It appears that he is trying to bypass direction vectors to make it easier, but sometimes this just makes things more confusing.
I only watched about 10 seconds of the video starting at 7:50, but it appears that he is just using coulombs law like so:
[tex]F = \frac{k q_{1}q_{2}}{r^{2}}[/tex]
right? Where [itex]k = \frac{1}{4\pi\epsilon_{0}}[/itex] in SI units.
The thing is that it should more generally be:
[tex]\vec{F} = \frac{k q_{1}q_{2}}{r^{2}}\hat{r}[/tex]
notice that now F is a vector (the arrow on top) and that there is an [itex]\hat{r}[/itex] unit vector. A unit vector is a vector that has length 1 and basically is just used to show direction.
In the coulomb force the unit vector points from source to test charge since the source is on the right and the test charge (the charge that is measuring the force) is on the left then the unit vector is -1. (in 2-dimensions it is (-1,0) ).
When you do it this way it is less confusing because you just plug everything in and you don't have to care about which way the force should go like he says in the video. One charge is positive one is negative and you do plug them in as such, but the unit vector effectively multiplies this by a -1 so the force ends up pointing in the positive direction like it should.
If you were using the other force to measure the charge then the particle on the left is the source and the one on the right is the [/b]test charge[/b] so then the unit vector becomes (1, 0) instead. Then you plug in one positive charge and one negative and the force is negative as it should be.
The way he does it though is often how people start learning it though I don't see why.. unit vectors are not that confusing.. any way, the method in the video effectively does away with vectors and replaces the direction vector with your "intuition".