doing a lot of outreach, but not enough community outreach, not enough uh helping people be in a community. I think that already serves a lot. But yeah, Leon Dutch. Yeah, Leon is Dutch.
Yes.
Um, no, that's not enough. There must be a way we can use our passion collectively and get algorithms to pay attention to the vegan message. I still think we're doing an amazing job. I think it's increasing. I think a lot of us are going in a nice nice nice direction.
Band Gooni. Nah, Gonley is cool.
Well, that's actually really nice. Yeah, I got here late. Are you running your own chat GPD against transcripts of your own outreach conversations? So, for people who ran late, DJ, also including you, DJ, what I did is I have 290 conversations that were transcribed. Uh I put them in the chat GPT and I'm asking questions right now about the conversations. Um one thing that we've noticed I'll repeat it for everyone uh is that oh the request timed out the last request. I'll retry it. Maybe my chat GBT is also not working. So uh it seems like the most effective pattern so far of doing outreach is relationship individuality moral principle and animal agriculture. So that means instead of jumping directly into conversation, first you need to get the person in front of you to relate to animals. Then you need them to express how animals are individuals. Then how we should treat animals. So the moral principles behind it and then move to animal agriculture and the way animal agriculture treats animals. I think like that's that was very valuable.
Chip, are you a tiger? Sure, why not?
I'm a I'm a I'm a tiger like Linda. See, I'm tiger man times Netherlands because I'm in the Netherlands.
We have not yet figured out how to properly leverage our purpose-drivenness. Yeah, it's it's it's obviously I think like we shouldn't be too harsh on ourselves because obviously we're going in the right direction, but you know, it's not going to be we're never going all going to be on board with how to do it because everyone has a different opinion and that's fine. I think that's the valuable thing about all of it. Join the vegan ethics community, animal justice 21. Oh, is that so? Well, what I mean, Jake, by community, I don't just mean community as in community online. There's a lot of that. It's true. But I do mean community as in meet in person with people, right?
Like we should have like we have AV, like we have we the free. We should have community events in a lot of cities because community events, you know, like imagine if I speak to somebody who's like from, I don't even know, Argentina or something, right? And they're like, "Oh, I don't know anybody in in my city who who who vegan. I don't know how to do." And I just hand them with this website and then you can find they can find a community in their city and they search and they're like, "Oh, look, there's five members or whatever." And then they go there and they get valuable insights. they end up making friends and that eventually leads to way better outcomes. I feel I feel like we we need to we shouldn't underestimate how how much people rely on connected to other people. I think that's a very important part. That's just my two cents on it.
Okay, let's uh Chad GPD finally came back. There was a little bit of a timeout there.
Okay, I'd split this into bought up and objected to because they are very different. Okay. Human/an animal comparisons brought up slashbroad count 209. Oh wow. 72% of the times I compare humans to animals. That's cool. Clear objection to this comparison 10%. That's pretty okay. Objection rate when comparison was brought up 1450%. I don't know what that means.
Wasn't that I'm confused about that. So the comparison is brought up a lot. Roughly seven out of 10 conversations. That's very very that's a lot. But people explicitly object to it much less often.
Around one in 10 conversations overall or about one in seven cases where the comparison comes up. What counts as objecting? I counted objections like you can't compare humans and animals. It's not the same. Humans are different.
Human life is more important. Animals are not equal to humans. And that comparison is too extreme. I do not count every moment when someone simply says humans are smarter because sometimes that is just them answering a trade question, not objecting to the comparison itself. Blunt takeaway. The human/an animal comparison is one of your most common tools, but most people do not directly reject the comparison.
That is important. A lot of people may feel tension when you compare animal exploitation to human exploitation, but only a minority openly say no, you can't compare that. So the comparison is probably less dangerous than many activists fear. As long as you frame it carefully, that's cool. The safer version is I'm not saying humans and animals are the same. I'm asking whether the difference justifies this to them.
That preempts the main objection before they can hide behind it. Okay? So every time we compare humans and animals, we need to prefix it with I'm just drawing conclusions on my own. Obviously, guys, take it with a grain of salt. Don't listen necessarily listen to me. we need to prefix it with um I'm not saying that humans and animals are the same. I'm just saying um does the diff do the difference justify the oppression? Right? Like that like you kind of have to prefix that so people don't think that you're making a weird comparison that they don't really understand.
Chip tiger foruna fora confirmed tiger man. Oh yeah. Tiger man.
Tiger Man time Sweden.
Um, I'm still rejecting it is a sign of not being open to change in my opinion.
Yeah, it is. It's true. Another damn vegan is here. Hello. Another damn vegan. You often do that on Discord already. Yeah, I try to do that, Tone.
You saw that. I try to do that. Yeah. To prefix the the people from Yeah. from from from going down I I really hate going down the same route every time, right? I really want to progress and I feel like it's not progressing if we're doing that. Uh okay, I'm curious more things.
Okay.
Uh okay, let's try this. Where are the most receptive people from?
from um where are most people I speak to from okay while Chad GPT is analyzing based on uh based on that data um I'm going to interact with you guys a little bit more this the vegan echo chamber is so real putting this channel uh in subscriber only mode is the ultimate win for the opposing party funer the unsub button still exists.
Have a good day everyone. Um, yeah, that's fine. I mean, I put it as a subscriber only mode because this only concerns vegans. Um, I wanted to make it members only. Actually, I should probably make it horizontal. Um, I think I just forgot amongst all of it. It wasn't like an intentional thing. I wasn't I wasn't clear whether I'll do it horizontal or vertical because I might do some Discord outreach. Although, we've been spending some time with this one. So, I may not do that. I don't know. Um, but you know, that's it.
That's why I put it this way because it is for vegans. This stream is for vegans. Yes.
Some fries. Rolanda.
They even have jobs and social expectations. It's quite interesting actually though. It's even easier to observe the chickens. They literally form careers. Interesting.
Why are people so offended? Right, Linda? Why are people so offended the fact that I put subscribers only? Like imagine that. Imagine that. I create a stream, I put it subscribers only, and people get offended by it and they're like, "How dare you vegans try to have conversations with each other only anti-vegans? You're going to get karma one day." I hope not. I hope they just change, to be honest. I just hope they they maybe like, "Oh, it's [ __ ] up."
What makes you think we wanted you in any way? We have a right to not get bothered by trolls trying to defend harming those we care about. Honestly, that was my whole intent. My whole intent was if we're going to be having trolls, might as well make them work for it, you know? That was my intent.
That's even funnier. I'm sorry. I want to move to that, but I saw this one.
Dude just to comment that. Imagine that.
That's funny. And there's a five minutes or a one minute waiting time. Uh oh, that's funny. I'll extract countries, nationalities, transcripts, and compare the rough uh receptiveness score. This one will be noisier than length because where are you from isn't always asked or transcribed clearly. I know. Um I could identify origin in about 144, so not a lot. The rest were unclear, not asked, badly transcribed, or too ambiguous.
Okay. Uh the first one, all most people are from the Netherlands. Well, no surprise there. [ __ ] What? What happened? Did Did Chad GPT just mess with me?
Oh no, I think I have to restart Chad GPT. Give me a second. The app just did something stupid, so I kind of lost all that.
Um, your conversions are conversations are incredibly valuable and effective, but they're not getting heard and seen.
We need social media platform that can leverage Vegan to increase viewership of important videos. I mean, I wish I I honestly wish we would get more people, but social media is very reluctant to vegan stuff. You know that, right? Like, it's um Oh, no. This conversation kind of kind of got [ __ ] I don't know what's happened there.
Uh, okay. I'll ask again.
Can you divide based on where the person is coming from? I don't know what happened. I think some of the conversation just got trimmed all of the sudden. Um I ask again.
Okay. Well, we we saw that Netherlands was the first one anyway and then there was US. God damn it, I got scared by that.
Thank you so much, Andy. Well, you scared the [ __ ] out of me. Well, thank you so much. I created Truth Night in Switzerland. Cinema screenings, live discussions around ethical documentaries. I respect your activism and think there could be strong synergy.
