Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Down The Rabbit Hole We Go: Mind-Expanding Documentaries (diygenius.com)
283 points by kaaist on Jan 11, 2014 | hide | past | web | favorite | 87 comments

There is no worse way to learn than through documentary films. They are free to be as inaccurate and emotive as they want, without the inconvenience of journalistic ethics, and they very often are much more sensationalist than their textual equivalents (books). Something about the medium of TV makes people stupid.

Some of the films in the list are just outright activist propagada. Others might be fine - I haven't watched them all. Want to learn something? Read.

Dont quite see why none of that can't apply to books.

Books can easily be inaccurate and emotive, if not more so. Authors are not bound by, what you very amusingly call, "journalistic ethics" at all. Then, it seems to me that, in general, that there is something about books which makes people arrogant and judgemental. And yes, there are plenty of examples of propaganda books.

Books can't have a manipulative soundtrack. Books can't put a guy in front of you who triggers all your "this is a wise (wo)man and I should listen to whatever they're saying" brain routines, while the guy radiates honesty (which isn't that hard to fake). Books can't put together slick video presentations that gloss over all the problems while having nice special effects (or even merely "nice cinematography", an even lower bar). Books don't have access to any of a wide range of video-based manipulation techniques that I'm not listing here. Books have a much harder time reaching into your subconscious and bypassing your conscious mind with those techniques.

I phrased that carefully. Books can sort of do those things, but it is much, much weaker. Books are generally much easier to engage on an intellectual, thoughtful level.

Documentaries scare me, and I've nearly entirely cut them out of my intellectual diet. They are way too powerful, far out of proportion to the difficulty of making them or the assurance that they are even remotely connected to the truth.

I completely agree. Documentaries will barrage you with facts and "facts" then start building logical cases on the information they have just given you while you haven't had a chance to evaluate whether the initial facts are really true.

I'd love to see some sort of crowd sourced service pop up where people can contribute to a video overlay that you can watch simultaneously with documentaries that debunk or validate the presented facts visually via on screen annotations at the moment they are presented. I still wouldn't rely on documentaries for my facts but it would be great for those friends and family of mine who insist on them.

This articulates what I meant much better than I did.

I'm not saying it can't apply to books. I'm saying that the prevalence of bullshit is much greater in documentary films, making them in general a bad source of information.

Of course I agree that there are many examples of propaganda, emotive and inaccurate books.

Journalistic ethics do exist in print media, but the point is taken that they don't apply in many situations.

Not all documentaries are subject to your sweeping judgement, just as not all books are bullshit. You have to seek out the good stuff, and that means occasionally watching some crap too.

I mostly agree if you're talking about learning something in detail. But I'm never going to be a... marine biologist, for example, however, I enjoy documentaries about life in the sea because it gives me some basic knowledge that means I'm not totally ignorant of the issues, and could have a conversation with a marine biologist about their field, even if it is just me asking better questions rather than being able to hold up a scientific argument.

Some are pretty good. You'll find that early documentaries tried to convey more information, I guess they figured out dumbing things down made them more entertaining.

Take a look at this Feynman documentary from 1964 for a case in point: http://youtu.be/y3Vc-cL9lTM

Charlie Brooker once provided a nice demonstration of emotional editing techniques, albeit in the context of reality tv:


Reality TV is just documentary filmmaking with a rapid production schedule and without the pretense of dignity. To crib from Bobby Shaftoe, it's really documentary filmmaking, but moreso.

Very true. The Zeitgeist films contain many horribly inaccurate 'facts' and outright lies (inaccurate understanding of the monetary system, complete lies/fabrications concerning Egyptian mythology in Zeitgeist 1), yet people believe them and hold them up as examples of 'good' documentaries...

Edit - it also seems nearly anything that deals with mythology horribly misrepresents what the ancients actually believed and what we have discovered concerning their mythologies.

I agree with you 100%, reading is a much better way to absorb information with fewer emotional strings available for the plucking with yer brain in a more rational state.

We all however know people who got through university without ever reading an inch of their set list, wrapped in a bubble of uncaring, who could do with a jolt again, a boost to remember why they want to be alive and that money is not the only reason to be alive. For these people, recommending a good documentary is your duty. It could kickstart a moral highground for a month or so in them!

