15 ms·

His podcasts are infinitely better than any amount of talking-head punditry available on the major news networks. I've not run across one yet that wasn't well-r

His podcasts are infinitely better than any amount of talking-head punditry available on the major news networks. I've not run across one yet that wasn't well-reasoned, patient, and interesting - even if I didn't agree with conclusions being made or the thought processes expressing them.

anonu 7y ago
Joe is a master interviewer for the reasons you mention. I'd also add he has broad interests in almost any topic and subject matter, which helps. Another technique he employs is "listening". There are many times when I want to butt in when listening to his podcasts. But Joe just waits and let's the other person speak and soaks it in. There are of course the interviews which are actually him being interviewed (he does most of the talking)... But I think that's part of why it makes for good listening. He keeps the conversation going. Even with a reticent guest, most interviews go for 2 hours or more. So in the end you extract something useful out of it.
- me_me_me 7y ago
  I started listening to his stuff few months back. And I must say I learnt a lot about listening and having good conversations. He mentioned this actually few times and its interesting that he learnt to be patient and non-combative no non-issues. Half of the time i pay attention to how he runs the podcast instead of actual conversations.
- 1337biz 7y ago
  I noticed that over time too. My guess is that he has a feel if a guest is entertaining or not. And if they are not he is going into story mode and just sharing the joys of bow-hunting.
- waffle_ss 7y ago
  Joe is not a master interviewer. Compare him to someone who does a lot of research ahead of time and comes prepared with thought-provoking questions, and can keep pace with the deep conversations, like say a Tim Ferriss. Joe does little research on most guests (mostly due to the sheer volume of guests I'm sure), which could be a more stylistic choice if he were a deft interviewer who could think on his feet and dig deep anyway, but he's not. He's an everyman and asks very surface-level questions. As you say guests are (usually) given wide latitude to own the mic, which works great when it's a guest with a compelling narrative. It works terribly when the guest is very ideological or has some sort of agenda they are adept at selling. The times he does challenge a guest (sometimes way too aggressively as others in the thread have shown), oftentimes he has missed the point entirely, and the guest has to back up and try to patch the conversation. Once that happens a couple times the flow of the interview is really disturbed and it takes a long time to recover. I like Joe as a person, and admire his discipline, but to call him a master interviewer would be as accurate as calling him a master comedian because he has been grinding so long.
  - personlurking 7y ago
    Peter Robinson (of the Hoover Institution) is a good example of a master interviewer, with his Uncommon Knowledge series. Here's one of the last ones I saw: Peter Thiel on “The Straussian Moment” (Sept 2019) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRleB034EC8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRleB034EC8
    - waffle_ss 7y ago
      Definitely; he actually came to my mind but I didn't want to ruffle ideological feathers due to his neoliberal ties. Not that he should be pigeonholed as such - an excellent interview about Leon Trotsky he did with Christopher Hitchens and a Trotsky biographer comes to mind.
  - hanklazard 7y ago
    Narduar is my favorite example of a master interviewer. Watch him leave Pharrell speechless multiple times (starting around the 5:15 mark is a good example). This guy does his homework better than anyone. https://youtu.be/5RKbSi87J5Q https://youtu.be/5RKbSi87J5Q
    - arielserafini 7y ago
      His researching skills are indeed impressive, but I feel like he's a bit "loud" in his personality/character and that can take some attention away from the interviewee.
      - skyyler 7y ago
        In his interviews he really doesn't draw attention away from the interviewee. You're right about him having a strong personality but it's obvious to me that he tries very hard to never outshine the person he's interviewing.
      - hanklazard 7y ago
        I'd say he's just eccentric, and takes a bit of getting used to in terms of style. also, IIRC, this interview got him some REALLY big ones (including Jay-Z, I think) because Pharrell told everyone he knew to that they had to talk with Nardwuar. At the very least in terms of doing proper research on a subject, I think there's no one better.
