Making Checkable claims, but going out of your way NOT to check them, is suspicious.

These guys analyze a video TOGETHER, backing up each other's points (or even thoughtfully critiquing or having their own interpretations) but missed a great chance to watch the thing separately, first, while recording, and then compare reactions! This kind of double-checking chance shouldn't be missed!

This host is pretty charismatic, as is the other guy he's with, some kind of gov't personality/body language/voice analyst. He speaks in a nice way; he seems to be able to admit faults. He keeps things fast and interesting and it's well-produced. He also seems charmingly nerdy and genuinely interested in this. He avoids at least the easiest cheap ways to force points by going extreme, and keeps his freedom to agree or disagree on any one sign.

A natural experiment existed and they didn't do it.

This is very suspicious.

Throughout their discussion, they're agreeing with, or supporting each other's points. But even better than average (by far), they both show the ability to actually agree or reframe the other's points! Which is very rare. I view this as an example of situations where someone is claiming to have a way in to information which is true, valuable, secret, etc. and that we should believe it. And for almost all cases like that, the guests and the host basically NEVER contradict or disagree with each other's framing, no matter how bad. They'll nearly 100% laugh, agree verbally (if they disagree, they won't extend the analogy), and then make their own point (ignoring if it's different than what the other one said). But here, this guy on the left DOES sometimes disagree

But really, they likely just didn't think of running this as an actual ability test?

Seriously though, being able to show that your rubric is actually real would be really strong. Why don't they do it?

Well, it's a ton more work. People might doubt it was really done at the same time. But still, especially for a channel with this setup and where the host MUST know about scams, and also calims to have the ability to see and to teach the ability to see lies, I think it would be incredibly revealing.

Imagine how success would look!

They'd be able to, in general and on command, separately watch random videos and evaluate the speakers as truthful or not, with no other input than a video, privately, and in ways that anyone trained in the method would also be able to do. It wouldn't be 100% but for the claims of the video to be true, it'd have to have some value.

Maybe they choose this kind of bullying, non-scientific social proof over a weak, p-valued, not string but actually real predictive power, intentionally? Maybe to most of the public, they'd rather associate with someone who's just confidently telling them something interesting is true, affirming their dislike for holmes and yet letting them indulge in the feelings of comeuppance, fascination etc, than actually getting to the bottom of it?

How I would set it up:

Often there's a big, pre-announced public appearance by someone like Elizabeth Holmes, where she'll speak for some time or an interview will be released, and we'll know when it'll happen. All these guys have to do is both get on Twitch and livestream it. Their methodology might not work as well when they can't pause and rewind, etc, but they still should be able to show whether their live, realtime reactions are valuable at all!

If they don't match what they say, or whether they initially believe the person, it's a headshot against their whole set of claims

If they DO match, it's supporting evidence.

Ofc there will be doubters, but all kinds of more-valid or more-believable versions of such tests could be done. e.g. I could literally go and record someone being interviewed, not release the video anywhere and even never put it online; then physically show it to them in a way that i'm sure they'll have no way to have seen it before. Do that for both guests and see how well their comments match. Of course, they could pre-arrange to cheat on this by having a set of signals like if its a man, say that he's truthful, if woman, say false, etc etc through a whole chain.

But still, my testing power is so strong, at the end of the day we should really be able to defeat this since tests are super cheap to run.

Comps

And obviously this kind of test IS standard in real competitive games where strategies and interpretive or predictive claims are expected to hold their own weight. It's NORMAL to have dual-live-recorded videos of people while they play chess, go, other online games, as they narrate. And you are given tons of chances to detect when their claims about something they observe or predict do not get borne out in reality.

In the end, if someone is claiming something strong, which they COULD test, and DON'T, they must be viewed as liars, or at least not taken too seriously.

Ofc, I also owe the host to do some deep research on him; maybe he has a parallel track of actual experiments he's published on the academic side, and the entire yt series is just to make people aware of these ideas enough to search for them. WIP