Open to an email outreach to show you the concept. That would be amazing. Yes.
Yes, Andy. Obviously, I'm open to that.
Um, I I don't have the time to organize that though. And I I'm not I mean I I I know a lot of people see me as the outgoing person, but I'm a pretty introverted person. So I don't really, you know, I don't like interacting with people. Like I like if somebody organizes it and I go there and I'm like, "Hello, hi." Shake some hands and start some conversations. But I'm pretty introverted otherwise, you know?
I'm in my house a lot, man.
I'm I'm a shy guy. I'm a shy guy. Okay.
I'm I'm shy.
Okay, let me see if I can Oh, no. That's not the window. Let me try to find the other window.
I had to restart it. Okay, look at that.
Uh, okay. But it didn't sort by where it's coming from.
Um, okay. So, we have Netherlands as 100 conversations.
Uh, average effectiveness 2.85. Damn.
United States 022 average effectiveness.
So, US was the least effective ones.
Holy crap. Resistant rate a 16%.
So, United States are the most resistant apparently out of all of these. Holy [ __ ] I was not expecting that. Greece, uh, that's very few conversations though. Uh, England, a lot of conversations. Well, eight Roman. I had a lot of people from Romania. I think this is just misinterpreting it because I'm saying I'm from Romania, right? Yeah, because I don't think I spoke to so many Romanians, but who knows? Maybe I did.
Maybe I did.
Germany. A lot of people from Germany.
That was my also my expectation. 2 point two two average. That's not very high.
Canada is higher than than Germany.
Italy is higher than Canada. Holy [ __ ] I was not expecting that. My my expectation has been that what has my I think UK people were the most receptive if you ask me and I think this is also what shows in the data. Yeah, UK people are the most receptive towards veganism.
Uh, and then I would say I don't think German people are.
So, it's not the one that I speak to, but yeah, this is this data isn't as good as Yeah, it's not as good as I thought. So, um, it's a little bit blurry. It's not It's a little bit messed up. Okay. Let's Should we ask by religion? Okay. Okay. Let's see.
Okay.
Let's split by religion now.
if the data is available.
Okay, Chad G is thinking. I'm going to chat with you guys a little bit more.
Uh, the gospel show e Jesus eating fish.
Jesus was vegan, bro. Jesus was vegan.
Um, the God promised land as blah blah blah blah blah. Jesus was vegan, bro.
Genesis blah blah blah. Jesus is vegan, bro.
Looks like the [ __ ] circus has rolled in.
Well, reluctantly rolled in because they had to subscribe. Huh. God is good. No, it's not. God is not good. God is God is kind of a dick because God created u some really, really unnecessary suffering.
God wants you to repent. Well, [ __ ] him.
Well, [ __ ] it. Sorry. Because God is not a him. God's an it. Sure. Because the meat, dairy, and egg industry PR machine is strongest here. Uh, that could be I I think I think so too. It's not And I don't think so.
It's going to sound weird, but I don't think it's because the PR machine is the strongest necessarily. I don't think it's the advertising that makes it the biggest difference. I think what makes the biggest difference in my opinion is the supermarkets.
If the supermarkets are arranged in a way where you see more and more animal products rather than the opposite, then you're going to have the impression that it's much easier to be non-vegan and therefore you will have you'll be in that position because we did see that the most common excuse was that it's hard, right? So, I think like I think it's a little bit that I think super like if you can convince supermarkets to somehow arrange their products where they put plant-based products on display more, I think you'll get a lot better outcomes. I'm vegan for 5 years, meat only on weekends. You're not vegan. You You're oppressing innocent animals. What are you talking about? That's not vegan.
You're literally an animal abuser.
Good old UK people. Surprisingly, I don't think it's that surprising because I think supermarkets in the UK make it fairly abundantly clear that plant-based products are pretty good.
I I mean, that's my theory obviously.
Does anyone outside of the US get the coupons on mail every week for toast food and animal products for fast food and do they do you Okay, maybe there's also a little bit of that. I didn't know that. That's [ __ ] up.
You are insulting your own god by acting the way you do. Are we getting somebody who's was who's behaving like a dick in the chat? Oh yeah, Luke following his resurrection. Well, Martin Quicks, I can prove to you that the manquakes, by the way, um you're welcome. You're welcome to come and debate me, bro.
You're welcome to come and debate me.
Ask by ask by vegetarian ever or currently if that is captured in the transcript.
How many of them were vegetarian? Okay, we'll ask that next.
Okay, let's go for the this data.
Uh okay, I'll only classify relig religion where the transcripts actually give a clue.
Explicitly mentions like Musim, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, halal, God, Jesus, Quran, Bible, or not religious.
This will probably be a smaller and noisier subset than the country. Yeah, we expect it to be noisy. Obviously, religion data is available but thin.
Most transcripts do not clearly identify the person's religion. So I would not make strong claims like Christians are more open than Muslims from this one alone. Out of 289 conversations uh uh 222 were not even um were not even like you couldn't identify the religion.
So it's it's kind of rel redundant really. Muslims four were Muslims and they were pretty effective. Christians three and they were more effective.
Hindu they said two and not enough ref I think and the religion discussed but identity is unclear 2.99 yeah the data I said is not strong enough to rank religions I agree religion itself does not clearly predict openness in this data set what matters more is how religion is used in the conversation uh religious pattern my religion says animals are for us halal is okay god gave us animals usually more resistant okay so when they start saying my religion says animals are for us halal is okay they're more resistant Religion teaches compassion, mercy, nonviolence, uh, stewardship, more open route. Yeah.
Okay. The Muslim conversations were mixed. Some were pretty open, especially when the person could acknowledge that halal does not magically remove the victim's desire not to die. But when the person treated religious permission as the final answer to the conversation, the conversed religious permission as the final answer, the conversation got harder.
Yeah, I noticed that also myself. But I do love this. I love this this this way of saying it.
uh especially when the person could acknowledge that halal I love this expression halal does not magically remove the victim's desire not to die halal does not magically remove the victim's desire not to die that's [ __ ] brilliant that's love this expressiveness the way it's expressed the Christian sample looked unusually open but with only three conversations I would not trust that as a real pattern thank you judging I won't one strong conversation can massively distort the average agree uh okay Better takeaway instead of splitting the religion I'd split by religious reasoning style divine permission God allows it halal uh tradition ritual compassion inside religion the best religious counter rate seems to be even if your religion permits something does that mean you should choose it when you have the kinder option oh that's a good one so not [ __ ] on the religion okay or if God gave you the ability to choose mercy over violence why choose violence when you don't need to Yeah, I like this phrasing. Okay, let me let me take a snapshot of these two. I do like these a lot. Um, okay, I took a snapshot of that also.
Okay, what was the next question? I think I saw it. I forgot. I forgot about it. See, I didn't write it down and I got into this. Uh, they all got off the [ __ ] bus in chat at the same time.
That's funny. I love it when call them robust.
Animals are meant for food. Humans are animals. Therefore, humans are meant for food. Thank you. You're right. Religion debate. Let's go. Yeah. Well, he won't debate me. You know that, right? Ask the LLM if professing atheism is good idea to these people.
Oh, that's a good point. Is it? Okay, let me show it.
Is it is it got is it effective to try and profess atheism to these people.
Okay, while Chad GPT is thinking.
Uh yeah, we'll check out the chat. Are you guys having fun arguing with someone just using Chad GPD to write all the responses for them? Right.
Uh I think God is great. God doesn't exist. But people are but but people are evil and God cannot stop them because they have the choice to make for them.
Thank you for all you do. God does not exist.
Uh people are not evil. They're just um ignorant.
Um I think ignorance is the bigger issue. Let's see what JPD says on this one. Probably no. At least not if your goal is getting them closer to veganism.
Based on all the religion split, the more effective route is your religion is is not your religion is wrong. I'm atheist. God doesn't exist. God doesn't exist. Everyone that's likely changing conversation from animals being exploited unnecessarily into is my worldview under attack? Yeah, I would expect that that's the one to happen.
