9 ms·

This is bigger than Spotify. Rogan was a proactive person conducting open research into the world around him. When proactive people investigate things and shar

by nomilk 5y ago

This is bigger than Spotify. Rogan was a proactive person conducting open research into the world around him. When proactive people investigate things and share their findings, it now only takes a few to dislike the findings, fuss, and have the findings removed. To those that support this, I have 4 questions: 1. Is disincentivising sharing knowledge really good for the world? 2. Is it reasonable to expect 100% of inquiries be 100% accurate on the very first attempt? 3. Is it efficient for society to repeat the same research many times since previous investigations are scrubbed from public record? 4. Is it healthy for public discourse to be made less diverse and only concern 'safe' topics?

make3 5y ago
are you joking with your research thing, he's click bait lord, the real world requires careful rational causality extraction to understand it
waffle_maniac 5y ago
He has fringe people on his show to drive engagement. Fauci is not going to pay the bills.
- nomilk 5y ago
  Sure, but: 1. Lots of correct scientific ideas were considered outright heretical (not just merely fringe), prior to mainstream acceptance. If you exclude 'fringe' ideas, you exclude the bad ones and the good ones. 2. People who get duped will simply stop listening. Example: This week I was duped by a youtuber, and will never rely on that source again [1]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30137025 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30137025
  - paulryanrogers 5y ago
    Science and consensus being wrong sometimes doesn't mean we have to actively promote widely debunked crap. Or that we cannot boycott and complain about it. I'd say we can even call for it to no longer be published. And if it can be shown to actively cause significant harm the legal system can respond.
    - fastball 5y ago
      Yes exactly! Censorship is how we move science forward!
      - paulryanrogers 5y ago
        You jest but elevating reproducible evidence and refuting sloppy 'evidence'/analysis is how science advances.
        NateEag 5y ago
        And neither of those are censorship. To refute sloppy analysis, the sloppy analysis must be published and available.
        Sirened 5y ago
        Science journals do not publish bunk papers because there is no value in publishing facially wrong things
        fastball 5y ago
        Right but JRE isn't a science journal, and neither is Spotify?
      - willis936 5y ago
        Shutting down psuedoscience prevents science from moving backward.
        fastball 5y ago
        Citation? I assume you have some scientific evidence to support such an assertion.
        willis936 5y ago
  - stjohnswarts 5y ago
    yes but 99.99% of antivaxxer logic is easy to disprove with known science. I'm going with statistics on something as trivial as a podcast. Also I think people that don't like JR experience have two really good options, unsubscribe or simply don't listen to him. Why is everyone so negative? Lots of -good- people are on spotify, why concentrate on the negative? I just don't get why to the cancel culture types everything has to be cancelled or their world is completely out of balance and existence is awful.
    - donmcronald 5y ago
      > I just don't get why to the cancel culture types everything has to be cancelled or their world is completely out of balance and existence is awful. I don't think I'd put this situation in the same bucket as cancel culture. The spread of Covid misinformation, especially anti-vaccination stuff, has a provable impact on the healthcare system which forces our governments to ask us to endure more restrictions than would be necessary if vaccine hesitancy wasn't a thing. People like Rogan are sitting there complaining about government overreach while exacerbating the problem by spreading misinformation. As the distributor I think Spotify has an obligation to put a stop to it. I'm not saying he should be cancelled, but they need to tell him to get back to entertaining and to leave the medical advice to the experts in that field.
      - choward 5y ago
        > has a provable impact on the healthcare system which forces our governments to ask us to endure more restrictions than would be necessary if vaccine hesitancy wasn't a thing It's exactly this kind of misinformation that leads to people calling for censorship. You honestly think if there was MORE censorship there would be LESS vaccine hesitancy and the government would be implementing LESS mandates? That's dillusional and you have no evidence of it. Censorship has a provable impact on people's trust. If you censor competing viewpoints then guess what? I'm less likely to believe yours. The only way I believe anything is if competing viewpoints are allowed. If they aren't then I don't believe you can defend your viewpoint. I don't just blindly trust anybody. You have to show evidence and prove yourself.
  - philistine 5y ago
    Regarding 1, science makes zero progress on an entertainment show. The correct way to scientific redress is through publication of peer-reviewed literature. That's how you get mainstream acceptance in science. Science is not the consensus of opinions in the general public. Quite the contrary. Come back to me when Nature censors something for ideological reasons.
    - throwaway_r211 5y ago
      > science makes zero progress on an entertainment show Someone better tell Bill Nye and Niel.
      - NateEag 5y ago
        I watched a little Bill Nye as a kid but it didn't teach me anything at all about the scientific method or falsification. That may have been my own fault - I don't remember enough to know. Just saying.
    - fastball 5y ago
      > Come back to me when Nature censors something for ideological reasons. I would be genuinely surprised to find this hasn't already happened.
