
Kids who spot bullshit, and the adults who get upset about it - baha_man
http://www.badscience.net/2011/06/kids-who-spot-bullshit-and-the-adults-who-get-upset-about-it/
======
itg
This is also infuriating when it comes to medical knowledge and dealing with
doctors. I personally know someone who had a uncommon disease and he did
extensive research looking at articles published in journals and
science/medical books. However, almost every doctor he went to dismissed him
and laughed at the idea that he could possibly know what he was talking about.
Most of them don't deal with the uncommon diseases and refuse to believe it
when it is in front of their eyes.

It wasn't until he got into touch with a scientist who did research into the
same disease he had that they were finally able to convince doctors to take a
closer look and start receiving treatment. Turns out he was right but had to
suffer for a few years because of the arrogance of a few "professionals".

~~~
dr_
That's true but hopefully not too common. In medical school, when it comes to
diagnosing conditions, we are taught "When you hear hoofbeats, think of
horses, not zebras". Fortunately there is a wealth of information available to
patients online which can help them when working with their physicians in
dealing with uncommon medical conditions. There needs to be a much better way
to sort through it all however.

~~~
sambe
In my experience, almost every single doctor will not only talk down to
patients who know something, they will also put them in the "crackpot
hypochondriac" bucket. Further, most of those I've seen are not even
scientists: sure, they have all the knowledge of a good medical training and
can deal with common and emergency situations exceptionally well. But anything
more than that and it's time for rampant lack of logic and stock
recommendations that have already failed to work.

~~~
noonespecial
_Further, most of those I've seen are not even scientists:_

I've been disappointed by this realization a couple of times. Finally, it
dawned on me. Doctors _aren't_ scientists. They're not supposed to be. They
are technicians. They look in a service manual, pick a likely problem, and do
the hotfix. If its not in the manual (or the part they have memorized),
they're done.

Medical research and medical practice are two entirely different animals.

~~~
watty
Of course doctors aren't scientists, but comparing them to a "technician" is a
horrible analogy. Doctors go through intense schooling and have a very deep
understanding of all parts of the body. Your analogy fits more closely to a
nurse, someone with very basic symptom/problem repertoire - not a dr. who
knows what and WHY things are happening.

I've also never heard of a doctor being "done" - when have you encountered
this? They may not be able to diagnose you immediately but they do research in
other resources to help diagnose.

~~~
protomyth
I agree with noonespecial about the technician statement, but sense that you
regard that as an insult. Every good technician I know has an great
understanding about the "item" they work on. I have a lot of respect for good
technicians of all stripes. Doctors don't build new people, they repair,
maintain, treat, and fix them.

As to a doctor being "done". Yeah, I have heard that in government provided
(USA) health care settings. It happens, and it gets much worse the later in
the budget year your are ("Don't get sick after June").

~~~
watty
Sure doctors "fix things" but that's an oversimplification of their jobs. It's
like saying rocket scientists are like construction workers because they
"build things". There is a vast difference in the knowledge/schooling
required. I didn't think the simple analogy as a doctor/technician as an
insult as much as the description of their duties (1. Look in manual, 2.
Hotfix, 3. If not there, done) - this is insulting whether describing
technicians or doctors.

And no, doctors aren't "done" when the problem isn't in the manual. You're
referring to something completely different, "I don't have money or healthcare
and expect you to work for free". Maybe they're like technicians after all.

~~~
protomyth
I guess I don't believe a definition of a real technician is simply someone
who looks in a manual to fix thing. I believe technicians of all stripes need
knowledge and a good feel to fix things. I think your definition of technician
is limited and does disservice to a wide variety of professions.

"I don't have money or healthcare and expect you to work for free" - no, the
USA was paid in land via treaty, so the bill was paid.

------
rkalla
<aside>

If you read reddit, Digg or any other social news site, the format for stories
like these seems to always be:

1\. Some "obviously" stupid decision. 2\. Some bureaucrat that made it. 3\. A
critical article talking about how obviously stupid this all is and how stupid
the bureaucrat(s) are. 4\. The implication that the writer (and the reader)
would never make that "mistake".

Some of the articles are justified, I'm sure. I have no idea if this one is...
I don't have all the facts. I wasn't sitting in the room was the decision was
made, I don't know what the reasoning was.

All I know is that the frequency of these stories is absurd.

If we were all so smart all the time and everyone else that wasn't us was so
dumb all the time and in desperate need of correction, I don't think the world
would function.

Generally speaking (again, not specific to this story) I think we all need to
cut each other some slack. What _good_ are these expose articles really doing?
Is the world getting any less dumb and more in-line with my expectations of
humanity?

No

Is the embarrassment of articles like this helping to decrease the occurrence
of stupidity?

No

Are articles like this improving the discourse between groups?

No

The negative carpet-bomb article style, something I'm certainly guilty of, is
something that I hope dissolves as we move forward. It's done nothing for
actual coverage and in certain areas, like political debate, it has made the
topic almost unreadable to me.

