9 ms·
Sounded pretty good until "Joe Rogan is also fantastic" at the end there...
by iaabtpbtpnn 5y ago
Sounded pretty good until "Joe Rogan is also fantastic" at the end there...
- toyg 5y agoJoe Rogan sits squarely at the intersection of "intelligent and curious people who don't vet their sources particularly well" and "batshit-insane folks looking for confirmation of their abhorrent views".
- lotsofpulp 5y agoIntelligence implies vetting one’s sources well.
- deep-root 5y agoWould think "educated" implies this, as intelligence is a raw faculty.
- eevilspock 5y agono. it depends on your motives. if it's just building an audience to make money or fame, vetting sources doesn't matter, and may even be counterproductive. sad truths about our current culture.
- lotsofpulp 5y agoI guess that is true if you do not care about the broader world.
- derefr 5y agoIntelligence just means spotting patterns faster. If you're intelligent but "detail oriented", that just means you'll end up coming up with a brilliant solution to the wrong problem. In a Dungeons and Dragons character, knowing to vet one's sources would be an example of "Wisdom". And I think that's probably the right word for it in conventional speech as well.
- nwiswell 5y agoHuh. Is "detail oriented" usually meant in such a pejorative sense? I had it figured as HR-speak for "willing to do boring stuff"
- GhettoComputers 5y agoI always thought of intelligence as adaptation to environments. You’re correct on the intelligent detailed person.
- Atlantium 5y agoThere is no academically or commonly accepted definition of intelligence. Your confident statement renders everything else you say suspect.
- derefr 5y agoI'm defining intelligence as "the thing we think people have when they have a high IQ" — similar to how depression is currently medically defined as "that which is measured by a forced swim test." Obviously, measured intelligence is not "real intelligence" ("g", whatever that is) — but at the same time, people increasingly use the term "intelligent" to refer to someone who has high measured intelligence (IQ), whether or not they have high "real intelligence." So the definitions sort of collapse into one-another over time. "The measure becomes the target", but for language.
- Atlantium 5y agoIQ testing is not how anyone measures intelligence and hasn't been for quite some time. I suspect the problem lies here: Intelligence requires a multi-part definition, to use your analogy, much like swimming. Swimming is defined as the action of moving oneself through water using your limbs. An intelligence definition should include the ability to extrapolate, comprehend and innovate information accurately as far as we can understand the world. The more precisely one can do this and the more depth of knowledge one has the more intelligent one is. A tricky thing to define.
- SpicyLemonZest 5y agoJoe Rogan's views are very... normal, almost surely closer to those of the typical person than yours or mine. I'm not gonna go around telling people what they can and can't abhor, but I do think it's important to acknowledge that you're in a strong cultural bubble if you're shocked by the things he says.
- mountainriver 5y agoAgree, all the noise around him is so strange, when you listen to him he is just a regular and pretty nice guy
- lotsofpulp 5y agoMy definition of regular and pretty nice guy is not someone who spouts off against men who take parental leave to help their newborn and spouse during her recovery. https://www.mediaite.com/podcasts/joe-rogan-goes-after-pete-buttigieg-for-taking-paternity-leave-isnt-that-supposed-to-be-for-the-person-who-gave-birth/ https://www.mediaite.com/podcasts/joe-rogan-goes-after-pete-... Or speaks to someone like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbXV4WtfMtA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbXV4WtfMtA
- bmeski 5y agoYou’re likely not from the northeast. That’s how we talk.
- lotsofpulp 5y agoI am from the northeast, and spent 20s in NYC.
- heavyset_go 5y agoWow, that video is ridiculous, especially that last line. What a shitty way to treat someone who called in to his own show.
- Gwarzo 5y ago
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- konfin 5y agoAka entertainment. That there is a moral panic over watching him tells you more about the people panicking than the people watching him.
- refurb 5y agoTerrible! I want any podcast host to carefully vet any information on their show so I only hear ApproveIdeas(tm) as it’s clear I might get DangerousIdeas(tm) should I hear information not officially approved.
- robflynn 5y agoIt feels like you're twisting words here. Wanting things to be vetted is not the same thing as saying "everyone has to agree with me." There's a difference between taking a differing opinion and just spouting outright bullshit and lies. Maybe there was some implied sarcasm I missed.
- refurb 5y agoHow could that possibly work for a podcast? Interview each guest and basically script out the conversation? Or maybe do the interview then heavily edited it? And who decides what’s appropriately “vetted”? I assume the Covid “lab leak” theory would have been verboten last year but apparently ok now? I haven’t listened to Rogan in a long time but he basically invites people on and asks questions. He doesn’t give the “Rogan Stamp of Approval” to everything said. The criticisms seem to be a basic form of “stop talking about things I don’t like”.