- fastball 5y ago
  How does that make any sense? By definition fringe people are going to attract a fringe audience. If he wants more engagement the guests should be more like when he had Elon Musk on smoking weed.
  - CipherThrowaway 5y ago
    That's not by definition at all. A view that is fringe in a scientific or medical context can still have strong appeal to a non-scientific and non-medical audience. In Joe's case, platforming fringe views in addition to his regular guests creates a compelling sense among his listeners that they are being given a fair and balanced presentation and the freedom to make up their own minds.
    - fastball 5y ago
      Ah gotcha, fringe wrt "experts", not fringe wrt the proles.
      - CipherThrowaway 5y ago
        Yes - sorry. Subject matter experts and expert communities do exist, and they evaluate issues in a way that laypeople can not.
        fastball 5y ago
        I think my point stands regardless – if he is just trying to drive engagement there are clearly better guests to have on than people on the fringes of the medical community.
- vogt 5y ago
  Spoken like somebody who hasn't even bothered to scroll through the list of episodes for even a cursory few seconds (which seems to be the norm among JRE critics). Do Snoop Dogg, Jewel, or Jim Gaffigan strike you as "fringe people"? Oliver Stone? Chuck Palhaniuk? Joe has stated ad nauseum that he invites guests that he finds to be interesting people. Why folks continue to try and reduce the breadth of guests to the 10% fringe is beyond me. Some combination of ideology and laziness, if I had to guess. >Fauci is not going to pay the bills. Is that why Disney just released a feature film documentary about him? Complete with red carpet gala and a monster Disney+ promotion?
- notapenny 5y ago
  Might I ask what "fringe people" are? I've watched his podcast and he certainly has a whole spectrum of people on. He may have his opinions and biases, but a person is allowed that right? Who are these fringe people, people who have different opinions from you? From the main stream media?
  - waffle_maniac 5y ago
    People like Jordan Peterson that deny climate change exists because of "variables." Most of these people are discredited hacks (i.e. Malone). Sure, get the brightest minds that are contrarian on the program. Malone and Peterson aren't it. Get Richard Ebright on the program.
- RedBeetDeadpool 5y ago
  Joe Rogan would interview Dr. Fauci if he were up for it. He would even let Dr. Fauci talk and defend his position for 3-4 hours if he had that much to say. I wouldn't call the guests on his show "fringe". In fact blanket calling all the hundreds if not thousands of people he had on his podcast fringe would require whomever said that to be someone who thinks through a groupthink/xenophobic mentality of believing the other side is evil.
  - barbacoa 5y ago
    >Joe Rogan would interview Dr. Fauci if he were up for it. In one of this podcasts, JR said he was trying to find someone from the "other side" to debate (I think it was) Dr Malone. He said he couldn't, everyone turned him down. I think this part of the big disconnect in modern discourse; one side wants open discussion and debate, the other wants to censor and deplatform.
    - m348e912 5y ago
      I doubt Anthony Fauci would be willing to go on the show, but I could see someone like US Surgeon General Vice Admiral Vivek Murthy willing to go on Rogan's show. I'd like to see it. However I suspect it would go a lot like it did when Sanjay Gupta made an appearance. I don't think it was a good look for Gupta.
    - RedBeetDeadpool 5y ago
      If that's the case, I think you hit it spot on. Their actions speak for themselves. For myself, they don't need to say anything else.
    - odonnellryan 5y ago
      Both "sides" censor and deplatform. Only one side pretends they don't.
      - loceng 5y ago
        "Two wrongs don't make a right" - did you miss that childhood lesson?
snotrockets 5y ago
No, this is not how you do “open research”. He’s a shock jock ffs. A good one, maybe, but not Woodward or Bernstein.
- nomilk 5y ago
  By your logic, would Ignaz Semmelweis, Giordano Bruno, or Nicolaus Copernicus be allowed on a mainstream platform today? And does that even matter to you? Their ideas were so shocking they weren't only banned, but were made pariahs of, thrown into asylums, and burned. The best we can do is hear different ideas with an open mind, and use our logic and discernment to come to our own judgements. Since the quality of judgement differs greatly from person to person, it's dangerous to allow your flow of information to be filtered by corporate or governmental pressures; let alone by any single segment of society.
  - lemmsjid 5y ago
    I think if you review the biographies of those three individuals, you will find that the stories of their persecutions are a lot more complex than that they were attacked for their novel ideas (though that is certainly an aspect). In most cases it wasn't their scientific ideas that were shocking or banned, but their political affiliations or religious stances. I think all three would have a platform today, because they provided evidence based and extensively reasoned positions. I see Rogan in rather the opposite way: he is contributing noise to the larger discussion by intentionally amplifying particular voices, without regard for whether or not they are in good faith, because they resonate with him or his perception of his audience. If Rogan were finding and amplifying voices that had evidence based arguments that contributed to overall understanding, I would be much more positively inclined. Though all that said, I'm against deplatforming him.
    - snotrockets 5y ago
      I don’t think he has the risk of being deplatformed. At worst he stands to gain less money out of his show. It’s the business risk he took with being risqué, and as any risk, he may take a fall.
slenk 5y ago
