5 ms·

I recommend episode #1513 of JRE with Andrew Huberman. They discuss, among other things, exactly how this works.

by vondro 6y ago

rebelos 6y ago
Unfortunately, Huberman was frequently cut off and redirected, so he didn't get a chance to fully expound on his ideas. I wish Joe would have just given him the floor in that interview. He seems oblivious to the fact that his interviews with scientists and other highly intelligent personalities are listened to in their entirety mostly by people who are very curious about the subject matter. His usual stoner meathead schtick - interjecting with nonsense about monkeys, aliens, telepathic communication, etc - really needs to take a backseat. Lex Fridman is somewhat better though still very imperfect.
- deathgrips 6y ago
  And yet people watch Joe Rogan instead of Lex Fridman.
  - darepublic 6y ago
    Lex's guest list has broadened recently to more closely resemble Joe's, with recent interviews on UFO's and MMA. Which seem like organic interests for Lex but I don't care for when he interviews on these topics
    - bonoboTP 6y ago
      I'm a big fan of Lex, but we have to see that he basically kickstarted his podcasting career by using his MIT cred then made it into a personal thing. Basically it started as the accompanying podcast for the Artificial General Intelligence course at MIT, given by Lex. Given that it's a podcast for an MIT course, he managed to get a very highly esteemed AI guest list, because who would refuse to give an interview as part of MIT lecture materials? In the beginning it had less to do with Lex as a person I think. With that ex-guest list, he managed to continue after the course as "AI podcast", now not connected to a specific course. But if you tell people this podcast had X and Y top expert in it, you can get many more top people. Again after some time he rebranded it all under his name as Lex Podcast and is slowly entering culture war territory and is becoming a second Joe Rogan. I guess he used good tactics, but I'm not sure the initial guests would all agree that their interviews are now part of the Lex-branded podcast. He started tame and uncontroversial, gained "fuck you money" (his phrasing) and is now using it to spread his broader views. Smart, but a little distasteful.
      - gvhst 6y ago
        I've listened to a number of his recent episodes in full and haven't really heard any culture wars topics addressed. Is this related to his recent episode with Joe Rogan?
      - specialist 6y ago
        "...then made it into a personal thing." His interview of his own father is just about the best thing ever. One surprising reward from my recent addiction to podcasts are the fresh looks at people I thought I knew. Roger Penrose, Malcolm Gladwell, others. So rewarding. The long dialog format of podcasts is a much welcome relief. Allowing people to finish a thought, the unhurried back & forth. I recently watched "I Am Not Your Negro" on Netflix. The footage of James Baldwin on programs like Dick Cavett Show is so much like today's podcast. Made me hungry for more.
        bonoboTP 6y ago
        I definitely love the long format as well. But I predict there will be a strong backlash against him as he reveals more of his culture war views and how he agrees with Jordan Peterson on some issues etc. I think over the next months many previous guests will disown him.
        abnercoimbre 6y ago
        Isn't it inevitable for Lex to want to try? If he's into a group's approach -- you mentioned Joe Rogan , Jordan Peterson, guess I'll vaguely add Sam Harris, etc. -- and they all make money being independent podcasters, then surely he wants to compete in that space.
        bonoboTP 6y ago
        Yes, add to that Bret and Eric Weinstein. Essentially he's joining the "intellectual darkweb" as Eric Weinstein calls it. But I guess the initial big name AI people will be pissed off that they are associated with him, because of gender and race issues. For example at this point I wouldn't want to share his interviews in an AI related company on informal internal corporate communication channels even if relevant workwise, because Lex will be (or already is) known as "problematic" regarding his broad views.
  - simonh 6y ago
    Both serve a useful function. Some of us might find Joe frustrating, but he's a genial and entertaining interviewer. He's further on the entertainment spectrum than Lex, who is probably a better bet for most of us because we're probably more interested in the content. That's not a knock against Joe though. The fact he's so entertaining and relatable attracts in a huge audience his interviewees would otherwise never reach, and that's fantastic. OK maybe they don't get to expound their ideas as broadly and deeply, but the fact that they get exposure to so many people at all is a huge win.
- ahartmetz 6y ago
  Yeah, I occasionally watch some Joe Rogan interview and it's never because of Joe Rogan. Rogan often just lowers the level of discourse with his contributions.
  - pc86 6y ago
    That's intentional (as hombre_fatal points out) but not with quite as derisive an implication as yours. The point is not for the guest to get super deep into their specific area of expertise for an uninterrupted hour. It's specifically, by design, a conversation with a layman.
    - ahartmetz 6y ago
      "Explain it to me" is good. "But what about this sensationalist angle?" is not.
      - shoemakersteve 6y ago
        Why not? By asking things like that, he gives the experts the chance to address those ideas and present a more informed and/or grounded perspective of them. Honestly I think a lot of the time this is exactly why he asks things like that.
        jxramos 6y ago
        I agree, it's interesting for him to bring up the layperson superficial critiques and other ideas that float around a given subject that many people may not ask outright because of their oftentimes fringey natured questions. But they still wonder about those questions nevertheless. Joe gets all that stuff aired out more or less.
      - zepto 6y ago
        Why is it not good if it’s something the audience would like to hear explored?
    - poisonarena 6y ago
- hombre_fatal 6y ago
  Joe Rogan is the force that keeps the interview digestible instead of getting too narrow for most people. People don't listen to Rogan interviews so that they can expect to understand the whitepaper the scientist published afterwards, they listen for the accessible conversation as if they were just overhearing two strangers meet on the bus seats in front of them. He's a comedian.
- disown 6y ago
  > I wish Joe would have just given him the floor in that interview. You can't be serious. People don't watch JRE for a scientitic lecture. If you want a lecture or to dig deeper, go look for it. It's strange how odd people are. They go to a basketball and whine about it not being a football game. What's next? People are going to whine about how Joe didn't go over Tesla's quarterly financial statement with elon musk?