- robflynn 5y agoThose are all good questions that I don't have the answer to. I know I didn't make the original claim, I just took issue with the initial reply as I felt like it was removing nuance from the discussion. My reply didn't really add much and I probably shouldn't have made it, so I'll try to add something to the discussion below: For me, I think, it comes down to whether or not something is presented as an opinion or as fact/truth. There's far too many opinion pieces presented as news these days and a lot of people have trouble processing that. A headline or claim like "China manufactured this virus as a bio weapon to attack the united states!" at the beginning of a pandemic when no one has any information yet is bad. Discussing whether or not it could have been a lab leak and whether or not it was manufactured is a different thing, and whether it was or was not an attack are acceptable topics, though, I think. How you actually enforce this I have no idea and I know it's easy to go down the rabbit hole of "who watches the watchers."
- gilbetron 5y ago"Joe Rogan is Gwyneth Paltrow for men" is a spot on analogy I saw recently. If you want interesting science podcasts, at least do Lex Fridman!
- nomel 5y agoSince when is Joe Rogan considered a science podcast!? I've never seen it advertised, or presented, that way.
- nwallin 5y agoIt isn't a science podcast per se, but he actually has a lot of scientists/science educations on. Neil deGrasse Tyson has been on four times, Sean Carroll three times, Brian Cox twice, Brian Greene once, Roger Penrose once, etc. (those are just the science people I remember off the top of my head, there have been lots) He's had Richard Dawkins, Elon Musk, John Carmack, Sam Harris on if you're into them. But it's very hit or miss. He has about as many quacks on as legitimate scientists/educators. He does like 3-5 episodes a week, and they're each 2-4 hours. So there's a shitload of content, much more than I could ever sit through. When I was commuting ~3 total hours each day, podcasts were my medium of choice, I would generally listen to maybe one of his podcasts per week and skipped the other 2-4 after listening long enough to know that I didn't give a shit about the guest, whether it's because they were a quack, some random boring comedian, or some meathead MMA person. He is (rightly) criticized for having lots of shitty guests on, and that criticism is fair. But the fact that the podcast is often bad doesn't mean that it's always bad. When the podcast is at its best, it is very, very good. On the website the episodes are broken down by category, so if you want science content you just click "scientists". Unfortunately Joe is too dumb to tell the difference between the real scientists and the fake ones, so most of the quacks are lumped in there too. https://www.jrepodcast.com/episodes/scientists/ https://www.jrepodcast.com/episodes/scientists/
- hagbard_c 5y agoIt isn't - or wasn't when I still listened every now and then back in the time when it was available to all [1]. He did interview scientists who often talked about their fields, leading Rogan to first assure the guest(s) that he - Rogan - is just an idiot upon which he would ask questions which often revolved around some of his favourite subjects: nutrition, DMT, physical training, DMT, aliens and did I mention DMT? What made his interviews interesting is that he, apart from the mentioned standard hitching points, was inquisitive and unafraid to ask 'stupid' questions. Those often gave the guest room to delve into his or her subject of expertise, enlightening the listener and Rogan at the same time. Only a few of the guests were scientists, most were comedians, MMA fighters, ex-servicemen and such. Things might have changed since then but I can not imagine him ever labelling anything he does as 'science'. [1] this period ended when he sold out to Spotify
- ccn0p 5y agoWell it is a fitting conclusion if you think about it. Joe Rogan is like a one-man RSS feed of people's thought streams, while being one of the few like it with an audience large enough to challenge an established mainstream narrative and not get "cancelled".
- deworms 5y agoNice flamebait there. Luckily on HN most people do not care about a person having been declared a heretic and excommunicated on Twitter.
- MrPatan 5y agoWho told you to think that, Twitter or Facebook?
- chomp 5y agoWhat’s the difference between a billion dollar corporation and a million dollar corporation in terms of the content that’s curated and presented to you? Is it that it feels like Joe doesn’t curate his guests? Because I assure you, with the sheer amount of requests he gets, he definitely picks and chooses the guests he has on, even if they’re from across the spectrum of opinion. The idea of “stop letting people control what you consume but oh here’s a person who controls what you consume, don’t worry it’s fine if it’s Joe” makes no sense. Either it’s fine to receive a filtered worldview from people who provide a platform for opinions, or it’s not. And that’s what’s wrong with including Joe Rogan in this article. I will give Joe some credit though, what he is not, is an engagement echo chamber, but that was not the argument pitched in this article.
- pimlottc 5y agoWe all pick our own poisons. Unless you've got the time and fortitude to construct your entire worldview from first principles, including a completely independent reconstruction of all of science and history, at some point you have to choose some sources to (mostly) trust using your best judgement. Hopefully you do a good job, but none of us can escape bias and curated selection in our incoming information streams.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- jordanpg 5y agoIn fact, the Spotify recommendation for podcasts seems weirdly out of place in this post. So much so that I find myself wondering if the entire post is actually a Spotify/Joe Rogan promotion (or maybe gaslighting). Want a strong, open, diverse podcast community free from bullshit, unskippable, targeted advertisements for razors and stamps.com? Stay far, far away from Spotify.
- PragmaticPulp 5y agoIt does feel ironic that he talked about avoiding "push" media sources from billionaires, only to turn around and recommend a "push" podcaster with a 9-figure podcasting contract and a track record of pushing misinformation.
- dang 5y agoPlease don't take HN threads on off-topic flamewar tangents. Those are predictable, tedious, and usually turn nasty. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html