Perhaps I've just surrendered to laziness, but I find that in trolling through BookTV to find books to read, I usually get more and better value from the discussion of the book than the book itself. Emphasis "usually" - some of the books are of much more value than the hour on air. BookTv is a drier setting than yer average TED talk or propaganda piece (documentary) film, so it seems less biased. You get the executive summary without having to invest all the time to read it. But the books that I actually read - where I was motivated to actually read the book - from BookTv have been very good.

I tend to agree but take a look at Adam Curtis. He is not perfect but his documentaries give you a lot of insight and ideas to think about.

Adam Curtis is a prime example of what he is complaining about. Sure, he gives you things to think about, but he is fast and loose with said facts, and uses quick cuts, stock footage, and emotional music to try and sway opinion.

He does so absolutely. But he is also careful to identify conclusions as opinion, and you get to decide for yourself. He leaves you the framework for his conclusions, and you can continue to work on it. If you use him, Chris Hedges and Noam Chomsky as sources, then draw your own conclusions, my experience is that you'll get more and better answers. I disagree strongly with all of them at the level of conclusion, but will continue to reuse all the legwork they did to get there. It's a force multiplier.

History is not a restaurant where you just send the food back; it's more like doing your own cooking. And my experience with Adam Curtis' stuff is that pulling one or two conclusions out does not cause the whole to collapse in a heap. His metaphors and narratives are sound.

>Adam Curtis is a prime example of what he is complaining about.

Adam Curtis has produced some of the best documentaries I've ever seen.

It's like people in this thread can't appreciate art for what it is. Or that some of the topics here have been determined in absolute, and aren't open to interpretation, philosophizing or opinion.

Malcolm Gladwell? Junk. Adam Curtis? Junk. Is nothing worth reading or watching unless it's an unstylized list of facts?

I don't know about you, but all I ask from my personal entertainment are "things to think about".

If you are only interested in the hard facts, sure, but then most popular science books and even some textbooks are not much better either, in some sense I wish I could unread some of the stuff I read as a youngster about complex numbers, zeno's paradox, goedels theorem, various probability puzzles, physics etc. because in the shallowness of the description (and often the authors understanding) it was actively detrimental to understanding the topics. Full comprehension of complex topics requires years of sustained effort.

Yet one still wants to get some sense of what is happening in different places of the world, to people in different disciplines or cultures, and you specifically do not want to get into too much detail, because nobody simply has the mental capacity to study every discipline out there, and this is mostly a form of reasonably intelligent entertainment, at its best an inspiration to get deeper in and read books etc.

I can't believe I'm reading a comment that brushes off "hard facts" like some kind of nuisance.

That's because you clearly are unable to read at all.

Counter example: documentaries about nature or other countries. Sometimes, nothing can quite replace moving images and sound. I'll go further and claim that in theory, documentaries can be every bit as factual as books, but not the other way around.

I agree about some nature documentaries, though I've seen a good number that are clearly manipulative (in that they have staged a situation or misrepresented the facts). The BBC stuff is generally excellent.

Now and again I like to watch one of those crackpot alien contact or religious prophecy documentaries, just to be amused at all the same techniques being employed on a message that you can never take seriously.

Sadly, journalistic ethics have followed the path of documentaries.

Oh yeah good point - no one every wrote a book that was just "outright activist propagada[sp]"

From the site:

> Zeitgeist II

> Capitalism is the Crisis

> The Pyramid Code

And a bunch of other pseudoscientific conspiracy bullshit

I see this tendency with all documentary collections, subreddits, playlists etc - somehow people love to see made up shit

I wouldn't be so fast to knock Capitalism is the Crisis. Chris Hedges is absolutely worth taking a good listen / read of. My apologies if your particular worldview happens to get shaken.

Either way, the list is clearly heavily biased. At least put Free To Choose on there as well.

You're free to choose to add that to your own list, of course.

Oh, turns out that is on YouTube. I watched bits of that in my econ classes, might be useful to watch it again now that I've concluded much of what I was taught was in fact bunk.


I think it's important to understand both Hedges and Friedman. IMO, the more you look at it, the more profound the divide there is. I think we think we know what we mean by these things, but the older I get, the less sure I am of that.

Care to expand on "what we mean by these things"?

If not here, then elsewhere. Hrm ...

I've got a sort of bloggy subreddit at http://reddit.com/r/dredmorbius How about a new post:


It should be Government is the Crisis, but let's not shake up your worldview.

If I were writing titles, it would be something less elegant. "The Dissipative, Self-Organizing System in Entropic Crisis", or "The Population-Growth-Energy-Complexity Nexus".