- maroonblazer 7y ago
  I enjoy Rogan but he's no master interviewer. In fact he strikes me as a kind of conversational Zelig who will nod along in agreement with nearly any idea a guest might put forward. For a supremely frustrating example of Rogan not 'getting it' listen to the last hour-ish of JRE#1350 with Nick Bostrom, where Joe simply can't wrap his head around The Simulation Argument.
  - peatmoss 7y ago
    Oof, I mostly only ever listen to Rogan on long flights and then choose episodes based on whether I have any interest in the person interviewed. I was excited to listen to Nick Bostrom, but came away from that episode wanting to scream. I feel like there are other episodes that have been reasonably good... I’m struggling to think of any that stood out in recent memory. But yeah, Rogan’s a mediocre interviewer at best, though he can be entertaining himself. And the long format of the podcast means that interviewees can sort of talk themselves out, which can give real insight into what they think.
    - puranjay 7y ago
      I thought his recent interview with John Carmack was great. Though a lot of that has to do with Carmack himself being a great communicator.
      - peatmoss 7y ago
        Oh yeah, I did listen to that one. It was a perfect venue for Carmack because I could listen to John speak about anything for as long as John wants to speak about it. Rogan didn’t need to do much prompting for Carmack to spill his solid-gold guts, and he also didn’t feel the need to cut in.
        puranjay 7y ago
        It helped that Rogan is a self confessed Quake nut. If someone didn't have exposure to those early id software games, they might not have been as much at home with Carmack.
reallymental 7y ago
I agree with your first sentence, but not so much with your second. He's the best out there now as he's got the pick of his guests (the result of a forward feedback loop of being a good interviewer). But view/listen to enough of them and you'll learn to pick the gems from the drivel, like almost everything.
- redisman 7y ago
  Each show has like 50% of just general Rogan filler. It's really noticable if you listen to many of them in a row. I only listen to the really interesting guests like Elon Musk, John Carmack since they're so outside of the entertainment/social media field that the talk stays pretty focused on what they've done.
monk_e_boy 7y ago
Interviewing Nick Bostrom was cringe worthy. I don't know what Joe was trying to achieve - maybe forming an argument against the simulation theory? But it was so bad. The youtube comment section is amusing. But mostly Joe gets it spot on and does a great interview. What this does to popular discourse? When a small % of the population watch these types of long form interview and get deep, thoughtful and insightful answers to complex ideas .... and some % of the population watch Fox and read tabloids to get their news. How does society fix this huge knowledge divide?
- cooperadymas 7y ago
  This operates under the assumption that your thing is good while the other is bad. I think the people in the other group would see it differently. I also imagine on some other forum out there someone is lamenting the popularity of the Joe Rogan Experience while the media of their liking gets even less exposure, and wondering how they fix that knowledge divide in society.
  - Wh1zz 7y ago
    The fact that the people in the other group see it differently doesn't mean they're right though. It doesn't mean either group is right, but at the end of the day one can still take a step back and evaluate the two sources/modes of informing oneself and decide that one is good and the other is bad - with respect to what we agree it's good to optimize for (forming more accurate mental models, being well informed in general and not being deceived either by others or self, etc).
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- azangru 7y ago
  > How does society fix this huge knowledge divide? - Why should it? - Isnt the divide inevitable anyway (X knows about Shakespeare, Y knows about quantum theory, Z knows how to grow corn...)
zelly 7y ago
More people listen to his podcast than watch network news.
- twoheadedboy 7y ago
  I don't doubt this, but do you have a source?
johnmorrison 7y ago
You should see JRE#917, Steven doesn't really care about the whole marijuana issue and Joe completely bullies and flames him for like thirty minutes. That one was not well-reasoned or patient, but other than that, I've found almost all of Joe's podcasts to be very good. He's definitely one of the greatest interviewers on the planet right now.