And once that happened, the animal issues become secondary. They start defending religion, identity, family, culture, and belonging. That is usually a strategic loss. Okay. So, when I'm speaking over animal rights, I'm not going to [ __ ] on their religion. The better move is to say instead their stated values, even if your religion allows it, do you personally think mercy is better than violence when violence isn't necessary? Or if God gave humans the ability to choose compassion, shouldn't we choose the kinder option when we can? That's a good one. Do you think permission means obligation? If something is allowed, does that automatically mean it's the most compassionate choice? Love it.
Okay, that keeps the focus on choice, mercy, necessity, and the victim. The only time professing the only time professing atheism might be useful if they directly ask, "Do you believe in God?" No, I don't personally, but I think you need to be atheist to I don't think you need to be atheist to agree that animals shouldn't suffer when we have the choice.
Okay.
Okay. Okay.
Okay. Vegetarian breakdown. Thank you.
That was the one. Okay, let's see.
Okay, how many people were vegetarian and how many No, how open were vegetarians to being vegan?
Okay, obviously the data becomes slow smaller and smaller the more questions we ask like But I like that it's saying it's take it with a grain of salt and stuff.
Okay, let's go for a little bit more.
Actually, you know what? I'm going to take a little quick break, everyone. I'm going to go to the to the to the bathroom. I'll be back one second. Okay.
Okay, I'm back. I'm back. Everyone, I'm back. I'm back.
Somebody says you don't like juicy steaks. Um, I don't know what to tell you, man. I first of all, no, I don't like the taste of steak. It's kind of ridiculously tastes like metal. That's all it tastes like. Just you'll be chewing on a pipe, a metal pipe, first of all. And second, um, even if I did like it, I wouldn't exploit innocent animals.
I'm just I just don't think taste justifies violence. You know, in my worldview, pleasure does not justify violence. I guess uh for some people it does. Or some people just choose to have an ego because they when they hear that, oh no, for me if I continue doing it, taste would justify violence. That would mean I'm a bad person. uh therefore my ego is hurt therefore I have to justify it somehow and they start justifying it so yeah that's what happens but no I I'm all for animals animal liberation um vegetarians are more open than a on a than the average person but not automatically easy using a stricter filler for people who seem to currently be vegetarian mostly not eating meat current vegetarians 17 conversations average rough score 4.21 uh high open rate 52% resistant rate 11%. Okay. Past considering vegetarian 4.3. Okay. So people who were vegetarian are actually or who people who consider vegetarian are more open and the whole data set baseline. Oh that's very small conversations, huh? Yeah. Vegetarians are generally more receptive to veganism than the general street sample. But the blunt part vegetarianism can also become their moral shield. Some vegetarians seem to be very open because they already care and just need the dairy/ egg connection explained. Others act like I'm vegetarian means they've already done enough, so they resist the vegan conclusion. We've already seen that ourselves.
The best performing route with vegetarian seems to be that's good that you already care enough to not eat meat.
Can I ask, do you know why dairy and eggs still involve exploitation and killing? I kind of like that. I'm going to take a snapshot also of that.
then go into so why so would you say vegetarian is a step but not the final line if the goal is respecting animals I kind of like that more than saying that vegetarians is not enough because I usually say that's not enough um okay Nick is here Nick to see you here Jay okay uh I saw the research from the UK that says something like 70% % of vegan are former vegetarians. Well, that's pretty good. It's pretty damn good, huh?
Why don't you type this?
Are trees and plants sentient or not?
They're not. What are you talking about, bro?
Of course they're not sentient. What do you mean? That's stupid. Uh, thanks again for the openness earlier. I couldn't find a contact email anywhere.
What's the best way to reach you regarding Truth Night? Um, Andy, drop a comment on any of my videos. You can do it right now. Uh, I'll see it and I'll uh I'll send you my email. Okay, there. I think it's easier.
Yeah. Why would you need Chia GBD for that? Yeah, it's pretty simple. They're not sentient. Um, okay. Let's let's h get to some funky funky stuff. What is the most ridiculous thing?
What is the most ridiculous excuse anyone ever brought up?
Let's see what we get.
Lewis was sorry. Tone was in the kitchen. Tone. Donna's in the kitchen with Dina. Donna's in the kitchen. I know. Uh oh. Please send your email to me as well. Okay. Well, if you want my email, type it. Type a comment that you want my email and I'll send you my email. No problem.
God damn it. I got scared again.
That sound I got I got to work on that.
I don't know if you guys get scared whenever you hear that sound, but I got super scared. Vegan Christianity, thank you so much. 5B lemon character moving his head from left to right with his mouth wide open and red hearts in his eyes. Oh, I guess this is I guess this is because of the sticker, right? Oh, I see. Thank you so much, Christian. Vegan Christianity.
Um, okay. So, stickers are described.
Now I know why.
lemon character moving his head from left to right with his mouth wide open and red hearts in his eyes.
Oh god, that went out the wrong pipe.
So something like Sorry, I've tried.
Chip, I saw you your BLT sandwich and it looked like a pile of manure. No offense. I don't know what you're talking about. Do you mean that the the tempe bacon that I made? Man, that was long ago.
And you know, I don't think that's how manure looks like. But whenever if you look at manure and it's in the shape of a sandwich, that must mean you have a bigger problem than I mean manure that's not in the shape of a sandwich, bro. But whatever.
The most ridiculous one I found is probably from Ben. The excuse was basically, I hunt animals because I enjoy the meat, but I wouldn't hunt humans because I would it wouldn't be legal. Then when you ask essentially, what if it were legal? He didn't immediately say obviously no. He went into if it were legal, I wouldn't know because our minds would be completely different.
Okay, that's wild because the moral line temporarily became legality, not the victim. Not consent, not suffering, not rights.
The runner up ridiculous excuses.
I wouldn't hunt humans because it's illegal. So that's the first one.
Accidentally implies legality is the thing stopping cannibal hunting.
Avocados though, you're saying stop cutting throats. They're saying but guacamole has a carbon footprint.
Oh, that's so funny. Yeah, that's actually like like like when you hear when you hear it out loud how ridiculous the excuses are. You're saying stop cutting throats and they're saying but guacamole has a carbon footprint. God damn it. Like how stupid does that sound? Do all of you non-vegans hear this? Do you hear how stupid that sounds? Stop cutting the throats of innocent animals. But avocados have a carbon footprint.
Circle of life. Oh god, that's the one of the stupidest. Used to defend industrial farming, which is basically the least quote unquote circle of life thing imaginable.
Oh my god. Chi, thank you. Lions do it.
A moral a moral philosophy outsourced to a cat that licks its own ass. Oh, I don't know if Chad GBT is being a little bit uh I mean I like it. I I like I like this uh what do you call it? Uh cheeky attitude. We've always done it/ ancestors. Same logic couldn't defend almost every historical Same logic could defend almost every historical injustice. We've always done it/ ancestors.
Yeah. But the Ben legality one is the funniest bleakest because it reveals the whole problem. Some people don't have a clear moral objection ready until the law gives them one.
I mean, that's that's kind of funny.
That's that's definitely funny to me.
Uh, what are we on about here? So, what we did, Blueberry Dog, is I'm an animal rights activist. I have conversations with people on the street about animal rights. And what I did is every conversation is recorded. and I transcribed all of the conversations and I put all those conversations into Chad GBT and we're asking Chad GPT questions about all those conversations. It's very funny.
I'm curious if Chad GPT thinks Chip's arguments are more reasonable than the caress he debates. If there are any points the carnis brought up that chip failed to effectively refute. That's a really good question, Nick. Let's ask that test.
A [ __ ] I don't know what I did just now. Okay.
are my arguments more reasonable reasonable man walking typing and paying attention to everything is a little bit harder than I thought. Um then the carnist then the carnist ones.
And are there any points that I failed to effectively refute?
Okay, it's funny.
Oh, Renzo Alba is here. I learned today that an orange or an apple makes a good sandwich. Yeah, Alli, it's a really good sandwich. You put an orange on an apple.
