Sounded pretty good until "Joe Rogan is also fantastic" at the end there...
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.
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.