6 ms·

I'm curious where you see that he asks questions without an agenda. Do you not feel that in several of his discussions (ie: Sanjay Gupta) he tends to ask questi

by icepat 3y ago

I'm curious where you see that he asks questions without an agenda. Do you not feel that in several of his discussions (ie: Sanjay Gupta) he tends to ask questions indicating a very clear one? And regarding his choices of guests, do you think perhaps there's a bias towards more fringe beliefs?

psychlops 3y ago
Nobody would listen to a podcast that only had mainstream guests describing their non-fringe ideas. His primary choice of guests are MMA fighters and comedians which one might safely describe as a fringe professions.
vidyesh 3y ago
He has stated clearly that he invites guests based on what he is interested in at that moment or that phase of his life. So yes, sometimes some weeks the guests are very biased and towards a certain kind of beliefs, some(experts) are just his friends now at this point who like the platform he gives so millions(?) would listen. I am not going argue he asks the best questions but you can often see that the way he is not an expert but a knowledge seeker, the guests are free to speak what they want and leads to interesting discussions. His personal knowledge is limited to his curiosity and interest but when the guest starts speaking of topics he isn't aware of he keeps asking good questions which are vague most of the time. I do not listen to all episodes but only when the guests are interesting and/or the topics they cover are interesting or very new to me.
- icepat 3y ago
  Do you consider the approach he takes to "seek knowledge" is perhaps tainted by bias? For example, the information he seeks out, he may seek out in a way that confirms his pre-existing biases rather than seeking to test them? For example, his reliance on VAERS reports when talking about vaccines.
  - purpleblue 3y ago
    He's a human being, not a robot. He's trying the best he can and he's being completely honest about it. I'm not sure what you're expecting from him, but he's not perfect nor does he claim to ever be. He's trying to be honest and open-minded more than anyone else in media so I appreciate that immensely. Are you saying the VAERS reports are useless or biased?
    - icepat 3y ago
      They're unverified, and unreliable: https://theconversation.com/unverified-reports-of-vaccine-side-effects-in-vaers-arent-the-smoking-guns-portrayed-by-right-wing-media-outlets-they-can-offer-insight-into-vaccine-hesitancy-166401 https://theconversation.com/unverified-reports-of-vaccine-si...
      - purpleblue 3y ago
        Ah, okay so we shouldn't bother with checking VAERS anymore. Got it.
        icepat 3y ago
        Essentially yes, as laymen VARES is useless. VARES reports are useful for scientist to identify things to study. The useful data comes out of the peer reviewed studies that the VARES report spawn, not the reports themselves. They're simply datapoints that need to be taken in conjunction with the rest of the inputs to the study and you can not extract meaningful conclusions from them alone. They're as useful as looking at only 1-star product reviews that don't even verify the submitter owns the product. John's Hopkins has a good overview of their intended use: https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2022/what-vaers-is-and-isnt https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2022/what-vaers-is-and-isnt > Moreover, the CDC and FDA do not restrict what people can report, as long as it happened at some point following a vaccination. That means events that happen even years later and have no obvious connection to a vaccine, such as feelings of anger, end up reported in the system
purpleblue 3y ago
I guess it depends on what the definition of "without an agenda" means. He has opinions, some of them very strong, but he doesn't bring someone on to push an agenda that he wants to publicize. He has people on that he wants to have a genuine discussion with. And he's not beholden to any particular ones and is willing to have an open-minded debate or discussion. With Sanjay Gupta, he brought him on so that he could have a debate about the COVID vaccine, and Gupta conceded many points that Rogan made. He never has "gotcha" questions like many journalists, and I believe it's an entirely honest discussion with all of his guests. For example, he has had hard-core pro-Palestinian journalists like Abby Martin, and very pro-Israeli talk show hosts like Ben Shapiro. He's had politicians from all sides of the spectrum. He is more than willing to have people debate the COVID policies and vaccines but no one takes him up on his offer, like Peter Hotez. He has some independent journalists like Alex Berenson who is very much against the legalization of cannabis, something that Rogan uses often. In terms of "fringe beliefs", what do you mean? I like the fact that he has a variety of topics, some of them absurd, like aliens. Not everything has to be serious.