Though I've been leaning toward "The Best of All Possible Worlds". You've got to think about that one a bit.

More: http://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/wiki/

Don't even watch the THRIVE stuff either unless you're fond of Egyptians communicating with extra-terrestrials and that kind of nonsense.

You can add Collapse to that list as well, some hints of truth, but mostly extreme libertarian FUD.

I've been puzzling over Ruppert for quite some time.

I think his history's pretty solid. His projections are where things start to fall apart, and in several of his predictions he's clearly jumped the gun (but then: prediction is hard, especially about the future). He's in pretty good company there. My own sense is that a collapse is likely to take rather longer, though it's also likely to be highly nonlinear -- things can limp along for a quite a while before suddenly falling to pieces.

And while not inevitable, I fail to see how a highly complex technological civilization predicated on massive energy flows and high levels of stability can survive the curtailment of both. I also suspect 2007 was a lot dicier than many people realize.

Cosmos is wonderful. But I'd mostly rather read to learn, it's faster.

I'm a huge fan of documentaries that aren't mind-expanding and focus on quirky subcultures:

King of Kong - Never cared about professional video gamers, but this film made me care deeply for 90 minutes.

Spellbound - The incredible varied backstories behind the kids in the national spelling bee

Grizzly Man - Don't even know how to describe this one. See Alaska through the eyes of a crazy person.

Monster Camp - About people into live-action roleplaying. The culture clash with the couple on a leisurely stroll through the park that has no idea what's going on around them is one of the all-time great moments in documentaries.

American Movie - Couldn't tell if this was real or Christopher Guest at first. It's real. It's awesome.

You will enjoy these then:

Confessions of a Superhero - wannabe actors working on Hollywood streets as costumed superheroes for tips.

The Great Happiness Space - Japanese male prostitutes entertaining girls in pubs. Suprising twist in the end.

Indie Game The Movie, Comic-Con Episode IV: A Fan's Hope - titles say it all. I guess these two are well known around here, like King of Kong you mentioned.


I forgot about indie game... is that the one about fez and super meat boy? That was fantastic.

American Movie is one of my favorite films ever. "Jesus told me so".

If you haven't seen it, Kevin Kelly's True Films site is a great resource for other gems like it http://truefilms.com/.

If you enjoyed "King of Kong", "Chasing Ghosts" is pretty entertaining as well.

Looks like a random sampling. My personal favourites:

The Power of Myth by Joseph Campbell

The Ascent of Man by Jacob Bronowski

The Pleasure of Finding Things Out by Richard Feynman

Little Dieter Needs to Fly by Werner Herzog

I love The Ascent of Man. Bronowski's presentation style and the camera work (e.g. a wide shot of some landscape with Bronowski narrating then you notice actually he's a couple of hundred metres in the distance walking by) amuses me to no end, but it's a great watch. I haven't heard of the others you list, so I'll check them out, thanks.

Some of my favourites:


Anything by David Attenborough

Capturing The Friedmans

Anything by Louis Theoroux

The Music of the Primes (this was technically a 3 part series, but it's a great look at the mathematicians who have tried to find the secret to the prime numbers, most of whom drove themselves insane)

The (R)evolution of Immortal Technique - a documentary about political activist/musician, great watch

The Ascent of Man is amazing. It's old, somewhat outdated, very slow... but amazing. I rewatch it at least once a year.

My parents have the book at home. Loved reading it when I was a kid. In another career...

The first thing I did was search the 300-item list for "The Power of Myth". Little Dieter is really great too, thanks for the list.

Interesting aside, much of TPM was filmed at George Lucas' Skywalker Ranch.

From Wikipedia:

> Campbell and Lucas became friends when Lucas publicly acknowledged the influence Campbell's writings had on the development of his hugely successful film "Star Wars." Campbell expresses great enthusiasm for this film; a film that he says conforms to classical mythological legends.

A good list, at least based on the first three (which I've seen and/or heard a great deal about).

I like documentaries, but life's too short to watch 300 of them from some random list. You might as well just search for documentaries on Netflix and go by the ratings.

This is actually a pretty good selection based on the sampling of videos on it which I've already seen.

The point isn't to watch all 300. But if you do find a topic you're interested in, this list is a good place to start your search.

There are a few stinkers as well, so caveat youtube-dl'er.

I too love documentaries and used to love Discovery Channel before they turned into the disgrace they are now.

However, it's a really showstopper for me when a documentary is dated and with the subjects that I find interesting ( tech, economy) documentaries are dated pretty fast.

