11 ms·
Joe Rogan sits squarely at the intersection of "intelligent and curious people who don't vet their sources particularly well" and "batshit-insane folks looking
by toyg 5y ago
Joe 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.
- derefr 5y ago> An intelligence definition should include the ability to extrapolate, comprehend and innovate information accurately as far as we can understand the world. What? "Intelligence" is not a psychology jargon term; it's just a word, defined by the way lay-people put the term to use in conversation. Language is used to communicate; we define words (jargon excluded) as what the majority of people understand them to mean. When jargon and regular words collide, the lay-definition wins, and the jargon definition gets lost. (See e.g. "begging the question", which has become a lay-term for "something that has an obvious corollary or unstated flaw" rather than its meaning as a jargon term in logic.) That's why academics invent terms like "g" — to make sure that the jargon term has no lay-term it's colliding with.
- 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."