It's not about "intelligence" or about any particular factual misinterpretation, I'm sure there's some "source" that more-or-less backs each individual claim ma

It's not about "intelligence" or about any particular factual misinterpretation, I'm sure there's some "source" that more-or-less backs each individual claim made in the video, the problem is, in broad strokes, the standard of evidence for each individual "fact", and the narrative that guides the viewer through the set of curated and disconnected facts to an implied conclusion, which is less like a conclusion and more like a sentiment: "The crypto industry is a bunch of rich scammers like FTX and Sam Bankman Fried that are trying to grease the wheels of power with all of their ill-gotten wealth to protect themselves and continue to rob dopes that are buying into this trash." It's easy to imagine a conjugate set of disconnected and non-sequitur facts that with the right presentation lead to precisely the opposite conclusion. But, neither of those is thinking. I mean that, the problem is not that the ambiguity of the situation provides for two or more interpretations, which it seems to me that it does, but that this mode of investigation, which outwardly accounts for itself like "Each side go to your corner and gather as many facts as you can, then we'll gather in the middle and compare, whoever has the more and heavier facts shall be found truthful!", but is really more like, "Let's all divide ourselves in two, randomly, and amass as many facts as we can that back up our point-of-view, while dismissing any that support the other, and just for fun let's add in hating the other corner too, because it makes all of this more exciting." If you hang your thinking on the results of some surveys, and one account of what happened in some particular historical event, plus some truistic phrase like "All's well that end's well" and a couple of well-timed stock photo gags to pull it all together, you will find yourself 1. impermeable to any ideas that don't fit in the point-of-view or framing of the question you already have and 2. completely and willfully uncurious about the world and questions you aren't already asking about the things you don't already have preconceived notions of.