by icepat 3y ago

psychlops 3y ago

Nobody would listen to a podcast that only had mainstream guests describing their non-fringe ideas. His primary choice of guests are MMA fighters and comedians which one might safely describe as a fringe professions.

vidyesh 3y ago

He has stated clearly that he invites guests based on what he is interested in at that moment or that phase of his life. So yes, sometimes some weeks the guests are very biased and towards a certain kind of beliefs, some(experts) are just his friends now at this point who like the platform he gives so millions(?) would listen. I am not going argue he asks the best questions but you can often see that the way he is not an expert but a knowledge seeker, the guests are free to speak what they want and leads to interesting discussions. His personal knowledge is limited to his curiosity and interest but when the guest starts speaking of topics he isn't aware of he keeps asking good questions which are vague most of the time. I do not listen to all episodes but only when the guests are interesting and/or the topics they cover are interesting or very new to me.

icepat 3y ago
Do you consider the approach he takes to "seek knowledge" is perhaps tainted by bias? For example, the information he seeks out, he may seek out in a way that confirms his pre-existing biases rather than seeking to test them? For example, his reliance on VAERS reports when talking about vaccines.
- purpleblue 3y ago
  He's a human being, not a robot. He's trying the best he can and he's being completely honest about it. I'm not sure what you're expecting from him, but he's not perfect nor does he claim to ever be. He's trying to be honest and open-minded more than anyone else in media so I appreciate that immensely. Are you saying the VAERS reports are useless or biased?
  - icepat 3y ago
    They're unverified, and unreliable: https://theconversation.com/unverified-reports-of-vaccine-side-effects-in-vaers-arent-the-smoking-guns-portrayed-by-right-wing-media-outlets-they-can-offer-insight-into-vaccine-hesitancy-166401 https://theconversation.com/unverified-reports-of-vaccine-si...
    - purpleblue 3y ago
      Ah, okay so we shouldn't bother with checking VAERS anymore. Got it.
      - icepat 3y ago
        Essentially yes, as laymen VARES is useless. VARES reports are useful for scientist to identify things to study. The useful data comes out of the peer reviewed studies that the VARES report spawn, not the reports themselves. They're simply datapoints that need to be taken in conjunction with the rest of the inputs to the study and you can not extract meaningful conclusions from them alone. They're as useful as looking at only 1-star product reviews that don't even verify the submitter owns the product. John's Hopkins has a good overview of their intended use: https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2022/what-vaers-is-and-isnt https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2022/what-vaers-is-and-isnt > Moreover, the CDC and FDA do not restrict what people can report, as long as it happened at some point following a vaccination. That means events that happen even years later and have no obvious connection to a vaccine, such as feelings of anger, end up reported in the system

purpleblue 3y ago

I guess it depends on what the definition of "without an agenda" means. He has opinions, some of them very strong, but he doesn't bring someone on to push an agenda that he wants to publicize. He has people on that he wants to have a genuine discussion with. And he's not beholden to any particular ones and is willing to have an open-minded debate or discussion. With Sanjay Gupta, he brought him on so that he could have a debate about the COVID vaccine, and Gupta conceded many points that Rogan made. He never has "gotcha" questions like many journalists, and I believe it's an entirely honest discussion with all of his guests. For example, he has had hard-core pro-Palestinian journalists like Abby Martin, and very pro-Israeli talk show hosts like Ben Shapiro. He's had politicians from all sides of the spectrum. He is more than willing to have people debate the COVID policies and vaccines but no one takes him up on his offer, like Peter Hotez. He has some independent journalists like Alex Berenson who is very much against the legalization of cannabis, something that Rogan uses often. In terms of "fringe beliefs", what do you mean? I like the fact that he has a variety of topics, some of them absurd, like aliens. Not everything has to be serious.