~~~
pavel_lishin
For all of your "no" points, can you please provide some proof? We _are_
getting smarter - when you need water for your crops, do you dance, or do you
install an irrigation system? Extreme example, but, well.

~~~
rkalla
pavel, that's a fair point. Those were a bit too broad of brush-strokes I
painted.

What I was masking is my internal frustration with how fundamentally un-
accepting we are of each other's differing opinions in popular culture/media
now. I can't remember the last political debate I saw on TV that:

1\. Actually answered the question and didn't just hit talking points. 2\.
Constructively analyzed the differences of opinion.

I am sure there are pockets of civil debate and I don't want to wave-away the
folks that are making an effort to. I should have been more honest about what
I was critiquing.

~~~
JoachimSchipper
It's possible to overdo "civil", though. Consider the belief that the sun
orbits the earth: a televised debate in which several accomplished scientists
respectfully engage some crazy is civil and will teach the average layperson
something, but it gives the belief far too much credibility.

Even with the extra information, the layperson may consider it more probable
that the sun orbits the earth after the debate, which means that the general
belief is _less_ accurate afterwards.

[Yes, I'm aware that we live in a relativistic universe in which the sun is no
more the center than the earth or any other point; but you get the idea.]

------
cromulent
The point of the article - that kids have a bullshit detector - reminds me of
a great article in The Age that I read years ago.

The writer was given a hard time for bullshitting his young nephew and his
response was that "It's important to bullshit kids, so that they don't grow up
trusting adults". He maintained that you had to tell kids stuff they would
find out later was fake, so that they developed scepticism. Otherwise, they
would swallow adult dogma as fact.

He was honest with kids once they pushed past the first barrier (Uncle Joe,
you say you landed on the moon, but I checked and you are aren't on the list)
and he said that was his duty to teach them to not accept things at face
value, no matter what the authoritative source.

~~~
alanh
Could these lessons be taught without the negatives here? For example, could
Uncle Joe tell the kids about _his_ uncle who said he landed on the moon?

~~~
pavel_lishin
What's the negative? He's teaching them that not only do you need to call
people out when they're wrong, but especially when they have something on the
line, or because they might be offended.

~~~
alanh
I’m not an expert on affect or children, but it does seem kind of mean. That
would be the negative: the youth’s possible feeling of betrayal or a negative
effect on the relationship with the kid.

~~~
sp332
As a kid, it was frustrating to be BSed, but not really to the point of
feeling betrayed. There was a big difference in how I felt when someone was
just having fun at my expense vs. when they lied to me "for real".

------
matwood
Luckily for me my parents supported my constant questioning of nearly
everything. Neither were very religious, but my mom did go to church and made
me go to Sunday school and church. Eventually I was thrown out of Sunday
school for asking too many questions [1], and at that point laid out a pretty
good argument why it was a waste of time for me to continue to go to church.
That was the last time I was a part of any organized religion.

[1] "The bible says so" is simply not a good enough answer - ever. To me a
much better answer is simply that a person wants something beyond themselves
to believe in even though they know they will not ever prove it to be true. I
may disagree with that, but I can respect a person who is honest with
themselves.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
> _[1] "The bible says so" is simply not a good enough answer - ever._

Axioms are fine in logic, mathematics, physics, ... so why not elsewhere?

It's certainly an unsatisfying answer.

If however you assume for a moment that it portrays the will of the Creator
then The Bible saying so is no worse (or better) than the fine-structure
constant not having a logical derivation as to it's value.

