Balaji Srinivasan's waffling defence of Huberman
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 вер 2024
- We examine the 1,000-word tweet defence by reactionary tech entrepreneur Balaji Srinivasan, where he attempts to argue that Huberman was actually more correct than the out-of-touch 'elites' when he made an elementary mistake in his discussion of probability.
Support the Show:
If you like the show and want to support us, you can find us on Patreon, where we have a bunch of extra stuff.
► Patreon: / decodingthegurus
Find Us Elsewhere:
► Twitter: @GurusPod
► The Podcast: decoding-the-g...
► Patreon: / decodingthegurus
► Reddit: / decodingthegurus
James Hoffman the coffee afficionado just stepped his toes into the Huberman debunking waters when Hube made a wild statement about delaying morning caffeine and avoiding an afternoon crash.
I'm not a hoffman man, but that guy doesn't half have a certain charisma and aesthetic that is perfect for social media and his target market.
He’s a real character. Totally genuine coffee guru who walked the walk.
There's a book I like critiquing analytic philosophy called "The Imitation of Rigor". I think that some of the criticisms in that book, which focus on the use of scientific/mathematical looking formalisms in order to appear profound, apply in the cases of these gurus too. There are also some differences between gurus and analytic philosophers when it comes to the production of these performative formalisms (typically the philosophers are at least a bit better with their use of the first order mathematics or logic). However, I think the phrase "imitation of rigor" is useful for capturing this rhetorical strategy.
Excellent point of comparison.
Performative formalism. Yes.
1000 words and this dude doesn’t know of the gamblers fallacy.
Im shocked that having an expert go on to hubermans show didnt do anything to stop the flow of his nonsense.
The only thing Chris does more consistently than decode gurus and debunk nonsense is to wear that shirt in every video.
Meanwhile, these 2 guys also say almost nothing in so many minutes.
3:00 "had gone"
When Huberman started stating his position on stimulants in the treatment of ADHD, I got sus vibes from him.
Personally, I wouldn't say "so many of the top substacks" when, referencing the data you provide, it's less than 15% of those substacks (and 0% in the top 10). I feel the term "so many" implies a lot more than what you show.
The fucking amogus music killed me
I knew I recognized that from somewhere
I only heard EarthBound music.
@@lordabacu it's from Earthbound
EARTHBOUND!!!!!
Any one know how to contact them? (The hosts)
I knew from 30 seconds in 'democracy denier' Thiel would be name dropped somewhere.
Once upon a time, I think Scott Alexander's worldview, with the red vs. blue vs. grey stuff, actually meant something. But Balaji Srinivasan's devolved form of it is so whiny, spiteful and repulsive. Scott Alexander is to Balaji Srinivasan as Karl Marx is to Pol Pot.
I saw Razib Khan play a similar game with the Graham Hancock vs. Flint Dibble debate. Khan was like, "Yes, Dibble was correct 98% and Hancock was incorrect 98%... but the 2% that I think Dibble is wrong about is especially crucial, and so I can paint this as a moral victory for the Graham Hancocks of the world."
Sounds like Razib.
Do you guys actually ever provide anything? Do you ever take a leap and put something forward? Just seems you’ll do anything to critic what anyone whom (let’s be honest you just simply didn’t like before you dressed it up with cringe pseudo intellectual jargon)you disagree with and won’t actually have the balls to open yourselves up to defend your Guruness
Is Browne on chemo? What's with the bandana?
I think he's just *very* cool
10:14 and just like that, cancel culture really IS a thing! When a mainstreamer is canceled by the heterodox right. These two culture warriors for the defense of the mainstream are such hypocritical jokes.
it is at best an uncareful use of language to call Balaji Srinivasan a "reactionary". But these two podcasters are often uncareful as they wage their culture wars.
He wants "apolitical" Silicon Valley tech CEOs to form an alliance with Republicans and kick Democrats out of the San Francisco Bay Area. He wants to give police and the families of police tech security jobs in exchange for the police pledging loyalty to the "Grays". He wants to put on "Gray Pride Parades" marching with the police. He wants to create public memorials to atrocities he believes were created by the "Blues". He wanted to doxx a journalist.
The best you can say to defend him is that he's too childish to realize the implications of his spite-driven fantasies.
I really don't understand the huberman hate on this channel. He reads studies, interprets the data, and lists the sources so you can look into it for yourself. He points out when evidence is thin and he admits when he's made a mistake. Yes, he mentions where he works and his credentials, but why is that such a terrible thing? He earned his position and it adds credibility to his channel, he doesn't come across as arrogant about it.
While Huberman may have engaged in the behaviors you mentioned years ago, for the past 5 years at least he has done an about face and has not pulled credible data to discuss, has made a firm stance on thin (or made-up) evidence, and has definitely NOT admitted and apologized for mistakes and extremely bad behavior.
It helps to realize that fans of this podcast are some of the least mature and least thoughtful young leftist adults on planet earth. This becomes clear on their reddit sub.
@@lawrencetorrance7051all of reddit is a cesspit
@@patriciasanchezwebb he's only been podcasting since 2021. Give me some examples of his false claims