Watching anything on these subjects more than 1 year old is like whaching a documentary on ancient history.

The BBC has the long running tv documentaries "Horizon". Some of these are excellent.

I would really like to see the BBC making use of this archive material by re-running old episodes, perhaps with discussion from the scientists involved before hand talking about advances since the programme was made or where they went right / wrong.

Or perhaps the BBC could have a topic and collate clips from all the previous episodes to show how acience has tackled that topic over the years.

There's. Brilliant radio programme called "The Reunion" which does something similar for news and current affairs.

Here's their episode about Dolly the Sheep. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01mhsdw

Here's their episode about the centre for alternative technology http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01s393k

The format works well for the political stuff because the presenter (Sue MacGregor) is a respected journalist and was working at the time, and distance from events means people explain and explore without being so invested in a political position.

BBC Four does exactly what you suggest re:exploring a topic through past Horizon episodes.

Horizon is great. Got the series on record along with Dispatches and Panorama.

I found the documentary Happy People: A Year in the Taiga to be well worth the 90+ minute investment. No spin or agenda, just the hard truth about life in Siberia. Free on Netflix.

What do you mean by free?

I meant to say readily available. Apologies.

People learn through stories and pictures. The documentary is a powerful teaching tool. Not perfect, and it can mislead, but powerful.

I've spent more hours than I care to admit over the past year going through a range of material from slick and well-prepared documentaries (including several on this list: "Inside Job", "The Four Horsemen", "Capitalism in Crisis", How Many People Can Live on Planet Earth", "The Fog of War", "The Ascent of Money" (well, I read the book). "Collapse" with Michael Ruppert.

And a few which aren't on the list: "The Prize", on the story of petroleum, based on Daniel Yergin's book of the same name. James Burke's "Connections" and "The Day the Universe Changed". And numerous conference presentations, interviews, and various other presentations.

What's particularly useful is watching these not online through a crappy video player, but by downloading the videos, where I can stop and start playback, and by checking up on points (did that really happen? is there documentation of that fact?), and taking notes. Sometimes I'll breeze through a light topic at 140% realtime, in others it may take me most of a week to get through a 90 minute lecture.

Yes, books have their place, but a well-made documentary or series which mixes spoken word, visual imagery, demonstration, and other effects, hits on the keys your mind uses to form memories. I'd watched "Connections" decades ago as a child, but bits stuck with me, and it was interesting to watch myself anticipating Burke reciting "Hardwick Hall, more glass than wall", which I'd last heard some 30 years earlier.

Yes, there's material that tends toward the bogus, but sometimes watching good bogosity is decent training, or you can simply skip over that part of the list. I tackled an instance of this a few weeks back with an RT interview that was posted to HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6905655 Dissecting the elements of conspiracy (or finding out that the conspiracists were right -- reading up on COINTELPRO and Operation HOODWINK (an attempt to set the Communist Party of the US and La Cosa Nostra against one another) from the FBI's own website a couple of days ago was sobering in context of Snowden and related allegations: http://vault.fbi.gov/cointel-pro/hoodwink).

Ruppert's a case of one of the shakier videos. His history's pretty solid, his near-term future somewhat bleaker than I suspect is strictly accurate. If you read on background, the director notes that the story is as much about a man unmade by his own pursuit of an idea: "What I hoped to reveal was ... that his obsession with the collapse of industrial civilization has led to the collapse of his life. In the end, it is a character study about his obsession." (Ruppert's since continued to have a pretty hard time).

Still, anyone not planning to be dead within fifteen years had better consider what happens on the energy, resources, population, and sustainability fronts to be the biggest factors in their lifetime.

Dismissing the documentary format out-of-hand as some have done here, is simply uncalled for. Actually, it's pretty much straight out of the old FBI playbook. Perhaps even the current one.

Apparently we take the "point" of a story to heart even if dishonestly told, and we think we won't, because we think it's dishonestly told

So yeah, very powerful, perhaps too powerful

Source: http://boingboing.net/2013/12/24/you-are-not-so-smart-podcas...

Given that most people are (or have been) subject to prodigal amounts of audio-video storytelling, much of it with a blessed or orthodox narrative, even getting a biased counterpoint serves a purpose.