People trying to give a reason for a Biblical injunction have, I suspect,
often not discovered the reason the Creator made things one way or another but
are really just speculating. Like one might speculate why a universe might
have a fixed light speed _in vacuo_.

~~~
nate_meurer
The fine structure constant is not axiomatic; its value and its contantness
are experimentally testable.

Axioms are not "fine" in math or science except under very specific
circumstances.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
> _The fine structure constant is not axiomatic; its value and its contantness
> are experimentally testable._

Yeah, I plucked a little too randomly perhaps - the point there is not that it
is axiomatic (which I didn't claim) but that it is an arbitrary value; indeed
it is a complex of arbitrary values that apparently define the physics of our
universe somewhat.

Why is it that value, well, er, just because (or some version of the anthropic
principle if you swing that way).

~~~
nate_meurer
"...arbitrary values that apparently define the physics of our universe
somewhat."

In other words, this constant is a piece of a model, fitted to observable
behaviour, subject to refinement based on empirical data. And the model may at
some point be able to offer insight as to _why_ things are as they are; "just
because" is not viewed by most physicists as a permanent explanation.

This is the exact opposite of religious thinking which offers conclusions in
advance of, and regardless of, any empirical data.

My point is that the parallel you're trying to draw between religious
prescription and the things that scientists call "axioms" is not valid.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
> _"just because" is not viewed by most physicists as a permanent explanation_

Why do you suppose this is any different for a Christian physicist, say, than
for any other physicist? That aside I imagine that many physicists hold to a
form of Anthropic Principle which almost fits the definition of "just
because".

As an agnostic I always felt that God was the cop-out answer that replaced "we
don't know". As a Christian not knowing everything still frustrates me but
knowing now that within our current knowledge it is provable that not
everything is knowable softens the blow of that somewhat (Godel, Church-
Turing, etc.).

> _religious thinking which offers conclusions in advance of, and regardless
> of, any empirical data_

You suppose that religion is false to state your position, of course you do,
but if you suspend your supposition then you see that religion 'offers truth
in advance of reason'.

Christians generally, IME, don't say that God exists as the conclusion of a
logical argument it's presuppositional in the same way as assumption of the
validity of ones own sense data, or the assumption of ones actual self or of
an external world.

Christians take that 'Christ died for our sins and was resurrected to heaven'
and live by it and find that it works. Physicists take that 'c is constant for
all observers' and live by it and find that it works. Obviously 'it works'
means many different things both to the Christian and to the scientist
(coherentism, instrumentalism, etc.).

~~~
nate_meurer
"...if you suspend your supposition then you see that religion 'offers truth
in advance of reason'"

This statement is a tautology, and also completely beside the point. It
matters not whether a belief held religiously is _actually_ true. By
definition, a belief held religiously is held without regard to reason or
evidence. The extent to which reason and evidence intrude is the extent to
which faith is obviated.

This entire process, this way of thinking, is and should be entirely alien to
science. And the anthropic principle is not science. It's not even a principle
-- it's conjecture. It's not testable, not falsifiable, and it has no material
effect on any scientific research, influential though it may in philosophical
terms.

Your last statement is ..., it's ... no. Just, no. There is nothing alike
about those two things. The constant c is, again, eminently isolatable in
experiment, quite testable, and part of part of a quite falsifiable theory.
The statement that following Christ has worked well for your life, even if
true in whatever sense you like, is everything science is not: anecdotal,
unfalsifiable, and untestable if only for the presence of millions of
variables that cannot be isolated, controlled, or even known. You're
conflating two completely separate things.

btw, I'm a big fan of this anthropic jazz. It is aesthetically pleasing to me,
like the thought of any finely crafted machine, but it is in no way shape or
form scientific.

~~~
rcfox
It's worth pointing out that a religious belief is not the same as a belief
held religiously.

A reasonable Christian would believe that God created the world in 6 days, but
also believe that species have evolved to what we have now.

A dedicated atheist would believe religiously that there are no gods, even if
she were standing in front of Thor.

------
dkarl
Heh, I love it that kids have so much faith in people. Eventually they'll
figure out that some people are not overly concerned with reality and do not
allow it to interfere with the pleasure of believing exciting or gratifying
things. Many people live their whole lives in suspension of disbelief, like
you or I live when reading a novel or watching a movie.

