Why do “kids these days” arguments feel so convincing even when the evidence is flawed? In this video, I break down confirmation bias, one of the most powerful psychological effects shaping how we interpret information. Using a viral claim about Gen Z and work ethic, we explore how a widely cited study was built on pre-biased respondents and how even experienced educators can unintentionally reinforce misleading narratives when they don’t examine research methodology. This isn’t just about Gen Z. It’s about how all of us tend to: * Seek out evidence that confirms what we already believe * Ignore or dismiss contradictory data * Trust conclusions without questioning how the data was collected If you’re a teacher, student, or just someone navigating online discourse, understanding confirmation bias is essential for critical thinking, media literacy, and responsible argumentation. We’ll also touch on: * How flawed sampling skews research outcomes * Why anecdotes often feel more convincing than data * How social media amplifies biased narratives This video is part of a larger conversation about rhetoric, logical fallacies, and psychological blind spots that influence how we think and teach. #ConfirmationBias #CriticalThinking #Psychology #Education #MediaLiteracy #LogicalFallacies #CognitiveBias #Teaching #Rhetoric #GenZ #ResearchMethods #BiasInResearch #ThinkCritically #Education#TeacherLife #PsychologyFacts #Argumentation #DigitalLiteracy #youtubeeducation
ADVERTISEMENT
I am fascinated with how that man pronounced educators
Gen Z can't hold down jobs ❌ Jobs can't hold down Gen Z ✅
A great little demonstration for Confirmation Bias can be done as a sort of game: You write down three numbers, the default case is 2, 4, 6, but you can do whatever. Then you tell someone that these are put into a specific relation to each other, like A>B>C or A (+2) B (+2) C or A (+X) B (+X) C. or even A (*2) B (+A) C. Some relatively simple comparison that connects them, or an addition, subtraction or multiplication, maybe with a variable, maybe referencing one of the numbers. Something that's easy enough to calculate for most people. Their task, then, is to find out that rule by giving you other sets of three numbers, and you tell them if they're also adhering to the rule you've set at the start (you can even write it down on a piece of paper beforehand, in secret, to show as proof afterwards). There is no limit to the guesses, no penalty for a set of numbers being wrong. But when they're sure, they have to tell you the rule and then, it counts. The default is starting with 2, 4, 6 for a result of A>B>C. But if you order the things correctly, people will guess 4, 6, 8, and when that comes back as "correct", they'll just continue guessing answers that confirm their wrong idea, until they guess - wrongly - A +2 B +2 C, or they stumble across one wrong set but get to A +X B +X C. I've done this with a handful of people and only had one person really give me one "wrong" (rule-breaking and thus falsifying, checking) set of numbers after the other. It was fascinating.
This gives off the same vibe as those parents who were laughing hysterically that their kids didn’t know how to use a manual can opener. They were shaming the kids for “not knowing“ and the whole video all I could think was “because you never taught them.“
"Bias against gen z workers is not right!" -Sees inside "Every participant hates working with gen z"
I like how factual this man is in his videos!
Reminds me of that comic saying "We got responses and found that 100% of people love answering surveys, with 0% throwing them in the bin"
"We asked only cat people whether they prefer cats or dogs and found 100% of people prefer cats!" Seems legit to me
I lowkey thought the original video is a shots fired towards "educators" (or just the whole education system) for not preparing genz enough or something not that I saw the original video but still
Thank you for bringing this forward. I always tell people to read first if a study is pert approved AND how the study is set up. If you find flaws in these it's not worth the paper it was written on. As demonstrated with this study.
They complain about gen z and they also don’t want over 40 year olds.
"urjicator" enough said
Note the phrase "circulating around" makes it seem popular by popularity bias
"after screening the dogs in our violent dog study to only include violent dogs, 100% of dogs turned out to be violent. we want to thank Dog Euthanasia Inc. for their generous donation to make this study possible"
That study design is UNHINGED!!!
I remember 10 years ago when there were lots of articles calling millennials lazy. It seems like every generation complains about young people
Lmao that second screening is so unhinged
I’m in the oldest grouping of Gen Z and I have worked in higher education for the past 5 years. What I’m actually worried about is how much less the younger grouping in this generation is reading 😅.
“Circulating all over social media” - sir you are perpetuating it
As a 40 year old it's true I feel like "all them kids" they are hiring "know nothing and don't want to work" but at the same time I often wake up and don't want to work. And we have good, young workers. We just notice more the absolute disasters.