Shut up. It works.
Well, at least you know the hunter isn't a bot. A bot wouldn't say something so stupid.
That's true.
Do you see that talking point is directly from Piers Morgans and you can guarantee that he got a heck for that segment, a check for that segment.
That's so ridiculous, isn't he? This guy said one of the stupidest arguments and he got money for that.
That's so stupid, man.
We need animals to survive. Well, we don't need to exploit them. So, there you go.
You've got a phone is the stupidest excuse I hear. Let's we'll see how often that comes out. Let's see now.
Oh, sorry. I thought I showed Chad GPT window. Okay. Yes, your arguments are generally more reasonable than the carnist ones, especially on the core ethical structure. Your usual argument is basically animals are sentient. They can suffer and have interests. We do not need to exploit and kill them. pleasure, habit, convenience, culture, or normality do not justify harming someone unnecessarily. That is a much cleaner argument than what most people give back, which is usually I like it. It's normal. It's my choice. Humans are above animals. Lions do it. It's hard. One person won't change anything. So yes, on rational consistency, you usually win.
But there are areas where you sometimes do not fully close the loop or where the response could be sharper. Here it comes. We're learning. This is probably your strongest tool. Humans versus animals comparison, but also one of the easiest to misunderstand. Sometimes the person says, "But humans and animals are different." And you push what's the morally relevant difference. That's good, but you should make the frame clearer. I'm not saying humans and animals are identical. I'm asking what difference justifies exploiting and killing them when we don't need to.
I'm I'm I learned that already at some point, and I'm trying to do that more often.
that prevents them from escaping into humans are smarter. Humans have society.
Humans have moral agency because then you can say sure humans may be smarter but does lower intelligence justify treating somebody as a product. That's the cleaner version. That's really good.
Healthn nutrition. You often answer this reasonably, but sometimes it sounds too much like science says it's fine. Well, that's my whole point. Science says it's fine. That is true enough for street outreach, but some people need the simple practical version.
The only thing you really need to be intentional about is B12. Protein, iron, calcium, omega-3, all manageable. So, health can be plan can be a planning issue, but not a justification for killing animals. That closes it better.
I'm trying to think about this one.
The only thing you really need to be intentional about is B12. I like that.
Protein, iron, calcium, omega-3, all manageable.
Health is a planning issue. I do like the sound of that. But there's something that I and but not a justification for killing animals. I'm going to take a snapshot of this also because I want to go forward into it.
That closes it better. Otherwise, they can't leave thinking maybe veganism is ethically nice but nutritionally risky.
That's a good point. You want to separate concern from excuse. If someone genuinely has a health concern, they should solve that carefully. But most of us are not eating animals because of a medical necessity. Are not eating animals because of a medical necessity.
We're doing it because it's normal and tasty.
Funny that Chad GPT says that.
Locus/humane farms. Your ethical response is right. Better treatment does not justify exploitation or killing. But sometimes the analogy route gets very intense very quickly. If you compare local humane meat to human rape or other human atrocities too early, it may be logically sharp but emotionally explosive.
Oh, Marcos, you became a member. Thank you so much, Marcos. Wait, just so I just Marcos, thank you so much. Well, you didn't become a member. You were already a member, right? Appreciate you with the tacos. Love it. Some W's in the chat for Marcos, everyone. Thank you.
um a cleaner route. Even if the farm is better, the animal is still being bred, used, and killed for sometimes for something we don't need. So the question isn't was it the worst possible life?
The question is, would we have the right to use their life as a product? It's a good one.
That's probably more effective and than immediately escalating religions are halal. You should probably avoid trying to disprove their religion or prove that their halal is fake unless you are very sure. Okay. The strongest route is even if your religion allows it, does permission mean you have you should choose it when you have a kinder option or if God values mercy and you can choose mercy without harming yourself, why not choose mercy? That keeps the animal in the center. When the conversation becomes is Islam/Christianity/Hinduism correct? You have probably lost the strategic thread. Okay. Well, we'll have to change that from now on. Um, one person won't make a difference. You do answered this, but the strongest version is not only demand/ apply, it's also victim- centered. Best version, if everyone said one person won't make a difference, nothing would ever change.
But also from the victim's perspect perspective, being one victim does not make their life irrelevant.
Then you don't have to change their whole world today. You just have to stop being part of the demand for this injustice.
I've been trying to say that more that we're not asking them to change the world.
Okay. Consent. This is one that's tricky. You sometimes lean on they can't consent. That's valid, but carnist can reply. Animals can't consent to anything. They can't consent to vet care either. So the sharper version is when someone cannot consent that does not give us permission to use their body for our pleasure. It means we need a stronger justification.
Medical care helps them. Slaughter for taste helps us at their expense.
That closes the loophole.
Oh god, this is a long response.
I chose to do this while walking.
Plant/crop that's avocados. These do not come up that often, but when they do, the cleanest response is even if you care about crop debts, veganism still reduces harm because farmed animals eat huge amounts of crops too. So eating animals is usually adds the animal suffering plus the crop debts required to feed them. Then add and plants do not have a brain, nervous system, or subjective experience as far as the evidence shows animals do. Do not spend too long there unless the person is genuinely asking. It is often a derail.
There we go everyone. Plants have feelings is a derail derail.
Reduction and baby steps. This is one place where you are ethically right but persuasion can be delicate. If someone says I'll reduce and you answer too hard with reducing is still exploiting. You may be correct but you might lose a person who was moving better. Reducing is better than doing nothing. But if we agree that the victim matters, the goal shouldn't be exploit less. The goal should be to stop p participating as soon as practic as soon as practically possible.
That keeps the abolitionist point without sounding like you are rejecting movement.
Sorry everyone, I'm catching my breath because I'm swagging here. My blunt my blunt verdict, your arguments are more reasonable than theirs most of the time.
The carnissance, the carnicide is usually running on habit, identity protection, normality, pleasure, and vague humans are different claims. But your weakest moments are not usually because your logic is bad. They are because you sometimes move from logical clarity into rhetorical overpressure before the person has fully stepped into the conclusion themselves.
The best version of you is calm, warm, precise, relentless, not softer, not less honest, just more surgical.
I [ __ ] love that. I love that. I love that a lot. I like that's a good one.
Consent is an argument for human relations only. No, it's not.
If you are a vegan, can you kill an animal in a video game? Yeah, we're against exploitation of non-scentient animals.
Good stuff. Yeah, I'm going to actually take a photo of this last thing. Calm, warm, precise, relentless.
Going to have to work what that means.
And we're going to we're going to see together if it goes better.
saying veganism is not good for nutrition is speciesist like saying anti-abbleism is bad for nutrition.
Yeah. Am I allowed to eat chicken? Well, you should not be allowed to eat chicken. No, you should treat animals with the respect that they they should be treated with. You should not treat them like an object.
Okay. I want to find out what are the most what are the three worst logical fallacies carnist commit and then uh I mean I don't know I think I'm I think I'm done with this. Um oh appeal to tradition. We've always eaten animals. It's part of my culture. Oh, that's number one. Okay. Interesting.
Appeal to nature. I was expecting appeal to nature to be high. Special pleading.
Oh, that's very often. Yes. For people that know special pleading, it's uh it would be wrong to do this to humans/d dogs, but okay to do it to pigs, cickens, it essentially means that uh you're taking Oh, let me just read it.
They apply one moral standard to animals they care about. They invent exceptions for animals they eat. Exactly. Appeal to futility. One person won't change anything.
Uh we already saw that. And the false equivalence, but plants feel pain, but avocados, crop debts, all that stuff. There are false equivalences/ red herrings. The absolute worst one morally is probably the special pleading. I I hope I I agree. I don't know if it's the worst one, but it's I mean, it is the worst one morally.
Yeah, it's not the most common one, though. That's the core contradiction.
I'm against unnecessarily violence except when I enjoy the product or dorm hump dorm dogs for pleasure but harming pigs for pleasure is fine.