- claudeganon 7y ago
  Why anyone would listen to anything with a bigot like Crowder is beyond me. If you can’t defend your conservatism without devolving into racist and homophobic slurs, you really shouldn’t be taken seriously.
  - claudiawerner 7y ago
    Not to mention the fact that Crowder's own material tends to show how severely misinformed he is on some of the views he criticizes - in fact in that respect he's become somewhat of a meme in some circles.
  - johnmorrison 7y ago
    I find it's useful to listen to those you have strong ethical disagreements with, in order to challenge your own ego and ideas.
    - sagichmal 7y ago
      > I find it's useful to listen to those you have strong ethical disagreements with, in order to challenge your own ego and ideas. This is possible only if those people you disagree with don't have power over you, and acceptable only if the disagreement isn't rooted in a denial of your essential humanity. Both of these conditions are privileges that not everyone enjoys.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - 7y ago
ekianjo 7y ago
> talking-head punditry available on the major news networks That's also because most news networks don't have the luxury (or the willingness) to do 2 hours interviews with a single person in the first place. They need to make things short so they can drown you with ads at every break.
- 0xADADA 7y ago
  nailed it
- teddyh 7y ago
  A.k.a. “concision”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concision_(media_studies) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concision_(media_studies)
senorjazz 7y ago
> I've not run across one yet that wasn't well-reasoned, Then you cannot listen to many. Joe speaks so much bollox with an authoritative air that if you didn't know the subject you would think that Joe did, when many many times he clearly does not. I agree they are interesting when he lets the guest speak (even if completely disagree with them) or it is on something Joe does know about / has researched. But that is far from all the time. Joe also has a habit of ignoring the guest at times and carrying on down his own little conversation alley, usually when he got too stoned - which ruins the conversation IMO
- claudeganon 7y ago
  Yeah, I’ve noticed he likes to do this around issues I imagine are red meat for his audience (e.g. the rights of trans people). It really detracts from what are otherwise decent interviews.
- np_tedious 7y ago
  He certainly spouts some "bollox" but I don't think I agree about "authoritative". He tends to show a lot of humility and asks a lot of questions rather than making statements
  - claudeganon 7y ago
    It really depends. Go listen and to his interview with Adam Connover where he uses him as a foil to spout off a lot of nonsense about trans people and their agency.
    - platz 7y ago
      Connover was doing a lot of hemming and hawing as well I recall
      - claudeganon 7y ago
        Yes because he’s not an expert on trans issues, he’s a comedian, which Rogan knows, but chose to use him as a foil for his equally misinformed stances. Connover, to his credit, went so far as to provide additional context for his defense of trans people’s agency post-interview: https://www.adamconover.net/adding-evidence-to-the-discussion-of-trans-issues-on-joe-rogans-podcast/ https://www.adamconover.net/adding-evidence-to-the-discussio...
tambourine_man 7y ago
I think it depends on your field of expertise. When he interviews people from tech, it’s usually cringeworthy for me. And very entertaining in fields I know little of.
- greggman2 7y ago
  This kind of issue makes me think I should believe all most nothing. When I know the topic and then know how wrong they got it then I assume that the same is true for all the experts in other topics. I suppose I only have a sample of 1, the topic I know, but I have zero samples of the opposite where some expert tells me "they totally got it correct"
  - mkl 7y ago
    This is kind of the opposite of what Michael Crichton named the "Gell-Mann amnesia effect" [1][2]. Often in the media we recognise stories in our area are wrong, but don't extend resulting distrust to all the other topics. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton#GellMannAmnesiaEffect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton#GellMannAmnes... [2] http://larvatus.com/michael-crichton-why-speculate/ http://larvatus.com/michael-crichton-why-speculate/
dfsegoat 7y ago
