In a Dungeons and Dragons character, knowing to vet one's sources would be an example of "Wisdom". And I think that's probably the right word for it in conventional speech as well.
Obviously, measured intelligence is not "real intelligence" ("g", whatever that is) — but at the same time, people increasingly use the term "intelligent" to refer to someone who has high measured intelligence (IQ), whether or not they have high "real intelligence." So the definitions sort of collapse into one-another over time. "The measure becomes the target", but for language.
What? "Intelligence" is not a psychology jargon term; it's just a word, defined by the way lay-people put the term to use in conversation. Language is used to communicate; we define words (jargon excluded) as what the majority of people understand them to mean.
When jargon and regular words collide, the lay-definition wins, and the jargon definition gets lost. (See e.g. "begging the question", which has become a lay-term for "something that has an obvious corollary or unstated flaw" rather than its meaning as a jargon term in logic.)
That's why academics invent terms like "g" — to make sure that the jargon term has no lay-term it's colliding with.
The concept of a lingua franca is that there is an optimal encoding for information conveyance, if you're recording that knowledge without knowing the target audience in advance; and that that encoding is the one that uses the language, the dialect, the terms, the idioms, the mode of speech, etc. that — at least measured by current world trends — will confound the understanding of the fewest such potential audiences.
Or, to put that another way: if the people you want to communicate already think like you... do you really need to say anything at all? They can probably independently come up with the same thought you want to convey. Communication exists to bridge gaps in understanding, to create mappings between non-isomorphic mental models where those mappings aren't already implicitly embedded in the models' shared structure. Communication is work done upon other people's mental model to converge them closer to you own.
That work does not consist just waving at others from over where your own mental model sits, and demanding that they bridge the understanding gap with you from their end, so that your words will make sense to them. Why would they bother? If you want to communicate something, you're the one struck with a motivation to optimize toward a world where other people know the thing you know; the other people who you'd be sharing that information with, have no such motive.
This is why tools like the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie-to-children exist: the work of moving someone's mental model closer to your own, of bridging that gap, cannot be accomplished in a single leap; you must often take a circuitous path around (what you consider) the truth, to create a sturdy bridge that will reliably bring people's mental models in line with your own.
Refusal to do this painful-but-O(1) work—presumably under the expectation that the N parties that consume your communication will instead do their own painful mental labor to understand you, for an O(N) aggregate workload—is a disengagement from the entire concept of communication.
Wanting things to be vetted is not the same thing as saying "everyone has to agree with me."
There's a difference between taking a differing opinion and just spouting outright bullshit and lies.
Maybe there was some implied sarcasm I missed.
And who decides what’s appropriately “vetted”? I assume the Covid “lab leak” theory would have been verboten last year but apparently ok now?
I haven’t listened to Rogan in a long time but he basically invites people on and asks questions. He doesn’t give the “Rogan Stamp of Approval” to everything said.
The criticisms seem to be a basic form of “stop talking about things I don’t like”.
I know I didn't make the original claim, I just took issue with the initial reply as I felt like it was removing nuance from the discussion. My reply didn't really add much and I probably shouldn't have made it, so I'll try to add something to the discussion below:
For me, I think, it comes down to whether or not something is presented as an opinion or as fact/truth. There's far too many opinion pieces presented as news these days and a lot of people have trouble processing that.
A headline or claim like "China manufactured this virus as a bio weapon to attack the united states!" at the beginning of a pandemic when no one has any information yet is bad.
Discussing whether or not it could have been a lab leak and whether or not it was manufactured is a different thing, and whether it was or was not an attack are acceptable topics, though, I think.
How you actually enforce this I have no idea and I know it's easy to go down the rabbit hole of "who watches the watchers."
His anti-vaccine content is a perfect example: He invites actual experts on his show, but then interrupts them and brings up an anecdote about a "guy I know" who had some vague symptoms after getting the vaccine.