No one who could be reached by evidence or argument believes in things such as
Therapeutic Touch or "Mineral Miracle Solution" anyway, so there is no point
in gathering evidence or presenting an argument. It's okay; humanity will
survive despite them. The concrete problem here is that we do not respect
education as a profession, so we have allowed it to be infested with dingbats
and morons. Pay teachers a salary that reflects their importance to our
society, scale pay according to rank and performance instead of seniority, and
attract some worldly, intelligent people into the profession to displace the
dingbats. As for the silly and vapid parts of the internet, let the dingbats
have them.

~~~
ericd
Don't forget being able to fire the terrible teachers. The practice of giving
lifetime tenure after two years needs to end.

~~~
jasonlotito
How do you define terrible? Test scores? Parental opinion? Student vote?
Passing grades? Ability to babysit kids?

~~~
ericd
Learning is obviously hard to quantify, but some teachers are much better at
inspiring and helping children to learn than others.

But that's a high bar. Currently the bar is far below that, with many teachers
obviously phoning it in to anyone paying attention. They can't be fired, and
that's the problem I was talking about. I went to an excellent public school,
and I was tiered with the 'smart kids', so I generally had relatively good
teachers, and some that were absolutely excellent. Even there, though, some
were blatantly awful, and should have clearly been fired. I took a couple of
non-"Gifted and Talented" classes, and the teachers there were a good bit
worse on average. Some seemingly knew less about their subject than some of
their students, and taught things that were just false in some cases.

It's demoralizing to have terrible teachers. A few terrible teachers, and it
makes kids restless and bored during the school day. Talent/quality density is
important in many organizations, and schools are no exception.

The stakes are a good bit higher, though. It's cliched, but the kids in
schools do form the base of the country's economy a few years down the road,
and if a high percentage of them can't do much more than manual labor or
service work because they weren't inspired and decided that learning sucked,
the US is screwed in the long term. None of the benefits of a teacher's union
are worth the risk they're creating. It's really important that we not throw
our hands up just because we can't objectively measure them. As dkarl says, it
works in other professions.

~~~
jasonlotito
> It's really important that we not throw our hands up just because we can't
> objectively measure them.

Straw man much?

Avoid the question? You wrote a lot, but said absolutely nothing.

By what measure should we measure teachers? It's easy to say "get rid of
terrible teachers," but if you can't define it, then you are back to square
one.

I'm not the one throwing my hands up. You and dkarl are basing saying one
thing: "Fire bad teachers." I asked you to define bad, and you merely respond
with: "You have to fire bad teachers."

So, I'll try again: By what measure should we measure teachers? Test scores?
Student performance? Parental voting? Secret peer ballots? Teacher testing?
School board review (which pretty much amounts to parental votes)?

~~~
ericd
You're trying to find an objective/standardized measure of performance, and I
was trying to illustrate that it's not necessary. Most of that crap is talked
about because the situation has gotten to the insane point where one needs
concrete evidence of failure to fire a teacher. That's not needed in almost
any other profession, and it shouldn't be necessary in education.

All that "saying nothing" was trying to illustrate anecdotally that it was
obvious to anyone who actually watched the classes who needed to be fired.

If one gave absolute firing power to every principal, minus the ridiculous
hoops they have to jump through and conditions that need to be met, they would
undoubtedly take care of the worst offenders quickly and accurately. That
alone won't get us to uniform excellence, but it would be a very good start.
That's why I was harping on the inability to fire bad teachers.

------
FilterJoe
rkalla's comment about the "negative carpet-bomb style" that this article
follows got me thinking: The story focuses on something that seems ridiculous
when taken out of context - and no doubt reminded many HN readers of various
childhood memories (including me). But it brings up the following question:

What is the best way to go about teaching children of greatly varying
abilities/talents/developmental speeds? If you put 2 or 3 really smart and
talkative "bullshit-detecting" kids in a class of 25 other regular kids, will
all their BS detecting help or harm education of the other 25 kids? If
teachers end up allocating a large portion of class time to the 2 or 3 smart
kids, wouldn't this detract from teaching the other 25? (And I have to say,
I'm at the moment thinking back with embarrassment at the number of times I
pointed out exceptions that rendered a teacher's assertion incorrect - was
this a good use of classroom time taken as a whole?).

In reality, public schools teach to the middle. It could be that most kids
aren't ready to learn independent thinking skills before age 15 or so, and
that trying to encourage this is just a waste of time. Or perhaps it could be
taught to all at an early age. I don't know, but it's an interesting question.

In my mind, there's an obvious solution which is to some extent already done.
Segregate the bright, BS-detecting kids into classes more appropriate for
them. Encourage them to continue along their path of independent thinking and
accelerated learning without disrupting the education of those in the middle.

