> Nowadays claiming loudly 'fake' seems to be the argument used for most things we can't readily understand, or simply as a default noise maker.

> In the past the default argument was 'sorcery' or 'anathema'.

I really don't like this. It looks fake because it's full of edits, skips over important bits where you'd expect doubt, and doesn't feel like its supplying the full context.

Yes, the conformity effect is real. But no, it's not as strong as EVERYONE loves to portray it. In actual studies, a good chunk of people don't abide by the effect, and it's probable that, contrary to the video, they do suspect they're being observed (by a study or more likely just some sort of process with a consequence). It's a stretch to assume that people copy things because that's what the group does, rather than thinking the group has a good reason to be doing something. The latter sounds the same, but when you think about it is a lot less interesting.

Most people, if they're the Asian girl, are just going to ask the group what they're doing.

I really like your answer to my comment here.

It's on a totally different level than just crying 'fake'.

I think it is quite possible that for some behaviours humans tend to prefer to always use their own judgement, while the opposite is true for other behaviours.

We see a massive parallel experiment about this with some things that happen on Twitter or TikTok. And this goes from putting a bucket of ice over your head to the reaction to some political statement.

To have a catalogue of the cognitive biases we have as humans and which behaviours are more susceptible to this effect would be a hugely useful dataset.