The listener is then supposed to believe that the pro-vaccine expert is uninformed and simply parroting the official narrative, whereas Joe Rogan is the smart one who sees the big picture and can "tell it like it is". In this case, Joe Rogan sees that Vitamin D and a healthy diet is all the protection you need from COVID and that the vaccine should be avoided.
But it's often nonsense. Rogan's vaccine opinions are not just unvetted, they're built from the ground up on a foundation of flimsy anecdotes and conspiracy theories with a complete disregard for the science.
He plays the "both sides" card to build up the anecdotes and conspiracy theories while tearing down the well-researched science in order to create an illusion of presenting both sides fairly. But to get there, he has to go out of his way to downplay the most robust information while exaggerating the least trustworthy.
It's not about having different opinions. It's about misrepresenting the robustness of each.
I don’t even know what you’re trying to get at here. He can’t be judged because he seems to be consistent in his actions? That doesn’t make them inherently valid.
Even if Ivermectin is some Covid miracle treatment (It isn't), Joe Rogan's experience isn't typical or expected and it doesn't mean that pumping Vitamin D and Ivermectin will yield similar results for you or anyone else. Additionally, the Ivermectin narrative (I'll leave the question of if it has any benefit open for the sake of argument) is one that positions it as an alternative for vaccinations which is inherently dangerous.
Also we have actual treatments (Remdesivir, Monoclonal antibodies) that have documented clinical results for active infections, we don't need to gamble on bullshit.
To add one other thing, because I think we can get on the same page about this probably: Just because someone says something and they're in authority/credentialled doesn't mean you should believe them unconditionally. It is important to have a healthy skepticism of information, regardless of its source. But the outright rejection of any "authoritative" information and latching on to whatever counter-narrative (read: misinformation) that happens to be popular is just as naive and stupid, but it seems like that's where we're at these days.
I think I would disagree about the last part. I think whatever the CDC announces I think the opposite since they have been wrong about everything. I am glad I ignored Faucci about masks at the beginning, or how it wasn't contagious or whatever else they told the public. Public trust is at an all time low, and they will need to earn my trust again, and so far there isn't any reason to believe these so called experts who are more intent on silencing disagreement than giving useful content. I have to read papers on my own since the talking heads and publicists often make misleading/false statements based on snipped quotes so I won't listen to any statements they make and just read papers on my own, authority exists, but its not some political talking head, its the scientists who publish their findings and have their papers turned into propaganda by people who unfortunately use them for political reasons.
I can tune into CNN or FoxNews and hear unvetted stories as well, so why is Rogan singled out?
If someone is tuning into the podcast to get medical advice then they have bigger problems than listening to Joe Rogan.
I disagree with your characterization, too. He has on people from all angles, including e.g, Dr. Sanjay Gupta from CNN, and he gives them a fair shake.
And yes, considering how "rare" vaccine adverse reactions are supposed to be, knowing multiple people who've experienced significant adverse reactions is quite unusual. Worth talking about even.
Rogan does a stellar job, lmao @ that. He does a stellar job pushing the current GOPs agenda. Because he’s able to have people like you arguing that isn’t what he’s doing.
Your accusation is typical of Rogan fans who want to shutdown any criticism of his very obvious grifter status.
You know I’m right and that he’s a right wing grifter posing as a moderate, that’s why you’re strawmanning about me not “actually have ever listened to him.” I saw through him just as I easily see through you, I’m just upset it took me four years of listening to him everyday before it became obvious.
Its interesting how little info you have aside from some political talking points and never have any in depth information about a podcast except for things that are found in talking points that are used in propaganda. You continue to demonstrate signs that you didn't listen it at all and only bring up talking points that are used in your statement like they were fed to you and you're just regurgitating them. Who are you trying to fool and for what reason?
He has constantly pushed the idea that transgenderism is taking over and brought people like Jordan Peterson to argue against it. everything from making fun of the number of genders (something I only ever hear conservatives talk about) to the big bathroom discussion that was had in 2015.