Basically, we've always done it. Animals do it too. And the animals I eat don't count the same. That's not a moral argument. That's defense mechanism wearing a philosophy hat.
Chad GPT doing its thing.
Okay, you subscriber mod because you are running away. No, I'm on a treadmill.
I'm not running away. Actually, I'm if anything, I'm running towards you because I'm on a treadmill towards you.
Good community. I might disagree, but I enjoy these conversations. Well, that's good. Interesting. I think Chips replies already cover most of Chad GPT's listed objections. I do. Yeah.
What if you accidentally step on an insect?
Excuse me.
We're talking about intentional violating the rights of an animal. We're talking about exploitation of innocent animals for a product you don't need.
That's not accidental. That's intentional.
Have you ever had the case in which you've spoken to a Theion? I don't know what a Theion is. What's a Theion? Let me Google it.
It's an animal.
Oh, it's a subclass of mammals.
I don't speak to animals. I don't know about you, but I don't speak to animals.
Um, yeah. Okay. Well, let me see if I have some other questions that would be interesting.
Otherwise, um otherwise I think I'm I'm done. I think I'm uh this was an interesting thing to analyze. And uh I don't want to like we've already been here for 2 hours.
Huh?
I did not expect that we can do this for 2 hours. Honestly, political mindset, I don't think that's any good way of knowing.
Personality type, it's hard to say. We said men versus women.
Uh, do you guys have any more questions that maybe I could ask? If not, uh, yeah, if you are vegan, can you fish but throw them back in the water and not eat the juicy fish? Dude, can you not objectify animals that way? Can you stop objectifying animals?
I can do whatever I want as a vegan. I choose to not be violent towards animals. Fishing them is pretty cruel.
You literally put a hook through their lip. Imagine if somebody did that to you. Would you like that? No. Obviously throwing back them back in the water is better than killing them. But fishing is like exploitation of animals for pleasure. It's insanely cruel.
Yeah.
Um, okay. Fastest objection to collapse, hardest objection to overcome.
Uh, we've already gone through that.
Oh, Marcos. Oh, Marcos, thank you so much. Jesus, can we get some W's in the chat for Marcos um for the super chat? Appreciate it.
Oh my god.
Um, thank you. Thank you so much. Marcos Ali says, "Maybe you could ask for more better reframe questions since some of them are pretty good." Okay, so let's do this.
Based on all these conversations, how would you do the next social experiment?
You can be creative and a bit fun.
It's weird sometimes. Okay. I'd make the next social experiment less like, "Can I convince you to go vegan?" and more like the consistency test. I'm testing if people are morally consistent.
So, I think this sign, let me show you guys. Oh my god, we got a new donation.
Thank you so much for who donated. I didn't see it.
Let's test our values as good for that, right? Okay. Wait, before I move go into the next one, let me see who else donated. Appreciate the donation.
Chip, does your treadmill track miles?
Yeah, it does, but whenever I stop it, it forgets it. So, I don't know.
Uh, $5 from Nick pair character doing a classic mic drop.
Thank you. That's a super sticker. I guess super stickers are coming kind of weird. That's cool. I'll have to look into that plugin. Be honest. Would you rather kill a human or a dog? Uh, depends on the human. Depends on the dog. Yeah, I would definitely kill Hitler over any dog any day of the week.
Um, or spicier. Are you against animal abuse? Prove it. Okay. The goal is to make people curious, slightly challenged, but not instantly defensive.
You are not asking, "Do you want to talk about veganism?" You're asking, "Are your values consistent?" That's cool.
That's much harder for people to resist without looking like they're dodging.
The structure I'd use start with I'm doing a social experiment about moral consistency. Can I ask you a few questions? Then how do you feel about animals? If they say they like, love, respect animals. Do you have animals in your life? Pets, family, animals, anything like that. Let them talk. This seems important. The data suggests the pet individual connection is one of your strongest routes. Let them humanize animals first. Then so you see them as a someone, not something. Okay. After they agree, do you think farmed animals are also someone not something like pigs, cows, chickens?
Then the principle, if we don't need to harm someone, should we?
Then the trap door opens. So here's the consistency test. If we can live healthy without eating animals, is taste a good enough reason to pay for them to be killed?
That should be the central movement. The fun twist, give them a little bit of a scorecard verbally. So far, you're scoring dangerously high on compassion.
Or, okay, interesting. You've passed the first three levels of the vegan boss fight. I don't know if I would call it the vegan boss fight, but that's interesting. Or, you're doing well, but this is where most people start emotionally lagging. Keep it playful, but don't let the issue become a joke. I think that's the difficult part.
You could even literally have a small card saying slashs sign moral consistency test. One, do animals matter? Two, is it is unnecessary harm wrong? I would call it exploitation, but that's fine. Does taste justify exploitation?
Are you willing to act on it? Then as they answer, you point to each level.
The best opening route, I'd use this.
I'm an animal rights activist, but today I'm not starting with veganism. I'm testing moral consistency. How do you feel about animals? Well, well, if I if I start saying this to people, the minute I say I'm not starting with veganism, people will already catch on and they'll already start becoming defensive. So, no, we're not going to do that. That does three things. You are honest about being an activist.
You don't make veganism the first battlefield. Yeah, but if I mention it, people will already know it. You make the conversation about their values, not your opinion. Yeah. So, I should say I'm an animal rights activist.
And I'm trying to test well not even because if I say I'm an animal rights activist and I'm testing their moral consistency a lot of them they already realize what this is about. I'll still start with I'm an animal rights activist. How do you feel about animals?
Okay. And then I'll say can we test your consistency on those values?
And then I'll just go with the question.
Once they agree unnecessary harm is wrong. Do not jump immediately into a giant speech. Ask, "What do you think happens to animals in the food system?"
Let them reveal their level of knowledge. That's actually a very valuable point. That's a good point. If they mention quote unquote good farms, even on the better farms, are they still being used and killed for something we don't need?
If they mention dairy, can I tell you the part that most people don't realize?
If you're humans to take the milk, the mother has to lose the baby.
If they mention personal choice when there's a victim, is it just is it just a personal choice?
If they mention hard, I agree it can be hard. But does hard justify continuing once we know there's a victim? And then the ending, this is where I'd be more disciplined than usual.
Once they concede the core point, don't let it dissolve. Use So based on your own answers, do you think paying for animal products is consistent with your values? I like that one.
Do you think paying for animal products is consistent with your own values?
That's a really good one. Then stop talking. Let the silence work, which is also something I'm learning to do. Then what do you think you should do with that? Only they asked of only after they answer give them the practical ask.
Would you try challenge 22 days vegan?
Not forever. Not as a person as a personality transplant. Just 22 days to see if your actions can match what they you already said you believe.
Then the sharper close. And can I ask you one specific thing? Watch this threeinut video today. Until you watch it, don't buy any animal products.
Just pause before buy before paying for it.
Okay.
Okay. I kind of like that. A a lot some parts of it I really like.
Um, okay. A lot of people casting themselves animal rights activists are just about pets and wild animals. You can start with that before you move on to farmed animals. Yeah. Could you start with I'm testing moral consistency? Is that too vague?
I mean, I think I should start with I'm an animal rights activist. How do you feel about animals? I think that's a good start.
Uh, and then I think I should say, well, let's test that moral consistency a little bit.
Uh, and then I should ask the next questions. And I'm think I'm going to write down some of the questions in a certain order first. So, first, as I just established because I want to remember it, right? We need to establish that they have a connection with humans with animals. That animals are individuals not objects and how we should treat animals, right?
Like what type of moral considerations they deserve and then move on to the farmed animals and then I really really like what Chip said the ending question or after we've agreed together that we should not treat them that way.
It's all good to ask. So, based on your own answers, do you think paying for animal products is consistent with your values?
I really like that. It's a really good line. Based on your values, do you think paying for animal products is consistent with them? So, no. Well, B, sorry, it said based on your answers. Yeah. So, based on your own answers, do you think paying for animal products is consistent with your values? That's a really good one.
I see a lot of animal activists using your methods. Congratulations. You're like a great teacher for activists.
