4 ms·
> I kept asking young people about the public intellectual landscape in China - who are their equivalents of Jordan Peterson, Joe Rogan, Lex Friedman, and Sam H
by arnvald 2y ago
> I kept asking young people about the public intellectual landscape in China - who are their equivalents of Jordan Peterson, Joe Rogan, Lex Friedman, and Sam Harris? The sense I got is that this kind of popular intellectual ecosystem just doesn't exist there
I have never heard of Sam Harris, but are the other 3 the prominent examples of American intellectual ecosystem? I haven’t listened to them a lot, but in the couple examples of Friedman’s or Rogan’s podcast episodes I listened to, they let their guests say whatever anti-intellectual bs they wanted, without trying to correct the guests. Maybe I chose the wrong episodes?
- modeless 2y agoI appreciate podcasters who let their guests talk. I'm not listening to hear the the host. I'll form my own opinions, thank you very much.
- mwkaufma 2y agoAsk a podcaster to name intellectuals, and they just name other podcasters.
- throwup238 2y ago“Intellectual landscape” is way over selling it. Joe Rogan used to host a reality tv show where people ate cockroaches for money. They’re little more than glorified influencers.
- BadHumans 2y agoJordan Peterson is intelligent when he is in his field I will give him that but calling Joe Rogan and Lex Friedman intellectuals should be a crime.
- JackMorgan 2y agoJordan Peterson, Lex Friedman, and Joe Rogan are conservative, right-wing entertainers. They are not widely accepted as intellectuals, but rather as entertaining lecturers and interviewers who are quite biased. That the author would consider them public intellectuals is fascinating and speaks to their worldview and media consumption habits.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- infecto 2y agoSince when is Lex Fridman considered a conservative right-wing? Did something actually change or is this a new label from lefters because he interviewed Trump?
- bc569a80a344f9c 2y agoHere’s an article where the author concludes that while he’s not an ideologue, he does have an unbalanced cadre of guests: https://web.archive.org/web/20230117220803/https://www.currentaffairs.org/2023/01/the-guy-who-just-loves-everyone https://web.archive.org/web/20230117220803/https://www.curre...
- f1shy 2y agoIs it not that the tech sector is regarded as right skewed?
- no_wizard 2y agoHis guest list does cater to right wing listeners, and he absolutely does not meaningfully pushback on his guests, more often than not allowing them to make claims and accepting those claims at face value without any proof or follow on questions of substance
- KeplerBoy 2y agoAs an outsider (I'm a european engineer with barely any personal connections to the US tech scene) I have the feeling that a significant fraction of Friedman's audience are just more right-leaning at the moment. And Fridman caters to this audience. You know, the kind of people who follow Musk during his current Trump era.
- f1shy 2y ago
- morkalork 2y agoIt's kinda like calling Hunter S. Thompson a public intellectual back in the 70s. Public yes, opinionated absolutely. Intellectual? Ehhh, stretching it.
- infecto 2y agoWhen I read this I felt intellectual was the wrong word choice but I think I understood what he meant. Less about being an intellectual but more that China generally does not have very deep discussions in public about state matters or anything remotely related.
- f1shy 2y ago> they let their guests say whatever anti-intellectual bs they wanted, without trying to correct the guests I do not like any of the 2 (even I could say I hate them, in the sense I cannot watch for more than 10 s), but what do you mean with “let they say (…) whatever they want” I mean… is that not right?! Do you expect some kind of sensorship? I mean maybe is what YOU perceived as “anti-intellectual bs” whatever that means for you? Maybe they concur? Also “try to correct”? Sorry, maybe is a language thing, but “correct” seems to imply the guest said something “wrong”. Is the host always an authority to ”correct” a guest? I’m really not trying to attack or insult you, I’m just totally perplexed by the comment? I would HATE to see an interview where the host is “correcting” the guest in any color, shape or form. Maybe I am misinterpreting your reply. Maybe can you give an example of what you think is better, ans show a correction from host to guest, as you would like?
- neom 2y agoI regularly watch these "DW News Desk: Join the news conversation" "podcasts" (video series) - they are long form and a deep dive into a topic, often they have guests who are very passionate about some side of an issue, and it's extreme evident the hosts are well researched in the aspects of the issue that are divisive such that they can call out or steer the conversation in a manner I can more easily see the passion (/biased) of a guest. It's part of what I appreciate about world class journalism. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLT6yxVwBEbi2VrKhg84ADeOLeQKVomcVI https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLT6yxVwBEbi2VrKhg84AD...
