Friendly reminder that all top level comments must: start with "Answer: ", including the space after the colon (or "Question: " if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask), attempt to answer the question, and be unbiased Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment: http://redd.it/b1hct4/ Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns. More on reddit.com

I'm five minutes in and you're already critiquing him at the same level most content creators do treating his statements as literal claims to be fact-checked. That isn’t really what he’s doing. I don’t take Professor Jiang at face value, and I don’t think he expects his audience to either. He isn’t trying to give a precise historical account of individual events. He’s trying to describe the underlying forces that shape how discovery and progress happen. For example, his comment about the scientific method. I didn’t interpret that as him saying every scientific discovery doesn’t involve the scientific method. Clearly it does. What he’s pointing to is that many of the major breakthroughs began as acts of imagination, intuition, or conceptual leaps before they were formalised and validated. The scientific method tests and refines ideas, but it doesn’t always originate them. His focus is on forces, not events. On trajectories, not anecdotes. He’s interested in modelling how human behaviour and societal conditions produce outcomes over time. If you evaluate him purely at the level of literal factual claims, you’ll miss why people find him compelling. The value isn’t in whether every example is technically precise. It’s in the lens he provides for understanding how and why things unfold the way they do. But at the base level it is just pop history YouTube content that's rather interesting because of it's unique take More on reddit.com

Why is this in IR studies? There are a hundred goof ball "influencers" that make videos. More on reddit.com

There are a lot of really good pop-geopolitics channels (William Spaniel, James Ker-Lindsay, etc.) that are very accessible and digestible. If you want to move towards more in depth analysis by people who often have a voice in decisionmaking, I would look at think tanks. For an American perspective the Council on Foreign Relations (The Foreign Affairs channel on youtube is great), US Naval Institute (military analysis), RAND, and Center for Strategic and International Studies are all great sources. I like Chatham House for a UK perspective, Centre for Eastern Studies for Eastern Europe, Japan Institute of International Affairs for Japan, and the Gulf Research Center for the Middle East (although only some of their stuff is in English). More on reddit.com