Hacker News Reader

Comment by arnvald | Hacker News Reader

> 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?

View on HN

“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.

To 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”.

Ask a podcaster to name intellectuals, and they just name other podcasters.

They'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.

When 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.

Fridman 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.

I 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.

Jordan 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.

Since 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?

Here’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.curre...

Is it not that the tech sector is regarded as right skewed?

His 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

As 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.

As an outsider to Europe, but living in the EU, and seeing USA and the EU neutrally, I would say the EU as a whole is intellectually skewed a little bit to the left.

These labels and attacks that you see rampant in this HN discussion are a type of response that is common among dedicated leftists (even in past history like China’s cultural revolution). And HN has a lot of left leaning users since they are often in the Bay Area. What’s behind this response is tendency to not tolerate anyone dissenting from their ideological positions even a little bit, and so they respond with whatever attack they can make - including labels or accusations or fake outrage.

This is an unhinged take. Jordan Peterson and Lex Fridman are clearly intellectuals. Rogan is debatable - he’s more entertainer but he is also certainly more intellectual than those who are normally given that label, because he listens to a diverse set of views, and has more balanced and mature opinions on many topics as a result. The bigger issue isn’t Rogan being labeled that way - it’s all the “traditional” intellectuals who don’t deserve that label or the authority that goes with it.

Joe Rogan is not a fucking intellectual. Regardless of what you think of him he’s the first to tell you he’s just some idiot. Just because he has a lot of listeners and is willing to host just about anyone talking about anything doesn’t make him an intellectual. Talk about an unhinged take.

I suppose it depends on how you define "intellectual". If you define it as someone who can talk for hours on end, and make a success out of it, then I'd say that's pretty smart. He's a comedian too (not seen any of his shows), which to my understanding requires quick thinking - something that most people don't have.

He's whole "I'm an idiot" thing is just a character he plays. You don't get to be a success like that by being an actual idiot.

If you mean intellectual to be "book smart", then yes I agree with you.

"They are not widely accepted as intellectuals"

A neutral Wikipedia editor would mark your "widely accepted" by a "by whom?" remark.

At the very least, Peterson is an intellectual. He is not my cup of tea, but he worked both at Harvard and at Toronto U as a teacher, and I suspect that you just can't stomach his politics. I would certainly like to see you debating him in his field.

> A neutral Wikipedia editor would mark your "widely accepted" by a "by whom?" remark.

The fact that they used the phrase "widely accepted as" already indicates that they're commiting the appeal to authority fallacy.

This 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.

Jordan 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.

It's kinda like calling Hunter S. Thompson a public intellectual back in the 70s. Public yes, opinionated absolutely. Intellectual? Ehhh, stretching it.

> 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.

Rogan 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.

> 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.

When 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.

> Jordan Peterson, Joe Rogan, Lex Friedman, and Sam Harris

One of these is not like the others. It’s funny, in a sad way.

Could you elaborate?

Think 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.

Sam 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.

Which one? Is it Harris?

> 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?

I 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=PLT6yxVwBEbi2VrKhg84AD...

I 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

> I 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.

Ok! Now I understand, so you mean, e.g. somebody says “the sun is actually 20 degrees hot”, and they do not interject… I am then at your side on that. On the other hand… maybe they DO agree? Or maybe they just want to give a microphone even to questionable people? So… I’m not convinced, but now I understand you better.

Anyway, I do not like them.

Maybe the problem is beaause people expect journalism, but they do more like “friends talking in the bar”

Have you considered that the other person may be correct? That’s probably what the interviewer is doing. For example in your made up example, maybe the data would correctly show crime was worse in the 80s, or maybe the data is wrong even if it says that. After all, when crimes are not addressed people stop reporting them - as one way data could be wrong. So maybe crime is worse than the 80s in some ways and it’s worth letting the guest continue with their perspective.

Even if exaggerated though, I also find the overreaction to exaggeration to be unnecessary. I’m sure there are exaggerations you let slide when they aren’t important to you or when they’re aligned to your views.

Agreed. The attitude that the interviewer must "correct" or "challenge" the interviewee just is not appropriate for this style of interview.

This allows Rogan to get guests with all sorts of backgrounds and views.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com