Uh, thank you. You see, this is I mean, a lot of people don't really realize that I spent time um trying to get better at my activism like this, trying to find out what the best things to say are. Sometimes just repeating them a couple of times. Yeah, there's a good time start. Everyone thinks they're pro animal. Yeah.
Not being stingy on the potatoes again.
I see. Hey, tone is a vegan exploiting their reflection in the mirror. Using that reflection for the vegan to benefit, especially when the reflection doesn't consent. Come on.
A reflection is not an individual. Louis trolling me right there.
Um, value talk also detaches from the balance of interests.
Um, I think value stock are Martin. Are you sending poos again? Is Martin sending poos? Is that what's happening? No, they're potatoes. Okay.
Is Martin sending them? I want to see that. Uh, yeah. I kind of like this idea of talking like I feel like I did notice one thing and I think we all can attest to this that holding people accountable too early will kind of flunk the conversation unless there's somebody who's like really open right like well some women are really open like a man especially guy like I'll just put it this way I'll tell you right here right now for all my animal rights activist if you're going to be having a conversation with a guy with a man do not ask too early you need to cuddle that person like they're a freaking baby. You need to go in there one by one, step by step, take a little bit of a chance every time or slowly increase it. Make sure that they're not being feeling threatened by any of this.
Make sure that the ego is all in check until you ask the question. It's very important with men. Women are a little bit easier, right? They kind of understand that. But with men, step by step, everyone step tickle them first. I like this, Elian. Tickle them first. That's perfect. Tickle them first.
Do we know for sure there isn't a a mirror world, though? How can we truly know? Are we are we talking about solarism now, Leon? Does the vegan anthem actually stand for the vocabulary authority? A little bit. The vegan anthem a lot of the times likes to to to come in here and say stuff. I don't know why photons are not sentient. Well, how do you know, Brad? How do you know photons are not sentient? Huh?
Um, yeah, I agree. Language is very important. Uh, the vegan anthem, by the way. Um but uh the important part about language is using it to our advantage, right?
Using it for the animals more than uh using it to prove a point is my is what I think we should do. Um so we'll try we'll try to do more of that. We'll try to do more of that. I think this was I don't know about you, but I I I thought that was I thought that was interesting.
This whole this whole thing was kind of interesting to me. And uh if you guys want more questions, by the way, if you have more questions and uh want to drop some more questions in the in the comments afterwards, I could ask Chad GPT because this the conversation is still there. And then maybe reply what what the outcome is. I made a funny I like that this was a chiller stream than the last one. Yeah, it was chill, right? It was a pretty chill stream, wasn't it?
Um, yeah.
Most men's egos are more fragile than women's. Uh, Louis, I would say, yeah, I would say men's I don't know if you're joking when actually asking this, but yeah, men have a higher tendency of ego.
I don't know if it's It could also be, Lois, by the way, because I'm a man, right? Like it could also be that when men address other men, their ego are higher because they're like, "Who is this guy? This guy more of a man than me or something, right?" Like they see it instantly as a as a race or something.
Uh so it could also be that um that would be interesting actually, right? To take the conversations from women also and see if if if it's strictly like a gender by gender thing.
Sometimes you have to meet people uh where they are and bring them up. I think I I also think so too. But meeting people where they are again that mean still means just to be clear I I saved it. Wait I saved it here. I saved like six things so far. Calm, warm, precise, relentless.
Not softer, not less honest, but more surgical. I like this word surgical so much. I don't know why it just that gives me pleasure. surgical. Surgical because it just means like precise and accurate and like you know what you it feels like you're kind of analyzing the person in front of you and you're doing surgical stuff like it's it's good. So calm, warm, precise, and relentless.
So are you saying that men lack zero responsibility or accountability? No, Axel. I just think men get defensive faster. I think men's emotions uh are a little bit more defensive. Uh language is important but not a concrete unchanging equation with only one meaning per word. Completely agree also.
Yeah, very true. Very interesting indeed. Good use of AI. Yeah, I agree.
Right. Like analyzing data like this is very important. Very useful. Is still is it still okay to eat gay farts? Yeah, I mean if you're into that, why not? Uh photons can be sentient as they can't experience time. Can't be sentient as they can't experience time. That I like that. Jar, that's a really good one. I like that. That's funny. What if all mirrors are actually showing another dimension that is just mirrored? Not saying it is in any way likely, just that I can't think of a way to definitely refute it. Oh god, Leon.
Oh god, Leon. Sure, why not? I really enjoyed the stream. It was It was fun, right? Humane language changes dayto-day. Gay meant happy, then homosexual, and now with this chat, it's cool. Yeah, gay means cool here. So there you go. You're right. Bra from Turbo. Nice. Nah, men get defensive around women, too. Oh, do they do? Okay.
So, men just on average get more defensive. That's what we've established, right? Men get more defensive than women. Okay, that's that's that's interesting. Well, not at all unexpected, right? Surgical is great. Yeah, exactly my point. Sure, Vegan Anthem. At least we can agree to that. In my opinion, most people learn with simple language. The simpler you can make it, the better because it's easier to grasp. I agree with you. I agree with you with that one.
The biggest egos I've met have been female. Sure, that could happen. I'm not saying no. It's just I don't think the question is who has the biggest egos, but just who on average has the bigger ego, right? Uh because that's what matters. Uh Chip, the ego question was serious. I know I'm often goofing around. Oh, okay. Le Well, my perception, Lewis, has been that men get defensive easier. My perception has been that. So, let me just put it this way.
Um, this also kind of what HGP alluded to in this conversation, but also kind of what I noticed is that if I see a man walking over towards me, there's a less likelihood that the conversation will go better rather than I see a woman, right? Like I feel like women are just a little bit more open-minded or not that more open-minded. Women accept being challenged more than men do. men have I don't know if it's ego necessarily or men don't like being challenged as much as women do and that's also been consistent with my worldview not just on animal rights but on kind of on everything. I don't know if you guys agree but by the way this is my opinion right it's not scientific data I think this is more of a human flow honestly I don't know Axel men waving goes around more freely something it's not rocket science we have to speak to them like carnists are two years old tone man I appreciate you tone so much I like I like your attitude tone is definitely a direct person I really like them I think you and I will become really good friends Sure. Why not? I don't get defensive, says Brett. What the?
Uh, if you don't connect with a person, your point won't be heard. It's just talking to people. Talking at people. No one likes it. Yeah, that's the thing. We have to talk to people, not at people.
That's also good.
Okay, let's see.
Men do not get more defensive out there.
I don't know if you guys are joking around, but that's funny. How dare you?
That's funny. Men do not get defensive.
I just That's just been my expectation.
I guess if there is a disagreement, this would pro prove Chips prove Chip, right?
I never track the statistics myself. I just know that many are defensive amongst all gender. True. It's true. A lot of them are defensive when it comes to veganism.
But we know what we want. I don't know if that's true. Also, I don't challenge women because I know I it'll get me killed.
What?
What? What's that even mean?
Would you go to Romania and ask people there to become vegan? Yeah, I said did that to several people.
Of course, I have no problem. It's just Romanian people. Not a lot of them speak English, so speaking to them in Romanian wouldn't be good stream because nobody would understand it. Would it?
My ego is strange. It's chill normally, but when someone crosses a line, my ego turns into a beast. I think that's the thing, Louis, isn't it? I think I'm a man. And I I agree with you on that one.
I think that's what we as men tend to do, isn't it?
We're normally chill, but then when somebody crosses a line, our ego goes from zero to 100 pretty fast or to at least to a really high percentage.
Whereas I think women maybe may women maybe their ego isn't like that fastly bursting into flames as ours. So that just begs the question, whose people whose line is that? But you know what?
I'm just going to Google that because I'm curious.
Are men wait often more no I shouldn't ask that because I who is more ego driven men or women only scientific empirical data please whatever that can be I don't even know how you could measure that based on empirical data and meta analysis and psychology men generally display higher levels of ego-driven traits compared to women particularly in areas related to narcissism, self-enhancements and assertive self-presentation.