> I've not run across one yet that wasn't well-reasoned, patient, and interesting You should check out #947 - Ron Miscavige [1]. It is the one episode that comes to mind where JR's behavior and impatience really bothers me. The guy's story is quite sad and Joe seemed distant and distracted the entire time. 1 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVVdCikBDQk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVVdCikBDQk
- guitarbill 7y ago
  It's funny, I thought that was one of the better ones. Because Ron Miscavige seemingly is trying to avoid all responsibility, and Joe pushes back on this several times. That episode in particular sticks out to me where Joe asks difficult questions which elevate the interview
  - meowface 7y ago
    To me, it seemed like a story of a father being terrorized and subjugated by his narcissistic son. He seemed pretty apologetic for getting him involved in the first place. Where do you think he was trying to shirk responsibility? I've listened to a lot of his podcasts and that was also the only one where I couldn't understand why Joe was acting so harshly towards him. Once his son was absorbed into the cult, I don't think there's anything he could've done. Not to mention how hard it is even to get yourself out of it, as he explained in great detail.
typon 7y ago
There are interviewers out there that are far more knowledgeable than him and conduct genuinely interesting interviews with smart people. For example, check out Intelligence Squared podcast. It is true that Rogan's breadth of types of guests is probably unmatched.
- puranjay 7y ago
  The breadth is what I really come for. Like he interviewed John Carmack and Chuck Palahniuk, two people I've admired immensely but who come from two very different fields. Sure, he only covers surface level stuff, but if you knew nothing about writing, game design, or rocket science, you wouldn't get that within two podcast episodes anywhere else
pxhb 7y ago
I am not too sure what to make of Joe Rogan’s podcasts. Note that I do not listen regularly, and mostly only listen to some of the ‘big name’ guests. On one hand, it is cool that he is able to attract big names from diverse fields to come onto his podcast. On the other hand, it feels like most of the podcasts have a shallow content level if you are already familiar with the subject, and sometimes the conversation/questions tend to go into the stoner mysticism realm.
vfc1 7y ago
Be careful, because his podcast is a bit of an echo chamber. The other day he set up a debate on nutrition where he covered the topic of heart disease, and he put a cardiologist (Dr. Khan) with 20 years of experience debating with an acupuncturist (Kris Kresser) on the causes of heart disease. And he kept interrupting the doctor and taking the acupuncturist side on the most absurd claims. He is also into things like moon landing conspiracies and all that good stuff that generate a lot of internet traffic, but I think in a bit of a hypocritical way as I'm pretty sure he doesn't really believe in any of that stuff and just talks about it for the clicks.
- EpicEng 7y ago
  >He is also into things like moon landing conspiracies and all that good stuff that generate a lot of internet traffic, but I think in a bit of a hypocritical way as I'm pretty sure he doesn't really believe in any of that stuff and just talks about it for the clicks. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mmlmxamw_k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mmlmxamw_k He used to believe that, and now he doesn't.
  - vfc1 7y ago
    That was just an example among many. Anything from alien landings to Atlantis to god knows what is fair game to Rogan. He will gladly give his huge platform to the most complete wacko as long as it makes a good story and gets him his clicks, spreading a ton of misinformation and reinforcing common ignorant beliefs in the process.
    - EpicEng 7y ago
      > That was just an example among many Well, it wasn't really an example at all as he's petty open about how silly he was to believe it, but ok. Rogan invites anyone on who he finds interesting. Yes, he has a proclivity to want to believe things that are a bit out there, but he challenges a lot of those "wackos" as well. He also brings on many field experts just to hear what they have to say. I think you're wrong about Joe fishing for clicks. He's been doing this a long time now and his format hasn't really changes. He's not purporting to be an expert of any kind (hell, he doesn't even claim to be intelligent) and he's an intellectually open person. His show is not a platform for guests who won't offend your sensibilities, and he has no obligation to censor for you. If you don't like what a guest is saying then great; make up your own mind. He's not trying to convince you.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