I don’t know if he’s paid by some right wing organization to push this narrative, I don’t necessarily think so, but I don’t like how he is painted as some centrist or moderate when he very clearly has an agenda and it lies to the right of center.
You have no idea, haha. I used to laugh when "right wingers" complained about LGQBT stuff being shoved down their throat. And it was funny, until things made a big change a few years back, and then we had a child attending a "liberal" school district.
At best I think he might be useful to discover interviewees that actually have interesting things to say and go from there.
What I am shocked by (and I suspect this is the shock people mostly have) is how some people are like, Joe Rogan fans. Like the article author here. To the point he's the one guy he mentions in the article. He just not that interesting!
Why does this shock you? It’s pretty clear from what you wrote that you’re much smarter than the rest of us. It shouldn’t be shocking that us dumb ppl are fans of a dumb person?
https://www.mediaite.com/podcasts/joe-rogan-goes-after-pete-...
Or speaks to someone like this:
There was no her around to recover, just two men pretending to be in a hospital bed.
That’s how we talk.
I'm guilty of using it myself, and this makes it clear I should stop. Not least because it's not effective.
A quick search says he has 3 daughters of his own, so either he’s an idiot or he’s creating controversy for the sake of controversy or to pander to other idiots.
(It's also important to note that the last clip is entirely out of context, with no information at all on when it happened or where it came from. I'm not saying I know it's false, but this should be triggering your "unreliable source" alarm. If the clip were from 20 years ago, or misleadingly edited, or just entirely fabricated... would we know?)
https://www.reddit.com/r/JoeRogan/comments/kv5nv5/joe_yells_...
If you want interesting science podcasts, at least do Lex Fridman!
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...
> In addition to mentioning ivermectin, the podcaster, who has previously stated that the young and healthy should not "worry" about being vaccinated against COVID, said he had also taken monoclonal antibodies and prednisone to treat the disease.
> Thus far, three anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody products have been granted Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) by the FDA for the treatment of mild to moderate COVID in high-risk sufferers, though this is different from full FDA approval.
https://www.newsweek.com/joe-rogan-covid-drugs-ivermectin-mo...
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
Effectiveness against infections declined from 88% (95% CI 86–89) during the first month after full vaccination to 47% (43–51) after 5 months. Among sequenced infections, vaccine effectiveness against infections of the delta variant was high during the first month after full vaccination (93% [95% CI 85–97]) but declined to 53% [39–65] after 4 months.
if your immune system is still attacking the virus you don't want to weaken your immune system.
once your immune system is just attacking itself then you want to throw immunosuppressants at it in order to weaken the response.
https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/...
https://www.politifact.com/article/2021/jun/30/what-know-abo...
Does this mean it works? No. But it does mean that your characterization of it as "snake oil" is completely incorrect. The real question is what kind of manipulation has taken place that could lead people to such a conclusion and who was behind this manipulation?
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"?
There are also some theories that his sudden giant increase in wealth may have contributed to his shift from the mainstream to the fringe
I don’t know when you considered him mainstream but he’s the same.
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_
But that's a pretty sure fire way to gain credibility by association, even if you try your hardest to undermine it by bringing on holocaust deniers and obvious peddlers of bunk conspiracy theories.
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
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.
So much so that I find myself wondering if the entire post is actually a Spotify/Joe Rogan promotion (or maybe gaslighting).
Want a strong, open, diverse podcast community free from bullshit, unskippable, targeted advertisements for razors and stamps.com? Stay far, far away from Spotify.
The idea of “stop letting people control what you consume but oh here’s a person who controls what you consume, don’t worry it’s fine if it’s Joe” makes no sense. Either it’s fine to receive a filtered worldview from people who provide a platform for opinions, or it’s not. And that’s what’s wrong with including Joe Rogan in this article.
I will give Joe some credit though, what he is not, is an engagement echo chamber, but that was not the argument pitched in this article.