I recommend episode #1513 of JRE with Andrew Huberman. They discuss, among other things, exactly how this works.

by vondro 6y ago

I recommend episode #1513 of JRE with Andrew Huberman. They discuss, among other things, exactly how this works.

Unfortunately, Huberman was frequently cut off and redirected, so he didn't get a chance to fully expound on his ideas. I wish Joe would have just given him the floor in that interview. He seems oblivious to the fact that his interviews with scientists and other highly intelligent personalities are listened to in their entirety mostly by people who are very curious about the subject matter. His usual stoner meathead schtick - interjecting with nonsense about monkeys, aliens, telepathic communication, etc - really needs to take a backseat. Lex Fridman is somewhat better though still very imperfect.

deathgrips 6y ago
And yet people watch Joe Rogan instead of Lex Fridman.
- darepublic 6y ago
  Lex's guest list has broadened recently to more closely resemble Joe's, with recent interviews on UFO's and MMA. Which seem like organic interests for Lex but I don't care for when he interviews on these topics
  - bonoboTP 6y ago
    I'm a big fan of Lex, but we have to see that he basically kickstarted his podcasting career by using his MIT cred then made it into a personal thing. Basically it started as the accompanying podcast for the Artificial General Intelligence course at MIT, given by Lex. Given that it's a podcast for an MIT course, he managed to get a very highly esteemed AI guest list, because who would refuse to give an interview as part of MIT lecture materials? In the beginning it had less to do with Lex as a person I think. With that ex-guest list, he managed to continue after the course as "AI podcast", now not connected to a specific course. But if you tell people this podcast had X and Y top expert in it, you can get many more top people. Again after some time he rebranded it all under his name as Lex Podcast and is slowly entering culture war territory and is becoming a second Joe Rogan. I guess he used good tactics, but I'm not sure the initial guests would all agree that their interviews are now part of the Lex-branded podcast. He started tame and uncontroversial, gained "fuck you money" (his phrasing) and is now using it to spread his broader views. Smart, but a little distasteful.
    - gvhst 6y ago
      I've listened to a number of his recent episodes in full and haven't really heard any culture wars topics addressed. Is this related to his recent episode with Joe Rogan?
    - specialist 6y ago
      "...then made it into a personal thing." His interview of his own father is just about the best thing ever. One surprising reward from my recent addiction to podcasts are the fresh looks at people I thought I knew. Roger Penrose, Malcolm Gladwell, others. So rewarding. The long dialog format of podcasts is a much welcome relief. Allowing people to finish a thought, the unhurried back & forth. I recently watched "I Am Not Your Negro" on Netflix. The footage of James Baldwin on programs like Dick Cavett Show is so much like today's podcast. Made me hungry for more.
      - bonoboTP 6y ago
        I definitely love the long format as well. But I predict there will be a strong backlash against him as he reveals more of his culture war views and how he agrees with Jordan Peterson on some issues etc. I think over the next months many previous guests will disown him.
        abnercoimbre 6y ago
