6 ms·

"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 ago
Since when is Joe Rogan considered a science podcast!? I've never seen it advertised, or presented, that way.
- nwallin 5y ago
  It 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 ago
  It 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
- gilbetron 5y ago
  Many of his fans consider it a science podcast, scarily enough. The also consider the conspiracy theories he talks about to be real as well.
sergiotapia 5y ago
I've seen about 30 joe rogan podcasts over the years as background noise during some dark souls runs - not once does the guy present himself as an expert. if anything he just brings on people who are experts and asks them a bunch of questions. why the hard-on from twitterinas that want to shit on the show because he interviews people accused of "wrongthink"?
- over_bridge 5y ago
  I think there's a view that his content has changed recently. I used to watch him a lot in previous years as it really was the best place to just hear conversations with interesting people. Now there's a view that he's taken on a particular political lean and has surrounded himself with conspiracy theorists. I doubt he's actually promoting them but his show does put them in front of a large and impressionable audience (in my personal opinion, he is extremely impressionable himself and parrots the views of his guest for the sake of the conversation regardless of his actual belief). There are also some theories that his sudden giant increase in wealth may have contributed to his shift from the mainstream to the fringe
  - gherkinnn 5y ago
    The only change I’ve noticed is an increase in boring conversations with unfunny comedians or brick head fighters.
  - GhettoComputers 5y ago
    He’s believed in aliens and ancient alien civilizations and cited this book way before you noticed conspiracy theorists. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingerprints_of_the_Gods https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingerprints_of_the_Gods I don’t know when you considered him mainstream but he’s the same.
- razzimatazz 5y ago
  I enjoy that he asks the stupid questions (or the questions that I would feel too self-conscious to ask) of those experts. It is such an excellent contrast to a stale interview with prepared topics and nothing natural to it. It's easy to shit on the show for being a bro-science quackery discussion, not worthy of smart people listening to it or being guests on it. And as we all notice just how popular the show is, anything bad about it (it has plenty of that) becomes a good reason to want it _shut_ _down_
gorwell 5y ago
Huh? Does Rogan run a shop selling trinkets and snake oil? He's a comedian chatting with people and sharing the discussion that you can choose to watch or not. The controversy around him is largely manufactured by a dying corporate media and ruling class threatened by unsanctioned voices. Speaking of being trolled by billionaires...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- fshbbdssbbgdd 5y ago
  I think ivermectin as treatment for a virus counts as snake oil.
  - Gwarzo 5y ago
    Ivermectin is being used in many countries and is supported by a large community of physicians and medical professionals. It may or may not be useful for covid - I'm not a medical worker so I will not opine on it's usefulness, but any person is capable of browsing the medical fields support for its efficacy as an antiviral.
    - fshbbdssbbgdd 5y ago
      Ivermectin is a miracle drug against parasites due to its effects on the nerve and muscle cells of invertebrates. The evidence for its use as an antiviral in vivo is weak.
  - legostormtroopr 5y ago
    This is such a polarised view - there is clinical evidence that suggests it may reduce the symptoms of COVID. Its not a full on miracle cure. The problem is that what should be a medical discussion is now political - and people have drawn battle lines around it. https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/08000/ivermectin_for_prevention_and_treatment_of.7.aspx https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/...

nomel 5y ago

Since when is Joe Rogan considered a science podcast!? I've never seen it advertised, or presented, that way.

nwallin 5y ago
It 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 ago
It 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
gilbetron 5y ago
Many of his fans consider it a science podcast, scarily enough. The also consider the conspiracy theories he talks about to be real as well.

sergiotapia 5y ago

I've seen about 30 joe rogan podcasts over the years as background noise during some dark souls runs - not once does the guy present himself as an expert. if anything he just brings on people who are experts and asks them a bunch of questions. why the hard-on from twitterinas that want to shit on the show because he interviews people accused of "wrongthink"?

over_bridge 5y ago
I think there's a view that his content has changed recently. I used to watch him a lot in previous years as it really was the best place to just hear conversations with interesting people. Now there's a view that he's taken on a particular political lean and has surrounded himself with conspiracy theorists. I doubt he's actually promoting them but his show does put them in front of a large and impressionable audience (in my personal opinion, he is extremely impressionable himself and parrots the views of his guest for the sake of the conversation regardless of his actual belief). There are also some theories that his sudden giant increase in wealth may have contributed to his shift from the mainstream to the fringe
- gherkinnn 5y ago
  The only change I’ve noticed is an increase in boring conversations with unfunny comedians or brick head fighters.
- GhettoComputers 5y ago
  He’s believed in aliens and ancient alien civilizations and cited this book way before you noticed conspiracy theorists. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingerprints_of_the_Gods https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingerprints_of_the_Gods I don’t know when you considered him mainstream but he’s the same.
razzimatazz 5y ago
I enjoy that he asks the stupid questions (or the questions that I would feel too self-conscious to ask) of those experts. It is such an excellent contrast to a stale interview with prepared topics and nothing natural to it. It's easy to shit on the show for being a bro-science quackery discussion, not worthy of smart people listening to it or being guests on it. And as we all notice just how popular the show is, anything bad about it (it has plenty of that) becomes a good reason to want it _shut_ _down_

gorwell 5y ago

Huh? Does Rogan run a shop selling trinkets and snake oil? He's a comedian chatting with people and sharing the discussion that you can choose to watch or not. The controversy around him is largely manufactured by a dying corporate media and ruling class threatened by unsanctioned voices. Speaking of being trolled by billionaires...

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
fshbbdssbbgdd 5y ago
I think ivermectin as treatment for a virus counts as snake oil.
- Gwarzo 5y ago
  Ivermectin is being used in many countries and is supported by a large community of physicians and medical professionals. It may or may not be useful for covid - I'm not a medical worker so I will not opine on it's usefulness, but any person is capable of browsing the medical fields support for its efficacy as an antiviral.
  - fshbbdssbbgdd 5y ago
    Ivermectin is a miracle drug against parasites due to its effects on the nerve and muscle cells of invertebrates. The evidence for its use as an antiviral in vivo is weak.
- legostormtroopr 5y ago
  This is such a polarised view - there is clinical evidence that suggests it may reduce the symptoms of COVID. Its not a full on miracle cure. The problem is that what should be a medical discussion is now political - and people have drawn battle lines around it. https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/08000/ivermectin_for_prevention_and_treatment_of.7.aspx https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/...