He's not doing research...he's having people on telling stories. So me his scientific data that is peer reviewed like the research he is going against.
CipherThrowaway 5y ago
Large numbers of laypeople mistaking Joe Rogan for a researcher and JRE as a venue for scientific discussion is not a sign of healthy public discourse. It is a sign of low levels of scientific engagement and scientific literacy among the public. Neil Postman warned us about this risk back in the 80s. He saw that the repackaging of serious subjects to fit the audiovisual medium would erode the boundaries between information and entertainment and create a dangerously misinformed public. Joe Rogan is an entertainer. He is not a researcher, and the JRE is not a forum for scientific discussion. Mistaking entertainment for science is a strong sign that you need to deepen your engagement with scientific material outside of the audiovisual entertainment medium.
- rsanheim 5y ago
  Exactly this. Joe Rogan entertaining anti-vax theories in the spirit of "open discourse" is not scientific discussion or a sign of healthy public discourse. It's just Rogan knowing that he can peddle the line and bring in both the skeptics and the opposition and pretend that he is just promoting an open discussion. Or he is just ignorant, but I think the dude is smart enough to know that controversy drives up impressions and increases ad revenue and ultimately the success and dollars from his brand.
donmcronald 5y ago
> Rogan was a proactive person conducting open research into the world around him. What kind of research does he do? I've never seen more than the odd clip, but I was under the impression he's just like all other entertainers that interview guests and engage in fairly shallow conversation about various topics. A lot of people I know would tell you they didn't feel really competent in their (professional) field until they were working for 5 years which happens to align with the magic 10k hours cited as being the requirement to become an expert. Even if Rogan spends a whole year researching a topic that's still only 1/5th of what I'd consider the point where someone's qualified enough to speak publicly on a subject. When I don't know something about a topic I default to trusting the people who've worked in the field for their entire life. Here's a great example from tech that I think aligns well with a lot of the controversy we've seen over the last few years... Years ago there used to be this huge debate about ZFS and a lack of ECC RAM combining to cause a "scrub of death" that would obliterate your data. The idea started on the TrueNAS (FreeNAS) forums [1]. That debate raged for ages and is a perfect example of how uninformed people shouting very loudly can have an outsized impact on public discourse. You don't have to take my word for it either. Here's a forum thread [2] where `ahrens` [3], the co-creator of ZFS, says the "scrub of death" isn't a thing and that non-ECC RAM with ZFS gives you better guarantees than a lot of other filesystems will with non-ECC RAM. His response is followed by people telling him he's wrong and continuing the debate. I have a couple questions for you if you're willing to answer. Would you believe the creator of that thread in the TrueNAS forum or the creator of ZFS when they're giving you conflicting information? If you would believe the creator of ZFS in the above scenario, why do you think some people trust celebrities like Rogan over a medical expert like Fauci or, literally, the creators of vaccines? 1. https://www.truenas.com/community/threads/ecc-vs-non-ecc-ram-and-zfs.15449/1 https://www.truenas.com/community/threads/ecc-vs-non-ecc-ram... 2. https://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1235679&p=26303271#p26303271 https://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1235679&p=... 3. https://github.com/ahrens https://github.com/ahrens
- Strom 5y ago
  > why do you think some people trust celebrities like Rogan over a medical expert like Fauci or, literally, the creators of vaccines? You seem to be somewhat misinformed. It's not what Joe Rogan says that is under fire, it's what his guests say. Rogan mostly says stuff like "wow" and lets his guests speak. To make things even more interesting, this latest drama is because he had Robert Malone [1] as a guest on his show. Malone is not just a doctor, but he is also a scientist responsible for the early work on making mRNA vaccines possible. That's what's extra crazy about all of this. It's not even some random comedian talking out of his comfort zone. The guest is one of the most informed people about mRNA in the world. The guy literally made his career on mRNA. Yet what he says does not align with the most widely propagated take, so he must be silenced. I personally don't know enough about mRNA to have a say, but what I can safely assume is that Malone knows more about mRNA than most people who are saying he is wrong. -- [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Malone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Malone PS. Another great HN comment about this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30219457 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30219457
ryguytilidie 5y ago
sabertoothed 5y ago
Rogan conducted research?
- willis936 5y ago
  He spreads and legitimizes psuedoscience. That's the same thing, right?
Dwelve 5y ago
You don't have to pretend this is about truth or accuracy. We have countless examples, literally hundreds if not thousands of people in the MSM media deliberately lying and repeating provable false bullshit. Rachel Maddow pretended Trump was installed by Putin, she said Ivermectin ODs keep gunshot victims waiting outside of hospitals, she said the vaccines will stop the spread of the virus. None of these things are even remotely true but she doesn't have to correct ANY of them. The motivation behind those actions aren't a desperate attempts to seek truth in a chaotic environment, but people with trying to dominate others.

