You're right. I probably sound condescending. But people seem to think that in the real world people only draw conclusions on data that directly answers the question they are asking. That's not the case. In many situations, where gathering the data you need is not possible, you look to see if there is data that can serve as proxy, that can help you see part of the picture, that is suggestive of other things. As long as you're explaining how you're using it, it's fine. You take it for what it is. You can say that the evidence isn't strong enough, or that it it could be explained by something else. I'm likely to agree with you.

What I'm saying is that there is enough anecdotal evidence that we can actually start to quantify some of it. We have to make reasonable assumptions, but that's ok. And the fact that the Rogan podcast video is in a leage of its own in terms of having enough anecdotal evidence to begin to quantify, is already something to consider.

We can look over the past 6 months on twitter or on reddit, and compare how many people mention being Yanged by a particular video. Does it tell us how many people watched every video and what percentage were converted by each. Can we know exactly the demographic of every person who watched it no.

Is it possible that this video just happens to be shared the most and thus produces the most mentions. Yes. But even that fact is suggestive because people don't stop watching Yang after one video (a reasonable assumption). So when someone shares, they are sharing the one they would think of as most compelling because of the effect it had on them (also a reasonable assumption).

And I use anecdotal in the one place where it makes logical sense to use it: when disproving an absolute. You only need one example. All men are tell. All I have to do is find one man who is short to disprove the claim. And many of the arguments I hear against the podcast are of that ilk.

I apologize for the condescension. I really do. I suspect it's because I don't understand why people think it's better to shoot in the dark where there is so many things you can quantify to help inform your decision about what to share. And I don't understand why people dismiss the podcast without making an effort to at least understand what the persuasion research says. Entire courses are dedicated to persuasion at schools like Harvard, Stanford, Columbia, etc.

You can at least agree with me on that, right? If people intuitively knew what makes something persuasive and what doesn't, why something works here and not there, then there wouldn't be a need for these courses. Opinions based on nothing other than your gut sense is not as worthy of consideration as one based on theory derived from legit academic research. I haven't gotten into this aspect, but the Rogan podcast beats all other videos even when analyzed through an academic persuasion framework.

So again, I'm sorry for being condescending. I wish people were a little more realistic about what they know. They are overconfident in rejecting the video, and I care about that because I want to win. Thanks for reading. I appreciate you time. Humanity first and beyond! :)