Joe Rogan sits squarely at the intersection of "intelligent and curious people who don't vet their sources particularly well" and "batshit-insane folks looking for confirmation of their abhorrent views".
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.
https://www.mediaite.com/podcasts/joe-rogan-goes-after-pete-...
Or speaks to someone like this:
(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_...
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.
There was no her around to recover, just two men pretending to be in a hospital bed.
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?