by nomilk 5y ago

make3 5y ago

are you joking with your research thing, he's click bait lord, the real world requires careful rational causality extraction to understand it

waffle_maniac 5y ago

He has fringe people on his show to drive engagement. Fauci is not going to pay the bills.

nomilk 5y ago
Sure, but: 1. Lots of correct scientific ideas were considered outright heretical (not just merely fringe), prior to mainstream acceptance. If you exclude 'fringe' ideas, you exclude the bad ones and the good ones. 2. People who get duped will simply stop listening. Example: This week I was duped by a youtuber, and will never rely on that source again [1]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30137025 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30137025
- paulryanrogers 5y ago
  Science and consensus being wrong sometimes doesn't mean we have to actively promote widely debunked crap. Or that we cannot boycott and complain about it. I'd say we can even call for it to no longer be published. And if it can be shown to actively cause significant harm the legal system can respond.
  - fastball 5y ago
    Yes exactly! Censorship is how we move science forward!
    - paulryanrogers 5y ago
      You jest but elevating reproducible evidence and refuting sloppy 'evidence'/analysis is how science advances.
      - NateEag 5y ago
        And neither of those are censorship. To refute sloppy analysis, the sloppy analysis must be published and available.
        Sirened 5y ago
        Science journals do not publish bunk papers because there is no value in publishing facially wrong things
        fastball 5y ago
        Right but JRE isn't a science journal, and neither is Spotify?
    - willis936 5y ago
      Shutting down psuedoscience prevents science from moving backward.
      - fastball 5y ago
        Citation? I assume you have some scientific evidence to support such an assertion.
        willis936 5y ago
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  yes but 99.99% of antivaxxer logic is easy to disprove with known science. I'm going with statistics on something as trivial as a podcast. Also I think people that don't like JR experience have two really good options, unsubscribe or simply don't listen to him. Why is everyone so negative? Lots of -good- people are on spotify, why concentrate on the negative? I just don't get why to the cancel culture types everything has to be cancelled or their world is completely out of balance and existence is awful.
  - donmcronald 5y ago
    > I just don't get why to the cancel culture types everything has to be cancelled or their world is completely out of balance and existence is awful. I don't think I'd put this situation in the same bucket as cancel culture. The spread of Covid misinformation, especially anti-vaccination stuff, has a provable impact on the healthcare system which forces our governments to ask us to endure more restrictions than would be necessary if vaccine hesitancy wasn't a thing. People like Rogan are sitting there complaining about government overreach while exacerbating the problem by spreading misinformation. As the distributor I think Spotify has an obligation to put a stop to it. I'm not saying he should be cancelled, but they need to tell him to get back to entertaining and to leave the medical advice to the experts in that field.
    - choward 5y ago
      > has a provable impact on the healthcare system which forces our governments to ask us to endure more restrictions than would be necessary if vaccine hesitancy wasn't a thing It's exactly this kind of misinformation that leads to people calling for censorship. You honestly think if there was MORE censorship there would be LESS vaccine hesitancy and the government would be implementing LESS mandates? That's dillusional and you have no evidence of it. Censorship has a provable impact on people's trust. If you censor competing viewpoints then guess what? I'm less likely to believe yours. The only way I believe anything is if competing viewpoints are allowed. If they aren't then I don't believe you can defend your viewpoint. I don't just blindly trust anybody. You have to show evidence and prove yourself.
- philistine 5y ago
  Regarding 1, science makes zero progress on an entertainment show. The correct way to scientific redress is through publication of peer-reviewed literature. That's how you get mainstream acceptance in science. Science is not the consensus of opinions in the general public. Quite the contrary. Come back to me when Nature censors something for ideological reasons.