anonu 7y ago

Joe is a master interviewer for the reasons you mention. I'd also add he has broad interests in almost any topic and subject matter, which helps. Another technique he employs is "listening". There are many times when I want to butt in when listening to his podcasts. But Joe just waits and let's the other person speak and soaks it in. There are of course the interviews which are actually him being interviewed (he does most of the talking)... But I think that's part of why it makes for good listening. He keeps the conversation going. Even with a reticent guest, most interviews go for 2 hours or more. So in the end you extract something useful out of it.

me_me_me 7y ago
I started listening to his stuff few months back. And I must say I learnt a lot about listening and having good conversations. He mentioned this actually few times and its interesting that he learnt to be patient and non-combative no non-issues. Half of the time i pay attention to how he runs the podcast instead of actual conversations.
1337biz 7y ago
I noticed that over time too. My guess is that he has a feel if a guest is entertaining or not. And if they are not he is going into story mode and just sharing the joys of bow-hunting.
waffle_ss 7y ago
Joe is not a master interviewer. Compare him to someone who does a lot of research ahead of time and comes prepared with thought-provoking questions, and can keep pace with the deep conversations, like say a Tim Ferriss. Joe does little research on most guests (mostly due to the sheer volume of guests I'm sure), which could be a more stylistic choice if he were a deft interviewer who could think on his feet and dig deep anyway, but he's not. He's an everyman and asks very surface-level questions. As you say guests are (usually) given wide latitude to own the mic, which works great when it's a guest with a compelling narrative. It works terribly when the guest is very ideological or has some sort of agenda they are adept at selling. The times he does challenge a guest (sometimes way too aggressively as others in the thread have shown), oftentimes he has missed the point entirely, and the guest has to back up and try to patch the conversation. Once that happens a couple times the flow of the interview is really disturbed and it takes a long time to recover. I like Joe as a person, and admire his discipline, but to call him a master interviewer would be as accurate as calling him a master comedian because he has been grinding so long.
- personlurking 7y ago
  Peter Robinson (of the Hoover Institution) is a good example of a master interviewer, with his Uncommon Knowledge series. Here's one of the last ones I saw: Peter Thiel on “The Straussian Moment” (Sept 2019) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRleB034EC8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRleB034EC8
  - waffle_ss 7y ago
    Definitely; he actually came to my mind but I didn't want to ruffle ideological feathers due to his neoliberal ties. Not that he should be pigeonholed as such - an excellent interview about Leon Trotsky he did with Christopher Hitchens and a Trotsky biographer comes to mind.
- hanklazard 7y ago
  Narduar is my favorite example of a master interviewer. Watch him leave Pharrell speechless multiple times (starting around the 5:15 mark is a good example). This guy does his homework better than anyone. https://youtu.be/5RKbSi87J5Q https://youtu.be/5RKbSi87J5Q
  - arielserafini 7y ago
    His researching skills are indeed impressive, but I feel like he's a bit "loud" in his personality/character and that can take some attention away from the interviewee.
    - skyyler 7y ago
      In his interviews he really doesn't draw attention away from the interviewee. You're right about him having a strong personality but it's obvious to me that he tries very hard to never outshine the person he's interviewing.
    - hanklazard 7y ago
      I'd say he's just eccentric, and takes a bit of getting used to in terms of style. also, IIRC, this interview got him some REALLY big ones (including Jay-Z, I think) because Pharrell told everyone he knew to that they had to talk with Nardwuar. At the very least in terms of doing proper research on a subject, I think there's no one better.
maroonblazer 7y ago
I enjoy Rogan but he's no master interviewer. In fact he strikes me as a kind of conversational Zelig who will nod along in agreement with nearly any idea a guest might put forward. For a supremely frustrating example of Rogan not 'getting it' listen to the last hour-ish of JRE#1350 with Nick Bostrom, where Joe simply can't wrap his head around The Simulation Argument.
- peatmoss 7y ago
  Oof, I mostly only ever listen to Rogan on long flights and then choose episodes based on whether I have any interest in the person interviewed. I was excited to listen to Nick Bostrom, but came away from that episode wanting to scream. I feel like there are other episodes that have been reasonably good... I’m struggling to think of any that stood out in recent memory. But yeah, Rogan’s a mediocre interviewer at best, though he can be entertaining himself. And the long format of the podcast means that interviewees can sort of talk themselves out, which can give real insight into what they think.
  - puranjay 7y ago
    I thought his recent interview with John Carmack was great. Though a lot of that has to do with Carmack himself being a great communicator.
    - peatmoss 7y ago
      Oh yeah, I did listen to that one. It was a perfect venue for Carmack because I could listen to John speak about anything for as long as John wants to speak about it. Rogan didn’t need to do much prompting for Carmack to spill his solid-gold guts, and he also didn’t feel the need to cut in.
      - puranjay 7y ago
        It helped that Rogan is a self confessed Quake nut. If someone didn't have exposure to those early id software games, they might not have been as much at home with Carmack.

reallymental 7y ago

I agree with your first sentence, but not so much with your second. He's the best out there now as he's got the pick of his guests (the result of a forward feedback loop of being a good interviewer). But view/listen to enough of them and you'll learn to pick the gems from the drivel, like almost everything.

redisman 7y ago
Each show has like 50% of just general Rogan filler. It's really noticable if you listen to many of them in a row. I only listen to the really interesting guests like Elon Musk, John Carmack since they're so outside of the entertainment/social media field that the talk stays pretty focused on what they've done.

monk_e_boy 7y ago

Interviewing Nick Bostrom was cringe worthy. I don't know what Joe was trying to achieve - maybe forming an argument against the simulation theory? But it was so bad. The youtube comment section is amusing. But mostly Joe gets it spot on and does a great interview. What this does to popular discourse? When a small % of the population watch these types of long form interview and get deep, thoughtful and insightful answers to complex ideas .... and some % of the population watch Fox and read tabloids to get their news. How does society fix this huge knowledge divide?

