Opinions on CGPGrey?

He's about as factual as 10 minute long "science" videos get...

Youtubers are entertainers
you simply don't get a lot of hits on actually legit science

you lose massive amounts if you do it, let's just take Crash Course as an example
Physics #11 and Economics 35 was uploaded on the same day
One has 44,530 views, the other has 97,740

both run on the same patreon, but the views tell you what's actually more popular, in the end it's about clicks.

If we take Economics we can say it as opportunity cost.
Who would go through the effort of making a good, long science video if nobody watches or appreciates it but a few geeks?

I do believe he's a good guy and trying, but it's as >>8138364 said.
The end result is a 10 minutes science video. What do you expect?

>>8138394
I am not 13 so I don't watch Crash Course

Which one got the higher views?

>>8138427
econ, because physics is so haaaaaard

>>8138394
>this
Also, ,,PBS space time" and ,,deep sky videos". First is pseudo science stuff, that takes few minutes of your life, without teaching anything concrete, the second is quite densely knowledge-packed show, in which you can learn something useful, not only surface, entry level facts and news, but which might be too heavy for regular mortal. The first has 500000 subscribers, and the second only like 190000

>>8138394
But both physics and economics are sciences. It is just that public appears to be more interested in social sciences than in natural or formal ones.
Furthermore, as a counterexample, a natural scientific Crash Course series on Astronomy - a really interesting course to general public - that I partially watched had 300k+ views per video on average, with higher average views when cosmological stuff was discussed - as much as average views social scientific video. And it's not even as much about the field discussed that about about the subject discussed in that particular video. For example, Crash Course Philosophy averages on less than 300k views, but a video on Theodicy has whooping 900k views. I bet when Crash Course Physics will start covering more interesting stuff like general relativity and quantum mechanics the views will skyrocket.

he makes solid INTRODUCTORY content.

his voting and election videos are his best work.

He isn't an expert on anything, and he seems really arrogant in interviews. I can't stand his videos on election stuff. It's straight-up misinformation.

>>8138434

To be honest I'd watch the physics series if it had Hank Green.

>DUDE APPLE LMAO
>DUDE REDDIT LMAO
>DUDE ROBOTS LMAO

>>8138339
another generic beta male of the "I freaking love science, lol I'm such a nerd" scene.

The same as XKCD, crash course, and all the other Wikipedia regurgitators.

>>8138825
I think you're talking about /sci/, bud

>>8138886
no u

He has, maybe, 5 science videos. Two of which are more philosophical than scientific and two which are basic Wikipedia biology. He may be a physicist but his videos are more about politics and economics than science, pop or not.

>>8138886
Kek

>>8138825
xkcd has been online for long time to count as generic

>>8138601
this

he shouldnt attempt to be a science presenter

Better than most videos of that genre.

His recent Guns Germs and Steel videos lost me a fair bit of confidence in his content though.