  - throwaway_r211 5y ago
    > science makes zero progress on an entertainment show Someone better tell Bill Nye and Niel.
    - NateEag 5y ago
      I watched a little Bill Nye as a kid but it didn't teach me anything at all about the scientific method or falsification. That may have been my own fault - I don't remember enough to know. Just saying.
  - fastball 5y ago
    > Come back to me when Nature censors something for ideological reasons. I would be genuinely surprised to find this hasn't already happened.
fastball 5y ago
How does that make any sense? By definition fringe people are going to attract a fringe audience. If he wants more engagement the guests should be more like when he had Elon Musk on smoking weed.
- CipherThrowaway 5y ago
  That's not by definition at all. A view that is fringe in a scientific or medical context can still have strong appeal to a non-scientific and non-medical audience. In Joe's case, platforming fringe views in addition to his regular guests creates a compelling sense among his listeners that they are being given a fair and balanced presentation and the freedom to make up their own minds.
  - fastball 5y ago
    Ah gotcha, fringe wrt "experts", not fringe wrt the proles.
    - CipherThrowaway 5y ago
      Yes - sorry. Subject matter experts and expert communities do exist, and they evaluate issues in a way that laypeople can not.
      - fastball 5y ago
        I think my point stands regardless – if he is just trying to drive engagement there are clearly better guests to have on than people on the fringes of the medical community.
vogt 5y ago
Spoken like somebody who hasn't even bothered to scroll through the list of episodes for even a cursory few seconds (which seems to be the norm among JRE critics). Do Snoop Dogg, Jewel, or Jim Gaffigan strike you as "fringe people"? Oliver Stone? Chuck Palhaniuk? Joe has stated ad nauseum that he invites guests that he finds to be interesting people. Why folks continue to try and reduce the breadth of guests to the 10% fringe is beyond me. Some combination of ideology and laziness, if I had to guess. >Fauci is not going to pay the bills. Is that why Disney just released a feature film documentary about him? Complete with red carpet gala and a monster Disney+ promotion?
notapenny 5y ago
Might I ask what "fringe people" are? I've watched his podcast and he certainly has a whole spectrum of people on. He may have his opinions and biases, but a person is allowed that right? Who are these fringe people, people who have different opinions from you? From the main stream media?
- waffle_maniac 5y ago
  People like Jordan Peterson that deny climate change exists because of "variables." Most of these people are discredited hacks (i.e. Malone). Sure, get the brightest minds that are contrarian on the program. Malone and Peterson aren't it. Get Richard Ebright on the program.
RedBeetDeadpool 5y ago
Joe Rogan would interview Dr. Fauci if he were up for it. He would even let Dr. Fauci talk and defend his position for 3-4 hours if he had that much to say. I wouldn't call the guests on his show "fringe". In fact blanket calling all the hundreds if not thousands of people he had on his podcast fringe would require whomever said that to be someone who thinks through a groupthink/xenophobic mentality of believing the other side is evil.
- barbacoa 5y ago
  >Joe Rogan would interview Dr. Fauci if he were up for it. In one of this podcasts, JR said he was trying to find someone from the "other side" to debate (I think it was) Dr Malone. He said he couldn't, everyone turned him down. I think this part of the big disconnect in modern discourse; one side wants open discussion and debate, the other wants to censor and deplatform.
  - m348e912 5y ago
    I doubt Anthony Fauci would be willing to go on the show, but I could see someone like US Surgeon General Vice Admiral Vivek Murthy willing to go on Rogan's show. I'd like to see it. However I suspect it would go a lot like it did when Sanjay Gupta made an appearance. I don't think it was a good look for Gupta.
  - RedBeetDeadpool 5y ago
    If that's the case, I think you hit it spot on. Their actions speak for themselves. For myself, they don't need to say anything else.
  - odonnellryan 5y ago
    Both "sides" censor and deplatform. Only one side pretends they don't.
    - loceng 5y ago
      "Two wrongs don't make a right" - did you miss that childhood lesson?