cooperadymas 7y ago
This operates under the assumption that your thing is good while the other is bad. I think the people in the other group would see it differently. I also imagine on some other forum out there someone is lamenting the popularity of the Joe Rogan Experience while the media of their liking gets even less exposure, and wondering how they fix that knowledge divide in society.
- Wh1zz 7y ago
  The fact that the people in the other group see it differently doesn't mean they're right though. It doesn't mean either group is right, but at the end of the day one can still take a step back and evaluate the two sources/modes of informing oneself and decide that one is good and the other is bad - with respect to what we agree it's good to optimize for (forming more accurate mental models, being well informed in general and not being deceived either by others or self, etc).
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
azangru 7y ago
> How does society fix this huge knowledge divide? - Why should it? - Isnt the divide inevitable anyway (X knows about Shakespeare, Y knows about quantum theory, Z knows how to grow corn...)

zelly 7y ago

More people listen to his podcast than watch network news.

twoheadedboy 7y ago
I don't doubt this, but do you have a source?

johnmorrison 7y ago

You should see JRE#917, Steven doesn't really care about the whole marijuana issue and Joe completely bullies and flames him for like thirty minutes. That one was not well-reasoned or patient, but other than that, I've found almost all of Joe's podcasts to be very good. He's definitely one of the greatest interviewers on the planet right now.

claudeganon 7y ago
Why anyone would listen to anything with a bigot like Crowder is beyond me. If you can’t defend your conservatism without devolving into racist and homophobic slurs, you really shouldn’t be taken seriously.
- claudiawerner 7y ago
  Not to mention the fact that Crowder's own material tends to show how severely misinformed he is on some of the views he criticizes - in fact in that respect he's become somewhat of a meme in some circles.
- johnmorrison 7y ago
  I find it's useful to listen to those you have strong ethical disagreements with, in order to challenge your own ego and ideas.
  - sagichmal 7y ago
    > I find it's useful to listen to those you have strong ethical disagreements with, in order to challenge your own ego and ideas. This is possible only if those people you disagree with don't have power over you, and acceptable only if the disagreement isn't rooted in a denial of your essential humanity. Both of these conditions are privileges that not everyone enjoys.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - 7y ago

ekianjo 7y ago

> talking-head punditry available on the major news networks That's also because most news networks don't have the luxury (or the willingness) to do 2 hours interviews with a single person in the first place. They need to make things short so they can drown you with ads at every break.

0xADADA 7y ago
nailed it
teddyh 7y ago
A.k.a. “concision”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concision_(media_studies) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concision_(media_studies)

senorjazz 7y ago

> I've not run across one yet that wasn't well-reasoned, Then you cannot listen to many. Joe speaks so much bollox with an authoritative air that if you didn't know the subject you would think that Joe did, when many many times he clearly does not. I agree they are interesting when he lets the guest speak (even if completely disagree with them) or it is on something Joe does know about / has researched. But that is far from all the time. Joe also has a habit of ignoring the guest at times and carrying on down his own little conversation alley, usually when he got too stoned - which ruins the conversation IMO

claudeganon 7y ago
Yeah, I’ve noticed he likes to do this around issues I imagine are red meat for his audience (e.g. the rights of trans people). It really detracts from what are otherwise decent interviews.
np_tedious 7y ago
He certainly spouts some "bollox" but I don't think I agree about "authoritative". He tends to show a lot of humility and asks a lot of questions rather than making statements
- claudeganon 7y ago
  It really depends. Go listen and to his interview with Adam Connover where he uses him as a foil to spout off a lot of nonsense about trans people and their agency.
  - platz 7y ago
    Connover was doing a lot of hemming and hawing as well I recall
    - claudeganon 7y ago
      Yes because he’s not an expert on trans issues, he’s a comedian, which Rogan knows, but chose to use him as a foil for his equally misinformed stances. Connover, to his credit, went so far as to provide additional context for his defense of trans people’s agency post-interview: https://www.adamconover.net/adding-evidence-to-the-discussion-of-trans-issues-on-joe-rogans-podcast/ https://www.adamconover.net/adding-evidence-to-the-discussio...

tambourine_man 7y ago

I think it depends on your field of expertise. When he interviews people from tech, it’s usually cringeworthy for me. And very entertaining in fields I know little of.