However, the scientific evidence shows that the ego is not a single dimension and the difference depends on the type of ego of expression. A meta analysis published in 2015 uh of 355 studies with a with a sample size of over 470,000 individuals. Wow, that's a lot. found that men on average score higher in overall narcissism than women. So men are on overall more narcissistic than women. This difference is specifically driven by the exploitative/entitlement facet of the narcissistic personality inventory. So essentially men feel more entitled than women do. This gender difference was stable over time. So from the 1990s to 2013. Wow. Types of narcissism. Men tend to exhibit higher grandiose narcissism. Wait, maybe I share my screen when I'm reading this so that people can see it. One second. This is kind of interesting, isn't it? I don't even know why we're doing this, but it's interesting nevertheless. And then I'm going to go. Okay, then I'll go. Shut up everyone. I'll go soon.
I'm You're here with me. Okay, wait. Oh, it's so small. That's what she said. But it's so small. Okay, we go a second.
Okay.
Damn it. Okay, maybe I resize the window also so that it's nice. Okay. Um, okay. Types of narcissism. Men tend to exhibit higher grandiose narcissism, arrogance, dominance, exhibitionism, while studies on vulnerable narcissism, insecurity, defensive ego sometimes low show higher scores in women or no significant difference. Also interesting. So being insecure and having a defensive ego is also part of narcissism. I didn't know that. Um, self-enhancements and confidence.
Empirical data on self-enhancement, the tendency to view oneself as better than others, shows a male hubris, female humility effect. This is what I mean. I think studies on self uh estimated intelligence indicate that men consistently provide higher estimates of their own intelligence compared to women, even though objective tests show no significant difference in actual IQ.
Wow. Competitiveness. Men often exhibit higher self-enhancements in competitive environments, especially in masculine tasks. Yeah.
Self-esteem, small gender difference. A 1999 comprehensive meta analysis found that men report slightly higher levels of self-esteem than women, which is relatively small effect size. Which is a relatively small effect size. Okay. Ego defense mechanisms. While men tend to exhibit higher external ego display, women sometimes exhibit higher internal ego strengths or vulnerable ego types.
Researcher research on ego defenses in adolescence found that boys are higher on projection and aggression outward defenses whereas girls scored higher on turning against the self internalizing personality. In some studies of adults women have been found to score higher on neuroticism neuroticism which involves greater emotional sensitivity and reactive self-esteem. Uh okay. Well, let's see.
Maybe I can go in depth with this one because I want to ask one more question before uh Okay. How can I go in depth?
AI overview.
Okay. Okay. Dive deeper here.
Okay. So, we got this.
Okay. So when challenged about something that they're doing is wrong, who is more likely to accept to accept it and or change also please use data.
Let's see what uh Gemini says now. Based on behavioral data and organizational psychology studies, women are statistically more likely to accept negative feedback, internalize the correction, and change their behavior.
Men are more likely more likely to rationalize the error, exhibit defensiveness, or push back against the correction. Right? That's also might been my my expectations.
uh track uh a tracking study per published by the Harvard Business Review analyzed how leaders adjust their self-awareness after receiving negative peer feedback. Uh over a six months period, women quickly align their self-evaluations with the critical feedback they received. By the end of six months, the gap between their self-perception and peer critiques was completely closed. That's interesting.
Six months, huh? Men did not change their self- assessment significantly.
Instead, they continue to rationalize their actions and inflate their self-image over time despite peer feedback proving them wrong. I'm not going to go any further, but like I think we got a point right there. Like I think I I think we we kind of understand this uh this this kind of interesting thing, huh?
Lewis definitely has an ego. Chip, that was an interesting lookup regarding ego.
I think this is interesting to know, right? because that's also my been my perspective and I think it's I don't think it's necessarily without that we that we men do it because we want to do it and I think this is important for you to read it as a man right because you're you're you're eventually you're essentially losing by being this way. So don't don't be this way, right? Just just don't be that way. Just just change, okay? Just just accept feedback, okay? Just accept the feedback and do a little bit of a change. Yeah. Speaking like Trump just feels like disgusting because he does not accept anything wrong said about them.
Is no about the stream or English is all about the message.
It's not about the stream or English.
It's about the message. Sure. My sister accused me of having an ego for insisting or criticizing her not to feed animal products to her kids. My issue, she says. I don't think that's an ego thing, right? Like not everything is an ego thing. We're doing this because it relates to activism. Yeah. I mean, it was also just interesting, right? I think that was interesting. I don't know if it was particularly related to activism. I think it was just interesting. And my ego was hurt when I said I'm a man. Okay? And I did this to prove myself right. Okay? Because my ego was hurt when I said that men that women on average are probably more receptive.
Okay. I would I had to I had to I had to protect my ego. I'm kidding. I was wasn't that I really genuinely wanted to to see if that's true. I knew that.
I love you, Axel. Cringe seeing nieces and nephews chewing dead body parts, but it's difficult to say anything sometimes. Oh, I get that. probably asking how to define how to define heroic moral men looks like for them and then connecting it to not abusing innocence. Oh, that's an interesting one, huh? So, defining like if you see somebody who's being overly manly or something or maybe in the middle of the conversation to ask them to define what heroic means to them. That's a good one.
That's that's maybe I Let me take a photo of that.
I like that one. That's a good one, Lori. Thank you. Good suggestion. I took a photo of it. I wonder if the statistics are properly tracked though.
Autism in women are also really underdiagnosed. Yeah, I mean obviously Leon take it with a huge grain of salt.
You know, it's just this was just to prove my point that I am right. This was just to satisfy my ego.
Oh, that's funny. Sorry, I I'm laughing at my own jokes. Men also care. I don't know about more, but they get highly defensive about their character. Yeah.
Yeah, I mean I think that was the conclusion, wasn't it?
I hate that says Linda. Okay. Mothers tend to care more about more about if they are good at something or not. Wait, so according to that analysis, men suffer more than women from Donny Krueger effect. That's really interesting, Lewis. Lewis, we're going to I'm actually going to ask that. That actually a very good question also, huh?
Holy crap, everyone. I don't know what we're doing now. We're just educating ourselves a little bit.
Does this mean wait do no is there a difference for the Dunning Krueger effect between men and women?
Use data.
Empirical research demonstrates that the Dunny Krueger effect itself exists equally in both men and women. But the direction of the self assessment in bias is highly gender specific.
A landmark study on birth cohort data of the center of economic and regional studies analyzed objective cognitive taste data and compared it to the participant self-estimates of their own abilities. They discovered that while the fundamental DK mathematical patterns remains true for both the genders, the mechanisms differ. Men drive the DK.
What the hell is the DK?
What is that?
stands for Donny Krueger effect. Okay.
[ __ ] Sorry. Damn. Me being stupid right now live on YouTube. Chipian being stupid.
Oh [ __ ] Where was I? Okay.
Uh they discovered that they discovered that while the fundamental Dunny Krueger effect mathematical patterns remain true for both genders, the mechanism differs.
Men drive the Dunny Krueger effect through overconfidence. Low performing men vastly overestimate their skills.
Women drive it through underconfidence.
Low performing women's still miscalibrate, but high performing women significantly underestimate their abilities. So essentially so I'm sorry, Louis. So for the Dunning Krueger effect, essentially men are the one God damn it, man. That's that's so bad for us men, isn't it? Men are the one who are overestimating their their abilities and women are the ones who are underestimating it. God, that's bad. That's bad to be a man. Uh, you're mad annoying most of the time.
Sure. Thank you. I appreciate that.
Do you think this will change your approach with men versus women? Probably not.
Uh, let me see. Cuz my my plugin Oh, no.
It reached the limit. my plugin. Oh, no.
I can't. Let me see if I can maybe open up my I just You see, I've also been testing my plugin today, everyone, and it reached a limit of chats. So, yeah, I reached a limit of chat. So, I can no longer see more comments. So, I'm going to have to Oh, no. Wait. I love you all. Live vegan. Oh, no, it hasn't.
