The flow of the video seems like it’s jumping from point to point or point to sub point really fast. Is it cuz it’s short form? Or Ai? It comes off unnatural to me.
How the video flows in the beginning i think:
main point about manosphere being a shame management system and how the audience needs to understand how it operates
Background info about why men are there. He lists off the process of men feeling humiliation then internalizing the shame.
sub point talking about how that shame changes to something else like contempt, rage, and a podcast talking about how women are the problem.
Point about how manosphere is a toxic way of dealing with shame. The manopsphere is compared to a method that dismantles shame. That method was created by an author called Brene Brown
sub point about how the first step of dismantling shame is done in the manosphere but in their own “toxic” way. Examples are listed as taking the redpill, or newcomers being told they’ve been lied to, or that their pain is real, or that they can blame women for their pain
From these points I notice a pattern of naming things off in lists. Like, the process of men becoming ashamed, what the shame changes into, and examples listed off when recognizing shame in the manosphere. Is that something that ai does? It looks like the creator wants to illustrate the point so the audience gets what he’s talking about, but is that how it’s normally done?
I was wondering why the video is partly human to me. I remember one of my first thought when watching was that some stuff sounds genuine. Like, it was written by him. I’m not sure which parts tho. That would be good to point out. Actually, I remember thinking that since I didn’t know that something was ai then it’s gotta be human. How do I know if it’s not just actually ai tho?
I thought he used AI because I think some specific phrases are really typical AI:
The moment you express vulnerability or accountability, you get eaten alive. That’s not belonging. That’s just a cage with other angry men in it. […] The manosphere found the wound, loneliness, humiliation, no community, and they built a trap around it. That’s not an accident. That’s a really savvy business model.
BTW, if you don’t already know how, you can ask AI to tell you how to download the video and generate a transcript.
This script used AI. It brings up a common problem I have:
Does this person have expertise?
I don’t know if:
Someone asked AI about the topic and trusted whatever it said (or, worse, talked to the AI a bunch until they got really biased answers they wanted).
An expert used AI to help them with script/post writing.
There are a lot of posts/videos where I know AI was used, but I don’t know how it was used. If it was (1) I’d rather not even watch the video (or read the post), but if it was (2) then the video is still worth watching.
You can check people’s profiles and post/video history but that’s a hassle and often ambiguous. In this case, the profile is ambiguous from just looking at thumbnails without actually watching other videos (many of which appear to have similar themes and probably have AI scripts, so I doubt they’ll help). They did link other stuff which was more helpful. Their substack bio is:
Founder of EtherWell. I write about frequency, field dynamics, soul architecture, and the original design of reality. Here to restore what distortion erased.
And EtherWell sells “water that has gone through an alchemical process to carry a living field of information and potential”. So probably not a history expert, though it is possible for good historians to have weird views about health (or religion or other topics outside of their expertise).
I think (1) is more common than (2) but I don’t want to skip every (2) post/video and I don’t usually want to check profiles/history so I don’t have a good solution.