3 ms·

I agree with all of your points. But it's worth pointing out that most "public intellectual" interactions become a form of Kabuki theater. It might be a friendl

by bnralt 4y ago

I agree with all of your points. But it's worth pointing out that most "public intellectual" interactions become a form of Kabuki theater. It might be a friendly interview, where you can guess what questions are going to be asked and what the answers are. Or it might be an antagonistic debate, where the two sides are yelling talking points at each other. But it's rarely surprising. What's interesting about Rogan is you can often find theses talking head types getting easily flummoxed by normal questions that are outside of the ritualized interactions they're used to. Watch Rogan talk to Shapiro about his criticism of Colin Kaepernick, or him asking Bari Weiss why she calls Tulsi Gabbard an "Assad toady." He seems to like both of them (perhaps even to the poitn where both are friends), but his simple questions end up making both of them look completely foolish. And because he's genuinely curious and doing it in a non-aggressive manner, it doesn't get lost in the furor of a antagonistic debate format. Again, I agree with your criticisms of him and could add several more myself. I think it's one of those situations where in the valley of the blind, the one eyed man is king. The traditional forms of public debate are so shallow that a curious guy just asking random questions can short circuit most of the folks there.

jrumbut 4y ago
As a disclaimer, I have not listened to his show extensively. But while he may be genuinely curious the sum of his questions and his guest choices express a thesis and for avid listeners seems to become a program of study that leads somewhere. It seems like it's always freshman year of college at the JRE and you're learning all this fascinating stuff that shows you the world is larger and more mysterious than you imagined, but he never quite gets to sophomore year when those mundane details are filled in and you see why all the quirky, obscure things remain quirky and obscure. I guess on some level it's not his job but since he has had this success I do wish he would take it on, to give the listeners more protein with their sugar.
- snovv_crash 4y ago
  In most topics in life we are all at Freshman level and it would be good to remember that. Experience and expertise in one place often leads to overconfidence elsewhere, we see this repeatedly whether it is Elon buying Twitter or Jordan Peterson weighing in on topics outside of clinical psychology. And it affects us too, not just celebrities.
  - jrumbut 4y ago
    Just to be clear, I was using the college years as a metaphor rather than a specific knowledge level. I'm fine with dilettantes (I am a proud one) and recognize that there are some real polymaths in the world, but it creates a tricky situation for the show. A lot of people who lose a specialized debate try making their case directly to the public and the ones who survive become quite good at it and know what they need to do to get on the right podcasts. The ones who won, who might have the better ideas, are bisy working in the field and if they communicate to the public at all it is without the polish of someone who makes their living that way. That is, of course, a well known problem in science communication.
KennyBlanken 4y ago
> What's interesting about Rogan is you can often find theses talking head types getting easily flummoxed by normal questions that are outside of the ritualized interactions they're used to. Watch Rogan talk to Shapiro about his criticism of Colin Kaepernick, or him asking Bari Weiss why she calls Tulsi Gabbard an "Assad toady." He seems to like both of them (perhaps even to the poitn where both are friends), but his simple questions end up making both of them look completely foolish. And because he's genuinely curious and doing it in a non-aggressive manner, it doesn't get lost in the furor of a antagonistic debate format. If you think that's impressive, listen to Terry Gross's interview with Hugh Heffner. https://freshairarchive.org/segments/playboy-hugh-hefner https://freshairarchive.org/segments/playboy-hugh-hefner I think Rogan is just barely smart enough to know to never step into Gross's studio.

by bnralt 4y ago

jrumbut 4y ago

As a disclaimer, I have not listened to his show extensively. But while he may be genuinely curious the sum of his questions and his guest choices express a thesis and for avid listeners seems to become a program of study that leads somewhere. It seems like it's always freshman year of college at the JRE and you're learning all this fascinating stuff that shows you the world is larger and more mysterious than you imagined, but he never quite gets to sophomore year when those mundane details are filled in and you see why all the quirky, obscure things remain quirky and obscure. I guess on some level it's not his job but since he has had this success I do wish he would take it on, to give the listeners more protein with their sugar.

snovv_crash 4y ago
In most topics in life we are all at Freshman level and it would be good to remember that. Experience and expertise in one place often leads to overconfidence elsewhere, we see this repeatedly whether it is Elon buying Twitter or Jordan Peterson weighing in on topics outside of clinical psychology. And it affects us too, not just celebrities.
- jrumbut 4y ago
  Just to be clear, I was using the college years as a metaphor rather than a specific knowledge level. I'm fine with dilettantes (I am a proud one) and recognize that there are some real polymaths in the world, but it creates a tricky situation for the show. A lot of people who lose a specialized debate try making their case directly to the public and the ones who survive become quite good at it and know what they need to do to get on the right podcasts. The ones who won, who might have the better ideas, are bisy working in the field and if they communicate to the public at all it is without the polish of someone who makes their living that way. That is, of course, a well known problem in science communication.

KennyBlanken 4y ago

> What's interesting about Rogan is you can often find theses talking head types getting easily flummoxed by normal questions that are outside of the ritualized interactions they're used to. Watch Rogan talk to Shapiro about his criticism of Colin Kaepernick, or him asking Bari Weiss why she calls Tulsi Gabbard an "Assad toady." He seems to like both of them (perhaps even to the poitn where both are friends), but his simple questions end up making both of them look completely foolish. And because he's genuinely curious and doing it in a non-aggressive manner, it doesn't get lost in the furor of a antagonistic debate format. If you think that's impressive, listen to Terry Gross's interview with Hugh Heffner. https://freshairarchive.org/segments/playboy-hugh-hefner https://freshairarchive.org/segments/playboy-hugh-hefner I think Rogan is just barely smart enough to know to never step into Gross's studio.