Far better, as I've described below, to view documentaries critically. Again: the ability today to do fact-checking in an instant (I've pulled up a few dozen references to Mr. McRaney here) means that it's far, far easier to do critical reading and viewing than previously. Much of what I'm researching online currently has to do with material not of the immediate present, dating from 25 to 2500 years ago, roughly. Which I can now access in ways that simply weren't possible before.

I can also hit new commentary on old stuff. Such as, say, the significance (or not) of Adam Smith's "invisible hand":

This link shows the exploration of the concept:


If you want the meat of it, Gavin Kennedy's done the scholarship:

"Adam Smith and 'The Myth of the Invisible Hand - A View from the Trenches'"

Gavin Kennedy, Heriot-Watt University - Edinburgh Business School September 6, 2012


So: setting up a conflict between narratives does provide that consciousness-expanding opportunity for you to explore for the truth.

I absolutely do agree that humans generally have a trust bias: we tend to believe that a speaker is telling the truth, and that their story can be believed. Finding that this isn't the case is highly disorienting. I've had a few encounters with pathological (and/or psychopathic) lairs, and it's very disturbing (especially when you backtrack and find just how and when the lies started). What's similarly troubling is the amount of deception that occurs everyday in commerce, politics, religion, and even science (as well as the more typical hunting grounds of suspicious activity: mysticism, crime, etc.).

There is a whole genre of educational documentaries that basically have no point of view (other than general, popular consensus). For me, the best documentaries are basically audio books with very good illustrations, and while audio books don't work for me at all, documentaries do. From watching hundreds of hours of them, I think the best ones actually lack an overarching story (seeng as how reality usually doesn't have an epic climax). Because the content is being delivered so fast, there's some latency involved here, but the medium lends itself well to repeat watching, listening, or both.

Something like BBC/PBS "Universe" stuff from the late 90's aged very well because they are snapshots of discoveries and problems that now are not nearly as exciting anymore, but they tell you a lot about the very recent history of the subject. This goes for a lot of other subjects, whether it's art, or math, or history. Documentaries can be historical documents in themselves, just check out "Civilization" from 1970 (I think), or "The Human Animal" from 1994.

Soundtrack, narration opening, editing, those all hold clues to trusting or not trusting the content, and it's pretty easy to establish credibility and historical context early on. But they can also be the equivalent of an amazing lecturer.

Edit: one obvious addition to the biography section would be "The Quest For Tannu Tuva", parts of an autobiographical interview with Feynman, on YouTube as well. Edit 2: "The Strange Life and Death of Dr. Alan Turing" from 1992 as well.

I caught Civilzation in one of its early re-broadasts, though was too young to appreciate it at the time. I've downloaded it and it's on my watch list.

Note though: the programs almost always had some point of view. Burke editorializes a few times in Connections (particularly in the 1st, 2nd, and final episodes). Clarke has a distinct vision of Western Civilization. Carl Sagan's thoughts on the importance of science, possiblities of extraterrestrial life, and against mysticism and nonscientific thinking are clear in Cosmos. The fact that the views are more aligned with convention don't lessen this any.

One of the things covered in the talk I linked is even if we're attempting to view it critically, and even if we're confident we can view a story critically, it usually still effects us

That is the nature of effective propaganda.

The best defense you have is your mind. Be skeptical and fact-check; good documentaries contain lots of truth.

The interesting cases are pieces which cite a large number of verifiable truths, but then skew specific bits. I think I referenced my Karen Hudes rebuttal on this post already, if not, it's in HN's search from a few weeks back.

Ruppert's another case. His history's solid. His conclusions a bit shakier (at least for the timeline).

I'm likely misunderstanding, but are you suggesting that James Burke's "Connections" series is not intellectually stimulating / worth watching? They may have some pop-sci aspects, but as a whole, they piqued my interest in various scientific discoveries/inventions as well as parts of history I may have otherwise ignored.

No. I was listing documentaries which aren't included on the list posted. I've edited my comment to clarify that point.

Connections (the first series) was absolutely brilliant, as was TDTUC. I've been less enamored of Connections2 -- the 22 minute format is too brief, the episodes rushed and a little too topical, and a lot of material re-treaded. I haven't watched C3 yet, but note that it returns to the 55 minutes of the original series.

I've become increasingly fascinated by the Industrial Revolution and the changes both leading up to and emerging from it. Vernor Vinge and Ray Kurzweil are trying to tell us that there's a Singularity in our future. I feel it was in our past (and that they're pitching snake oil). The change in the human condition from 1780 to 1980 simply staggers the mind. I'd argue that much of it completed by the 1930s, and that there's been fairly modest change since (mostly in information and communications).