Oh, no, it hasn't. It's still here. What is this live about? Well, we've been speaking about animal rights and just recently uh we've been looking about uh men versus female women who has a bigger ego and who is more receptive towards being told that they're right or wrong and we've realized that women are on average more receptive to being told that they're wrong and changing rather than men. Uh, and also we've realized that the Dunning Krueger effect, although it's applies to both men and women, for men it's usually because they overestimate their abilities and for women it's because they underestimate their abilities, which is kind of [ __ ] if you think about it because that just means women are better uh than they think they are and men are worse than they think they are, isn't it? Does this explain why anti-vegan trolls tend to be ego hurt males? I I think it kind of says something, doesn't it? It definitely says something along those lines. touches up on it.
I thought my plugin was broken, but no, it's it's all good.
Uh, mothers tend to care more about if they good at something or not. Yeah. I mean, I don't know about that, Axel.
Okay. Yeah, Alicia. Yeah. Yeah, we're here to fight for animal rights. That's what we're here to do. And that was an interesting thing. Um, wow. Didn't know there was a limit. I don't think there is, you think it's uh I think I just uh I just I was just stupid. I was just stupid. I wasn't really There's nothing.
Pia is here. Hello Pia. I mean, we're about to end Pia, but I appreciate you being here.
Uh, I do think that there is something like to be said about this that you said DJara, anti-vegan trolls tend to be more ego hurt males. I do think that's the case. But either way, thank you so much everyone for being here. This was a I don't know what this stream was about, right? I told you I know what the stream is. that I think I named it that way for a purpose. Um, it was just an interesting exploration on this subject and maybe, you know, we learned together some things and that was kind of cool. I like learning things together.
So maybe maybe we'll do this more often. Maybe we'll make streams where we'll learn things together a little bit more often, right? Maybe it's about activism, maybe it's about something else. But uh yeah, maybe we'll just do a little bit more of something else.
Yeah. And uh for people who were just listening, um thank you for being here. You're awesome. And thank you for listening. Um you're not late. It's just barely for the next live stream. Yeah, it also takes me forever to say goodbye, right?
Like Lewis knows, I think that eating animals is okay, but I respect your opinion. Well, Alicia, eating animals involves violence towards innocent animals. That's why we don't do it.
Obviously, if you want to like we we have we have absolutely no objection towards what you put in your mouth.
Like, I couldn't care less what you put in your mouth. The problem is the violence, the exploitation towards these innocent animals. That's what we're opposing, right? When you want to eat an animal, an animal has to be exploited, abused, and slaughtered for you. That's the problem. That's what we're opposing.
It's not about the food, is it? Often we say that, but it's not about the food.
I'm glad I caught it. Well, I'm glad you were here. There's a reason why 85% of everyone laughing at vegans on Facebook are dudes. They're fragile babies. Yeah, they probably are. Chip asked Chad GPT.
With all this data, what would they choose to be, male or female? Okay. Uh, okay. Let's do that before I leave.
Okay, why not? Why not? That's a That's a fun one. Let me Let me move back to chat Gv.
Uh, wait.
Okay, it's bigger than it was before.
That's what she said.
Sorry everyone about the that's what she said jokes. I'm kind of a child. Overly grown child over here everyone.
Dude, this vegan is a child. How dare he be a child like that. Sorry. Okay.
With all this data, with all this data and everything else you have on your disposal, if you could choose right now and be honest about this, be honest about this. We don't want no fluff. We don't want we don't not we don't want any fluff or any uh but you're great type of things type of things.
What would you rather be if you could be one man, woman, um, gender neutral, etc.? Yeah, we have to include the gender neutral people also, right?
Honestly, if the goal is to reach outreach effectiveness, I'd rather be a woman.
Not just because women are better in some mystical way, but because in your data, women seem to get less defensive reactions and people appear more open, receptive with women coded interaction styles, warmth, curiosity, lower perceived threat, more emotional permission. A woman activist may also be less likely to trigger the some guy is trigger is trying to morally dominate me reaction, especially with men.
Oh, that's so funny. Some guy is trying to morally dominate me. That's so true that so many people get that, isn't it?
Oh, but if you if the goal is debate, content, confrontation, viral tension, being a man can have advantages. Men may be more willing to argue with you, challenge you, stay longer, and produce those caught in contradiction moments that can be useful for content, but not necessarily for changing them. If I had to choose one role for maximum actual persuasion, I'd choose woman. calm, warm, sharp, morally relentless. Damn, I like that.
If I had to choose one role for maximum spicy clips, I'd choose man. Funny, direct, slightly provocative, but not aggressive. Gender neutral could be interesting, but in real street dynamics, people usually read you as something anyway. So, strategically, I'd say that's a good point. So strategically, I'd say women receptiveness, man for confrontation, consent, gender neutral, non-threatening presentation for broad curiosity. Blunt answer for changing minds. I'd rather be a woman. Well, that's it everyone. Thank you for being here. Um, I'm a man. I'm not good at this. I'm obviously worse than any other woman would be at this.
Um, is this stream a paradox? The stream is trying to work out what the stream is about pretty much. Yeah.
On what's this? We speak about animal rights and what the best way to approach people who don't respect the rights of animals is Chip just wants to hate men so he can be the best man who will always be a team women. Also, I'm a pick me man. I'm a pickme man. Is that not Axel? I mean, I'll admit it, Axel. Sometimes I kind of am a bit of a pick me man. I won't say no, but that's because I also [ __ ] hate the manosphere. I'm a man. I want to behave like a man.
Man, men lift stuff.
I lift heavy sign. Ugabooga. I'm a big man. I hate that so much. I really hate that. Like that's that's what I hate. So yeah. Yeah. Otherwise, I'm I I am a pretty pick me man, I guess, to some extent. Yeah. I really enjoy listening and always glad to hang out with other vegans. I appreciate you, Raven. I hope you're doing better. It's existence as a vegan. Sometimes it's hard. Wte team women. Hell yeah. Hell yeah.
How could they know you are a man if you're wearing the alien costume?
I mean, Ali, it's I I would say this, you know, the the pecs, but you know, that's what it is. I That's what I would say.
I'm always crapping on guys. Most are idiots. If you're into that, man, I mean, who are you to don't want to judge you for that? And as always, my exits take forever. Um, and they always become weirder and weirder. Uh, but you know, like I always say, be smart, be strong, be strong, be smart, be be strong. I always say that, everyone. Come on. You know, I always say that. Can I get a Ugabooga in the chat?
Uh because he a Hulk. Yeah, I actually look more like Hulk when I put on that green. You could be a strong woman. I could. Uh true. I could. Yeah.
Um but I think it's the body type more than anything. I am human. I don't care what sex I am. Both are [ __ ] and both can be great. Completely agree with you, Axel. Honestly, I think all of this, by the way, Axel, just to make it clear for everyone, right? All of this thing that I've been saying are not prescriptive.
They're descriptive, right? It's just on average how people behave. I generally tend to think the same way too. I think gender division is kind of stupid because uh while we all are prone for one thing or another, uh I think we all are very good at working together more than anything. So it's kind of ridiculous. Yeah.
This tube is like accelerating towards the speed of light.
Related Videos
BSA Goldstar - I gave up! And why animals beat humans!
thebingleywheeler
102 views•2026-05-31
3 Dreams That Changed Philosophy Forever
mommyplus24
731 views•2026-05-31
don't put shein's responsibility onto individuals #shein #neoliberalism
ScintillaePod
231 views•2026-05-30
I Cringed Watching These Protestants Critique Catholicism
jaynijackson
458 views•2026-06-05
Who Wrote Juche? The Ideology That Transformed North Korea into the Most Suppressed State
DictatorsFiles
363 views•2026-06-05
Scholar Explains: WHAT IS A GNOSTIC?
fightbackpodcast
965 views•2026-05-31
When They Ignore You, Do This Instead | Stoicism
ZenithWisdom-e3k
615 views•2026-05-31
Why Pure HEDONISM Is IRRATIONAL
qnaline
12K views•2026-05-31