greggman2 7y ago
This kind of issue makes me think I should believe all most nothing. When I know the topic and then know how wrong they got it then I assume that the same is true for all the experts in other topics. I suppose I only have a sample of 1, the topic I know, but I have zero samples of the opposite where some expert tells me "they totally got it correct"
- mkl 7y ago
  This is kind of the opposite of what Michael Crichton named the "Gell-Mann amnesia effect" [1][2]. Often in the media we recognise stories in our area are wrong, but don't extend resulting distrust to all the other topics. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton#GellMannAmnesiaEffect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton#GellMannAmnes... [2] http://larvatus.com/michael-crichton-why-speculate/ http://larvatus.com/michael-crichton-why-speculate/

dfsegoat 7y ago

> I've not run across one yet that wasn't well-reasoned, patient, and interesting You should check out #947 - Ron Miscavige [1]. It is the one episode that comes to mind where JR's behavior and impatience really bothers me. The guy's story is quite sad and Joe seemed distant and distracted the entire time. 1 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVVdCikBDQk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVVdCikBDQk

guitarbill 7y ago
It's funny, I thought that was one of the better ones. Because Ron Miscavige seemingly is trying to avoid all responsibility, and Joe pushes back on this several times. That episode in particular sticks out to me where Joe asks difficult questions which elevate the interview
- meowface 7y ago
  To me, it seemed like a story of a father being terrorized and subjugated by his narcissistic son. He seemed pretty apologetic for getting him involved in the first place. Where do you think he was trying to shirk responsibility? I've listened to a lot of his podcasts and that was also the only one where I couldn't understand why Joe was acting so harshly towards him. Once his son was absorbed into the cult, I don't think there's anything he could've done. Not to mention how hard it is even to get yourself out of it, as he explained in great detail.

typon 7y ago

There are interviewers out there that are far more knowledgeable than him and conduct genuinely interesting interviews with smart people. For example, check out Intelligence Squared podcast. It is true that Rogan's breadth of types of guests is probably unmatched.

puranjay 7y ago
The breadth is what I really come for. Like he interviewed John Carmack and Chuck Palahniuk, two people I've admired immensely but who come from two very different fields. Sure, he only covers surface level stuff, but if you knew nothing about writing, game design, or rocket science, you wouldn't get that within two podcast episodes anywhere else

pxhb 7y ago

I am not too sure what to make of Joe Rogan’s podcasts. Note that I do not listen regularly, and mostly only listen to some of the ‘big name’ guests. On one hand, it is cool that he is able to attract big names from diverse fields to come onto his podcast. On the other hand, it feels like most of the podcasts have a shallow content level if you are already familiar with the subject, and sometimes the conversation/questions tend to go into the stoner mysticism realm.

vfc1 7y ago

Be careful, because his podcast is a bit of an echo chamber. The other day he set up a debate on nutrition where he covered the topic of heart disease, and he put a cardiologist (Dr. Khan) with 20 years of experience debating with an acupuncturist (Kris Kresser) on the causes of heart disease. And he kept interrupting the doctor and taking the acupuncturist side on the most absurd claims. He is also into things like moon landing conspiracies and all that good stuff that generate a lot of internet traffic, but I think in a bit of a hypocritical way as I'm pretty sure he doesn't really believe in any of that stuff and just talks about it for the clicks.

EpicEng 7y ago
>He is also into things like moon landing conspiracies and all that good stuff that generate a lot of internet traffic, but I think in a bit of a hypocritical way as I'm pretty sure he doesn't really believe in any of that stuff and just talks about it for the clicks. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mmlmxamw_k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mmlmxamw_k He used to believe that, and now he doesn't.
- vfc1 7y ago
  That was just an example among many. Anything from alien landings to Atlantis to god knows what is fair game to Rogan. He will gladly give his huge platform to the most complete wacko as long as it makes a good story and gets him his clicks, spreading a ton of misinformation and reinforcing common ignorant beliefs in the process.
  - EpicEng 7y ago
    > That was just an example among many Well, it wasn't really an example at all as he's petty open about how silly he was to believe it, but ok. Rogan invites anyone on who he finds interesting. Yes, he has a proclivity to want to believe things that are a bit out there, but he challenges a lot of those "wackos" as well. He also brings on many field experts just to hear what they have to say. I think you're wrong about Joe fishing for clicks. He's been doing this a long time now and his format hasn't really changes. He's not purporting to be an expert of any kind (hell, he doesn't even claim to be intelligent) and he's an intellectually open person. His show is not a platform for guests who won't offend your sensibilities, and he has no obligation to censor for you. If you don't like what a guest is saying then great; make up your own mind. He's not trying to convince you.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]