- arnvald 2y agoI should have said “false” rather than “anti-intellectual”. I know the role of the host is not to be a fact-checker, but when a guest makes a false claim and then they speak about it without questioning it makes it sound like both people believe it’s true. I don’t remember exact examples, but one was something to the tune of: Guest: man the crime in America is crazy these days Host: yeah, totally Guest: I left city X because I couldn’t handle the crime there Host: yeah, it’s the worst Guest: it’s like New York in the 80s Host: and the mayor and the governor do nothing about it! Then of course the crime is not only nowhere near the 80s NY level, but also lower than in previous years when the guest apparently lived there. Again, I don’t expect the host to say “you’re wrong” every time a guest makes a wrong claim, but saying “come on, NY in the 80s was brutal, we’re nowhere near that” at least limits the exaggeration
- impish9208 2y ago> Jordan Peterson, Joe Rogan, Lex Friedman, and Sam Harris One of these is not like the others. It’s funny, in a sad way.
- leosanchez 2y agoCould you elaborate?
- 1659447091 2y agoThink of those test questions that give you 4 pictures and you are tasked to choose what does not belong: a chimp, gorilla, bonobo and a sea turtle. That Sam Harris is named in the same group is a bit odd. He doesn't really fit with the others as an "entertainer" and from my limited knowledge of all of them appears to be the more focused or contained wrt subject matter.
- impish9208 2y agoSam Harris was/is one of the “Four Horsemen” — a group of intellectuals and public figures in the mid to late aughts and early 2010s. The others were Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens. They had their differences, but they mostly advocated for (classic) liberalism, increased science education, the separation of church and state, and warned against the nascent anti-intellectualism at the time. Having Sam Harris (or any of the other three) in the same group as Joe Rogan and his ilk is like putting a classic Ferrari in the parking lot of a used Yugo dealership.
- arnvald 2y agoWhich one? Is it Harris?
- yodsanklai 2y ago> they let their guests say whatever anti-intellectual bs they wanted, without trying to correct the guests This is correct. Friedman praises himself to listen to "all sides". I think this is good in principle, but he invites all types of professional bullshitters and propagandists and let them go without the slightest pushback which is pretty disturbing. He probably wouldn't have the same range of guests if he wasn't only throwing soft balls though. To his credit, I found that Rogan was at least pushing back a bit against (what he perceived as) BS (haven't listened to him for a while though). In any case, I hope for Americans these guys don't define the US intellectual landscape.
- no_wizard 2y agoRogan doesn’t really pushback at all, or in cases where he may face more criticism, pushbacks superficially. He lost all credibility to me (which was already in short supply to be honest) when this became a pattern. There is no meaningful pushback in Rogan interviews, and while I never fully agreed with most of what Rogan had to say over the years I did praise in the past that he was willing to ask hard questions and press answers, but that was long long ago now.
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago> invites all types of professional bullshitters and propagandists and let them go without the slightest pushback which is pretty disturbing Do you also say the same thing about traditional journalists, who could also be easily labeled professional bullshitters and propagandists? I don’t find Lex’s approach disturbing at all. It’s only disturbing to those threatened by new information or different opinions or free speech in general. I find his conversations explore relevant topics surrounding a guest effectively.
- yodsanklai 2y agoWhen there's a guest who speaks obvious nonsense, and Friedman knows it, I don't think it's right to leave it unchallenged. At least, as a viewer this is what I'd like to hear (whether I like the guest or not). Of course, this applies to traditional journalists. And this has nothing to do with free speech.
- vishnugupta 2y agoTo use the phrase “Public intellectual ecosystem” and then to go on mentioning Lex Friedman, Joe Roegan says more about the author than China I think. I had a good laugh at that phrase as well as his examples. It’s interesting to see China making giant progress in EV, renewables, bullet trains and so on while SV podcasters get high on their “intellectual ecosystem”.
- roncesvalles 2y agoThey're part of the "intellectual landscape" in the sense that they act as a gateway for getting people interested in deeper topics, in a culture that has largely been anti-intellectual. For as long as Hollywood shaped the cultural narrative, being smart was considered downright shameful; nerd was a synonym for loser, geeks were always social misfits. That shifted at some point in the last 10-20 years, in part due to increased immigration from non-anti-intellectual cultures but also because of the popularity of such podcasters and some YouTubers, especially fitness YouTubers. I'd definitely credit these people as part of the "intellectual landscape" because they showed America that you could remain engaged for hours on something that isn't vapid bullshit, in a way that NPR perhaps couldn't.
- mplanchard 2y agoThis is where I stopped reading. Not to be elitist, but anyone who considers this cadre the “intellectual landscape” of America is not someone whose intellectual contributions I’m particularly interested in.
- JFingleton 2y agoFridman has interviewed some pretty smart people - so I would say the shows are intellectual, rather than the hosts themselves (although Lex is a smart guy IMHO). I like the long-form interview format - it's allowing the listener to make up their minds rather than "old media's" way of pushing certain points of view. For example: Fridman's interview with John Carmack is my favorite episode (at 3+ hours I think?). I've never got on with Joe Rogan's or Jordan Peterson podcasts - just not my cup of tea. Sam Harris is no doubt a smart guy but he suffers too much from TDS - which gets annoying.