I'm one of those people who likes to entertain different ideas. I like talking with a flat earther, for example, and listening to their viewpoint on things. It's interesting and if you're not combative you get better information on the topic. It's similar to why I read science fiction and fantasy. Take an idea and run with it for a while. If someone believes the earth is flat, what would that mean? Where would that rub up against other things you think you know, and how does it affect them? With something like flat earth theory, it doesn't change me much except to warn me to be more careful to examine my beliefs from different angles so I don't end up in a sort of mental trap, but other topics might change me more directly.

I don't look to podcasts like these to make their guests conform to my beliefs, I look to them to see novel perspectives and to glean what I can from them for my benefit, and simply because looking at other perspectives in a format like this really does entertain me.

"Horrible randos" got where they were in some way, and it's certainly possible that they might have a unique perspective that might be helpful or that what they say might actually be information I need. I wonder if Edward Snowden, for example, would be classified as a "horrible rando" if he hadn't been the guy that worked for them and blew the lid off of what the government was surveilling but had only speculated about what they were doing as an outsider with his actual self as a contact in the NSA. He would be saying the same information, but his credibility would change. Which doesn't mean it couldn't be true, as it obviously was in this case. Dismissing him as someone who shouldn't be listened to would have been a mistake.

I keep a lot of thoughts flowing in my head to compare new information against and to make connections with and rate their truthiness as more information comes in. The more information the better. You don't find the truth by listening to people restate your set of beliefs every day.