~~~
westicle
I will join your gentle threadjack, because it runs along an interesting
tangent.

I think a lot of schools give lip-service to segregating "advanced" students
but miss the point of the exercise. I was placed in an accelerated maths class
at school. The school determined which students were ready to learn more
advanced mathematical concepts by test grades.

Long story short, the class was generally filled with unquestioning swots who
could complete hundreds of worked examples according to the textbook but had
no critical analasis skills whatsoever.

When the "advanced" class is seen as a bonus option available for successful
students, unfortunately teachers aren't inclined reward the BS-detecting
students, who have questioned their authoritah too many times.

~~~
FilterJoe
Good point. One way to address your point is to try to understand what is
appropriate for each kid at the age of 5-6 and slot them in the right school
before it's too late. See my reply below.

------
kylemaxwell
So it strikes me that part of the issue is that most (certainly not all)
education professionals have a different and non-scientific perspective. This
presents large problems because the larger society needs kids to grow up with
an appropriate understanding of critical thinking.

The vast majority of school administrators don't actually care that much about
helping kids become thoughtful, independent people. Their incentives push them
to produce kids with core "skills" and achieve various financial objectives.
Evidence-based evaluation of commercial pedagogical methods can run counter to
the administrators' interests.

Which just means that these kids are working in the finest traditions of
scientists throughout history.

------
alanh
The free, short ebook “On Truth: The Tyranny of Illusion” has some insights on
the issues of respect, control, authority, and conservatism, especially as it
relates to minors. Highly recommended read:
[http://www.freedomainradio.com/FreeBooks/OnTruthTheTyrannyof...](http://www.freedomainradio.com/FreeBooks/OnTruthTheTyrannyofIllusion.aspx)

The authority/truth mismatch is something that (especially) the first chapters
of #HPMoR deal with, as well as rational thought and scientific inquiry (which
the end of the linked article gets into):

> _"You think you have what it takes to be a scientist in your own right, with
> or without my help? Then let's see how you investigate a confusing
> phenomenon."_

> _"I..." Hermione's mind went blank for a moment. She loved being tested but
> she'd never had a test like this before._

Read it:
[http://www.fanfiction.net/s/5782108/1/Harry_Potter_and_the_M...](http://www.fanfiction.net/s/5782108/1/Harry_Potter_and_the_Methods_of_Rationality)

This article also reminds me of some hurtful moments from my youth. Once, in
high school, I was almost kicked out of the house merely for attempting to
have a reasonable, rational, calm discussion about a parental rule, despite
being told the “conversation” was over. (Perhaps “monologue” fits better.)
Then a few short years later, I was told I could no longer come home for
Christmas as I no longer shared my mother’s faith. (A lot like this, except
for my age: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mcOIyf9TOQ>) Sure, lots of teens
had it worse than I did, but this kind of thing is extremely hurtful, and
really put a damper on my relationship with my family.

Kids who spot bullshit, and the adults who get upset about it, indeed.

------
thinkcomp
I was one of these once! Too bad the pay isn't very good...

<http://www.thinkpress.com/authoritas/index.html?page=66>

Seriously, getting the truth makes for occasional good press, but not a good
career, and this is a problem. It's typically much more financially rewarding
to be the guy selling industrial bleach to patients with Crohn's, which is why
our world looks the way it does, with Groupon legally stealing and Sequoia
investing in grilled cheese.

~~~
kragen
"Groupon legally stealing"?

------
markkat
There are many non-religious people who quietly carry a burden.