        Isn't it inevitable for Lex to want to try? If he's into a group's approach -- you mentioned Joe Rogan , Jordan Peterson, guess I'll vaguely add Sam Harris, etc. -- and they all make money being independent podcasters, then surely he wants to compete in that space.
        bonoboTP 6y ago
        Yes, add to that Bret and Eric Weinstein. Essentially he's joining the "intellectual darkweb" as Eric Weinstein calls it. But I guess the initial big name AI people will be pissed off that they are associated with him, because of gender and race issues. For example at this point I wouldn't want to share his interviews in an AI related company on informal internal corporate communication channels even if relevant workwise, because Lex will be (or already is) known as "problematic" regarding his broad views.
- simonh 6y ago
  Both serve a useful function. Some of us might find Joe frustrating, but he's a genial and entertaining interviewer. He's further on the entertainment spectrum than Lex, who is probably a better bet for most of us because we're probably more interested in the content. That's not a knock against Joe though. The fact he's so entertaining and relatable attracts in a huge audience his interviewees would otherwise never reach, and that's fantastic. OK maybe they don't get to expound their ideas as broadly and deeply, but the fact that they get exposure to so many people at all is a huge win.
ahartmetz 6y ago
Yeah, I occasionally watch some Joe Rogan interview and it's never because of Joe Rogan. Rogan often just lowers the level of discourse with his contributions.
- pc86 6y ago
  That's intentional (as hombre_fatal points out) but not with quite as derisive an implication as yours. The point is not for the guest to get super deep into their specific area of expertise for an uninterrupted hour. It's specifically, by design, a conversation with a layman.
  - ahartmetz 6y ago
    "Explain it to me" is good. "But what about this sensationalist angle?" is not.
    - shoemakersteve 6y ago
      Why not? By asking things like that, he gives the experts the chance to address those ideas and present a more informed and/or grounded perspective of them. Honestly I think a lot of the time this is exactly why he asks things like that.
      - jxramos 6y ago
        I agree, it's interesting for him to bring up the layperson superficial critiques and other ideas that float around a given subject that many people may not ask outright because of their oftentimes fringey natured questions. But they still wonder about those questions nevertheless. Joe gets all that stuff aired out more or less.
    - zepto 6y ago
      Why is it not good if it’s something the audience would like to hear explored?
  - poisonarena 6y ago
hombre_fatal 6y ago
Joe Rogan is the force that keeps the interview digestible instead of getting too narrow for most people. People don't listen to Rogan interviews so that they can expect to understand the whitepaper the scientist published afterwards, they listen for the accessible conversation as if they were just overhearing two strangers meet on the bus seats in front of them. He's a comedian.
disown 6y ago
> I wish Joe would have just given him the floor in that interview. You can't be serious. People don't watch JRE for a scientitic lecture. If you want a lecture or to dig deeper, go look for it. It's strange how odd people are. They go to a basketball and whine about it not being a football game. What's next? People are going to whine about how Joe didn't go over Tesla's quarterly financial statement with elon musk?