snotrockets 5y ago

No, this is not how you do “open research”. He’s a shock jock ffs. A good one, maybe, but not Woodward or Bernstein.

nomilk 5y ago
By your logic, would Ignaz Semmelweis, Giordano Bruno, or Nicolaus Copernicus be allowed on a mainstream platform today? And does that even matter to you? Their ideas were so shocking they weren't only banned, but were made pariahs of, thrown into asylums, and burned. The best we can do is hear different ideas with an open mind, and use our logic and discernment to come to our own judgements. Since the quality of judgement differs greatly from person to person, it's dangerous to allow your flow of information to be filtered by corporate or governmental pressures; let alone by any single segment of society.
- lemmsjid 5y ago
  I think if you review the biographies of those three individuals, you will find that the stories of their persecutions are a lot more complex than that they were attacked for their novel ideas (though that is certainly an aspect). In most cases it wasn't their scientific ideas that were shocking or banned, but their political affiliations or religious stances. I think all three would have a platform today, because they provided evidence based and extensively reasoned positions. I see Rogan in rather the opposite way: he is contributing noise to the larger discussion by intentionally amplifying particular voices, without regard for whether or not they are in good faith, because they resonate with him or his perception of his audience. If Rogan were finding and amplifying voices that had evidence based arguments that contributed to overall understanding, I would be much more positively inclined. Though all that said, I'm against deplatforming him.
  - snotrockets 5y ago
    I don’t think he has the risk of being deplatformed. At worst he stands to gain less money out of his show. It’s the business risk he took with being risqué, and as any risk, he may take a fall.

slenk 5y ago

He's not doing research...he's having people on telling stories. So me his scientific data that is peer reviewed like the research he is going against.

CipherThrowaway 5y ago

Large numbers of laypeople mistaking Joe Rogan for a researcher and JRE as a venue for scientific discussion is not a sign of healthy public discourse. It is a sign of low levels of scientific engagement and scientific literacy among the public. Neil Postman warned us about this risk back in the 80s. He saw that the repackaging of serious subjects to fit the audiovisual medium would erode the boundaries between information and entertainment and create a dangerously misinformed public. Joe Rogan is an entertainer. He is not a researcher, and the JRE is not a forum for scientific discussion. Mistaking entertainment for science is a strong sign that you need to deepen your engagement with scientific material outside of the audiovisual entertainment medium.

rsanheim 5y ago
Exactly this. Joe Rogan entertaining anti-vax theories in the spirit of "open discourse" is not scientific discussion or a sign of healthy public discourse. It's just Rogan knowing that he can peddle the line and bring in both the skeptics and the opposition and pretend that he is just promoting an open discussion. Or he is just ignorant, but I think the dude is smart enough to know that controversy drives up impressions and increases ad revenue and ultimately the success and dollars from his brand.

donmcronald 5y ago

> Rogan was a proactive person conducting open research into the world around him. What kind of research does he do? I've never seen more than the odd clip, but I was under the impression he's just like all other entertainers that interview guests and engage in fairly shallow conversation about various topics. A lot of people I know would tell you they didn't feel really competent in their (professional) field until they were working for 5 years which happens to align with the magic 10k hours cited as being the requirement to become an expert. Even if Rogan spends a whole year researching a topic that's still only 1/5th of what I'd consider the point where someone's qualified enough to speak publicly on a subject. When I don't know something about a topic I default to trusting the people who've worked in the field for their entire life. Here's a great example from tech that I think aligns well with a lot of the controversy we've seen over the last few years... Years ago there used to be this huge debate about ZFS and a lack of ECC RAM combining to cause a "scrub of death" that would obliterate your data. The idea started on the TrueNAS (FreeNAS) forums [1]. That debate raged for ages and is a perfect example of how uninformed people shouting very loudly can have an outsized impact on public discourse. You don't have to take my word for it either. Here's a forum thread [2] where `ahrens` [3], the co-creator of ZFS, says the "scrub of death" isn't a thing and that non-ECC RAM with ZFS gives you better guarantees than a lot of other filesystems will with non-ECC RAM. His response is followed by people telling him he's wrong and continuing the debate. I have a couple questions for you if you're willing to answer. Would you believe the creator of that thread in the TrueNAS forum or the creator of ZFS when they're giving you conflicting information? If you would believe the creator of ZFS in the above scenario, why do you think some people trust celebrities like Rogan over a medical expert like Fauci or, literally, the creators of vaccines? 1. https://www.truenas.com/community/threads/ecc-vs-non-ecc-ram-and-zfs.15449/1 https://www.truenas.com/community/threads/ecc-vs-non-ecc-ram... 2. https://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1235679&p=26303271#p26303271 https://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1235679&p=... 3. https://github.com/ahrens https://github.com/ahrens

Strom 5y ago
> why do you think some people trust celebrities like Rogan over a medical expert like Fauci or, literally, the creators of vaccines? You seem to be somewhat misinformed. It's not what Joe Rogan says that is under fire, it's what his guests say. Rogan mostly says stuff like "wow" and lets his guests speak. To make things even more interesting, this latest drama is because he had Robert Malone [1] as a guest on his show. Malone is not just a doctor, but he is also a scientist responsible for the early work on making mRNA vaccines possible. That's what's extra crazy about all of this. It's not even some random comedian talking out of his comfort zone. The guest is one of the most informed people about mRNA in the world. The guy literally made his career on mRNA. Yet what he says does not align with the most widely propagated take, so he must be silenced. I personally don't know enough about mRNA to have a say, but what I can safely assume is that Malone knows more about mRNA than most people who are saying he is wrong. -- [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Malone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Malone PS. Another great HN comment about this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30219457 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30219457

ryguytilidie 5y ago

sabertoothed 5y ago

Rogan conducted research?

willis936 5y ago
He spreads and legitimizes psuedoscience. That's the same thing, right?

Dwelve 5y ago

You don't have to pretend this is about truth or accuracy. We have countless examples, literally hundreds if not thousands of people in the MSM media deliberately lying and repeating provable false bullshit. Rachel Maddow pretended Trump was installed by Putin, she said Ivermectin ODs keep gunshot victims waiting outside of hospitals, she said the vaccines will stop the spread of the virus. None of these things are even remotely true but she doesn't have to correct ANY of them. The motivation behind those actions aren't a desperate attempts to seek truth in a chaotic environment, but people with trying to dominate others.