For me, it happened when I was young, and in light of 'adult guidance', the
guilt I felt for my alternate vision of the world was intense.

~~~
crikli
> the guilt I felt for my alternate vision of the world was intense

Man, I feel you on that. I grew up in a religious household but started going,
"seriously, over an apple?" when I was quite young. The responses always
distilled down to my not having enough "faith."

------
chriserin
Kids can spot bullshit, but how often do adults spot bullshit and have less
power to do something than the kids cited in the article did. This article is
cool because it gives specific examples of children wading through the muck to
deliver the truth when that's something that all of us wish we could do in our
different contexts.

------
stretchwithme
Reminds of when Mrs Mevec told us in 8th grade that sound traveled through
space. I objected, because sound is just vibration of molecules and space is
fairly empty. I was wrong, she told me. And then many of the students mocked
me as well.

Just because someone is an adult and you're not doesn't prove a thing. Neither
does having every other person disagree. The evidence may still be on your
side.

------
Luc
Does anyone have any good recommendations for teaching the 'methods of
rationality' to a 12 year old?

~~~
Daniel_Newby
Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality:
[http://www.fanfiction.net/s/5782108/1/Harry_Potter_and_the_M...](http://www.fanfiction.net/s/5782108/1/Harry_Potter_and_the_Methods_of_Rationality)

~~~
Luc
Thanks. I really enjoyed reading that fanfic, but I don't think it will appeal
as much as a teaching aid. My current plan is to go through the 'How To
Actually Change Your Mind' sequence on Less Wrong (
[http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/How_To_Actually_Change_Your_M...](http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/How_To_Actually_Change_Your_Mind)
), and distil that for my daughter. I want something that's systematic, a
canonical list, if there is such a thing.

------
Groxx
Well, _that_ was worthless.

So it's an opinion piece, that kids have a "bullshit detector" of some kind.
Fine, have that opinion. But look at the counter-arguments: Santa Claus.
Easter Bunny. Generally-unquestioning adherence to parents' religion. Etc.

Sure, once they start thinking for themselves more, they start to find
inconsistencies. Adults, of course, do nothing of the sort. They're not the
cynical, doubting types, no siree.

So, cherry pick a couple high-profile success stories and project to the
population as a whole. _This_ is high quality content, apparently, as it has
over 200 votes. Maybe people are just voting on the concept, as _everybody_
has encountered someone getting upset over being told the truth?

------
pella
placebo paradoxon ...

if you read this research <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17893311>

which decision is more rationale?

A: choose conventional therapy because acupuncture is no more than a placebo (
verum or sham was almost similar effectiveness)

B: choose acupuncture because effectiveness of acupuncture, either verum or
sham, was almost twice that of conventional therapy

Which do you prefer? Science Based Medicine vs. Effectiveness ?

~~~
duncanj
Another question is whether these studies show that any doctor can provide
acupuncture services without training in TCM. All your doctor needs to do is
insert the needles randomly. In fact, pressing with a toothpick may be enough
to cause the placebo effect associated with sham acupuncture.

Finally, how much would you pay for the "service", knowing what you do from
the literature?

~~~
pella
>All your doctor needs to do is insert the needles randomly.

be careful with random acupuncture points ...

 _"If a woman in China is pregnant with a second child, or in numerous cases,
if the couple knows the first pregnancy is a girl, the couple will go to the
medical clinic for an abortion. One common method of abortion is simply to use
strong acupuncture point stimulation of San Yin Chiao (SP6) in conjunction
with He Gu (LI4). The abortion is generally realized within 24 hours."_
[http://www.dynamicchiropractic.com/mpacms/dc/article.php?id=...](http://www.dynamicchiropractic.com/mpacms/dc/article.php?id=31656)

------
lemma
I read the article and skimmed the front page of the site, but had to click
away- this kind of stuff is infuriating and depressing at the same time.

------
pasbesoin
I hope we do indeed achieve and maintain reduced friction / inhibition of
access to information. So that, for example, bright kids do not wait years to
get into an environment that simply lets them proceed at their own pace, not
to mention receive encouragement.

And find some interesting, challenging communities in which to participate.

------
ballard
What is not science is either art, philosophy or marketing.

------
stretchwithme
"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble
reasoning of a single individual." - Galileo

------
lvh
I couldn't watch the video on Youtube because I'm in Belgium, apparently. Are
there any alternative sources?

------
aquarin
"...this video is blocked in your country..."

~~~
thaumaturgy
It's just a Whitney Houston music video, not directly relevant to the article
content.