I don't think the world of 2013 is hugely different from that of 1963. But 1963 was worlds apart from 1913.

Is Connection series good to watch for understanding Industrial Revolution better? I would like to understand Industrial revolution better if there's any documentary or book out there along the lines of "Ascent of Money" - the book. I loved reading that book.

Expanding on my earlier post:

Connections is an excellent series to watch concerning the Industrial Revolution, as is The Day the Universe Changed. Both series cover far more, but typically span in in most parts. Burke is clearly fascinated by the period (he's a bit of a tech geek and fan -- his history with the Apollo program should tip you to that), as well as much of what came before and since. The spanning is actually really useful as you come to a better understanding of why the Industrial Revolution happened where and when it did (though I'd argue, not a complete understanding -- I'm still working at that myself).

The Day the Universe Changed complements and supplements Connections extremely well.

As I noted below, I watched both after having seen The Prize, based on Daniel Yergin's book of the same name, which follows the history of petroleum from 1859 to 1992 (the date of publication). That series was simply fascinating.

If you're interested in the period, I'd also recommend Arnold Toynbee's Lectures on the Industrial Revolution which cover a lot of the economic and social issues of the century following Adam Smith. Robert Ayres is a modern economist who's looked at the role of innovation throughout the period in his paper "Technological Transformations and Long Waves" (1989).

The industrial revolution is a vast subject, much of which happened in Britain and the US from the mid-18th to 20th centuries. Yergin's The Prize is a fascinating look at how oil took it into high gear. I highly recommend that book.

Absolutely recommend The Prize. Revisiting Burke with that under my belt helped hugely.


And I also appreciated Ascent of Money (the book). Even if Ferguson is more than a bit of an ass personally.

Down The Rabbit Hole We Go a quote from Alice in Wonderland. The book Alice in Wonderland was written by a Oxford Math professor Charles Lutwdige Dodgeson under the pseudonym Lewis Carrol.

Now comes the fun part, the book is supposed to be about holographic universes. One could say the author was quite ahead of his time.


Pretty much most movie style documentaries are just plain wrong or misleading.

And this list seems to have some of the more nuttier ones, probably due to the requirement they be stream-able.

But that's cool, I like watching nutty docos, they can be entertaining, but just don't think you'll come out smarter.

If you want to learn, read or better yet do a structured course with lectures. ie. https://www.coursera.org/

Check out Zizek's new one, The Pervert's Guide to Ideology. The structure of the stories we tell ourselves can be just as interesting as the content.

I assume as an attempt to avoid copyright issues, "The Life of A Young Entrepreneur" [0] was changed from it's original title "The Startup Kids" [1]. Meh, not fair to the producers of the film.

[0] - #1 under "Digital Entrepreneurship" category

[1] - http://www.amazon.com/Startup-Kids-Brian-Wong/dp/B00BQRJ8I6

I watched about 200 documentaries last year and my favorite was

The Rise of Putin and The Fall of The Russian-Jewish Oligarchs



Just listing / watching these things without making it clear who the authors are is crazy. Many of these topics are the sorts of things that the usual perverters of objectivity (lefties, conservatives, religious people, etc) are interested in.

I'm not a sports fan by any means but I've been enjoying many of the ESPN sports documentaries.

My favourites:

Muhammad and Larry

The Two Escobars

Into the Wind

Once Brothers


The College Conspiracy has some interesting 'information', but I wouldn't call it data.

Most colleges are for-profit scams with massive sport programs. The backers of this video are gold-and-silver nuts inflation trolls. Their list of recommended stocks (unbiased they say; worldview is bias I say) are mostly for precious metal mining companies and other bubble industries.

Here's one of the stocks, picked at random and overlaid with DJIA:


Bubble in 2012 corresponds with a peak in silver, which has been down since.

Shock Doctrine not on the list? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iW1SHPgUAQ

since I don't see this listed, I cannot recommend "Enemies of the people"[0] enough.

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemies_of_the_People_(film)

zzz the mention of kurzweil makes me disbelieve the author has the ability to make documentary suggestions, that mention alone falsifies a lot to me, i hope someone can point him to more serious discussions on technology future

Holy Moses - I am not going to be able to sleep tonight. Thank you for sharing!

FYI, Video 7 under '[25] Science' is now a dead youtube url

This is going to be the list to finish this year!

I don't see "Marketing through Hacker News" listed. That's a great documentary.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact