Yeah. People who know me know I am selectively smart and none of them take me seriously. You shouldn't take someone as an authority just because they're good at a specific thing
I have an ex that was " smarter" then me and he was the a+ student who talked about how he enjoyed going to school, and at home the " smarts" didn't fully translate, more likely it was an intense life long toxic self view that degraded him to the point of what i remember him being, hed only clean his room because i was coming over, he would degrade himself all the time and then act like my coping skills of being terribley honest was bad( didn't know i had autism when i dated him, so i was pretty brutally honest because at the time i thought that 'if i didn't know what to say, just be honest because people don't trust dishonest people'.) Or he'd look at my games and what i play on the xbox and degrade the games i played. I tried downloading multiplayer games to play with him but hed never want to play them. But wed go to his place and hed play games with his friends online, sometimes id be talking in the background and trying to talk with them because i heard them out of the headphones and they started talking about me. It felt reeally weird like i was some sort of elaborate generalization of "female". I got out of his grasps quick tho, only lasted like maybe 3 months. Im still his " friend " on xbox but thats kinda just to have him think that im friends with him because hes the type of ex that would talk shit to people i know, and i already dont have many people from high school that keep in contact with me so that would suck.
@@angelgodplace ehhhhh. I think the problem is these people become famous in things they know, and gradually talk about things that are sort of close to what they know, but aren’t close enough for them to actually have studied it. Most people would be prone to this, and the people who aren’t probably won’t get so popular on social media platforms
@bla bla bla You're assuming that being the top in a specific "smart" field is the same as being smart. In doing so, you neglect hard work and time management, as well as other factors like personality and the proclivity toward mental disorders of a given person. People who are at the top in a specific "smart" field are merely relatively smart. If they start rambling in topics they know nothing about, then that's pretty not smart. If someone is doing unsmart things, then it's pretty obvious that they're not smart. If they happen to be an expert in something, then it means they're not that smart. Also, if you're familiar with psychometrics, then you'll know that people who have genuinely high IQs tend to have subtest scores that are all high. E.g. if you score high in verbal memory, you more than likely scored high in visual memory or numerical memory. This observation is based on the concept of g. Meaning that anyone with a high g factor can pretty much learn anything relatively quickly. This is a bit presumptuous of me and I'm too lazy to see if there are actual studies about this, but such people who are genuinely high IQ tend to learn that talking bullshit isn't very smart for a variety of reasons. Of course I am assuming that IQ equates to being intelligent. Not quite literally of course. More or less, it seems to be the case that higher IQ people seem to be more intelligent, though. With this assumption, then you should find it easy to see how a genuinely intelligent person would avoid being in the spotlight of saying stupid shit.
@bla bla bla Did you not read the part where I said IQ doesn't measure personality or hard work? My whole argument was that being at the top of a field isn't wholly a matter of intelligence. Hence why people at the top of a field can say stupid things or think stupid things. Hence why someone who is smart enough could understand why an expert in one field is not smart enough to have a generalized understanding of various other fields. However, generally people with higher IQs tend to have more awareness of social situations though as well as better understanding of said situations. Hence why higher IQ people, aka intelligent people (more or less what they are), tend to know when to stop speaking. Usually that's when they don't know what the fuck they're talking about. Somehow less intelligent people don't know their limits. Probably an indicator about the actual intelligence of the "intelligent expert".
He seriously needs to disable that shit. All of them. Dono sounds disrupt and interrupt whatever Azan is watching and he doesn't even pause when clearly you can't pay attention to three fucking things at the same time. Good content tho.
I went to what is considered the best university for STEM fields in my country. In my experience of being around conventionally intelligent people is that they built their whole identity around their intelligence, so they feel the need to be smart about everything even though they’re not. I certainly behaved that way in high school, but in uni I realized I was just another scrub who didn’t know anything.
Elon has the right to act that way though. You have to be super intelligent to design and create rockets, electric automobiles, satellites and etc. It’s actually people like Hassans audience who tend to think that they know a lot of thinks when they clearly haven’t achieved anything notable in their lives.
Brah, you could be smart in one area of life and be complete stupid in another. Look at Ben Carson. You think people have all the time in the world to know everything? Are you saying that skill and expertise comes so easily? You’re downplaying people’s ability and effort they put in into achieving their specialized set of skills.
@@steveno4871 I do understand that the skill and knowledge are not achieved overnight. But it is ignorant to say that people are ignorant on other subjects other than their field. I can be a financial field my whole life, but that does not mean I’m not interested in other things. I’m sure those people do research before stating something, they are scientists for god’s sake. Obviously some of them do less research than others, but it is still wrong to say that those people know nothing.
Imagine you're an intelligent person who is educated and well-versed in your field. People come to you when they have questions that fall into your area of expertise and you answer with confidence. Suddenly, you're popular and you're being asked to comment on things all the time. At first, it's always about your field, but then people start asking you about peripherally related things. Even though you're not as confident at first, you answer in the same way and your fan base accepts your answers with the same enthusiasm as when you answered about your field. Now, you're not just "the physicist guy" or "the economist" or "the pine tree expert" -- you're a public intellectual and people want to hear your opinion about anything before they form their opinion --- **because you're just SOOO smart and informed**. And you drink the Kool-Aid too and you think "maybe my opinion about everything DOES matter". And before you know it, you're talking about the merits of capitalism over communism even though you did your PhD in psychology or nuclear physics and you think your opinion is as valid as an expert in that field.
@@George12String Hm yes, because of the positive reinforcement they get from other people. People advocating for the oligarchy like Pinker and Peterson are doing it because of how intelligent they are and the rabble asking them so many questions. Before they even thought of becoming a neocon mouthpiece themselves.
27:25 Wow. Watching a UA-cam video of Hasan's Twitch stream of him watching a UA-cam video where he watches himself watching a UA-cam video that mentions his Twitch stream. What a world we live in.
@Drive A Sandwich A hard feat to pull but not surprising then that the billionaire characters like Iron Man and Batman are the most popular superheroes.
Today it's done for money, but this tale is much older than the invention of currency. Power has taken many different forms throughout history - sometimes it's a bigger stick, sometimes it's a bigger army, sometimes it's more resources, sometimes it's public opinion - but in all instances power bias favors those willing to exploit their power to create more. Then you get a group at the top that sets the rules of success to conveniently align with their interests.
The problem isn't that everyone is a slave to money. The problem is that it is extremely hard to both keep your integrity as an intellectual _and_ manage to make your ideas relevant.
I love how Jimmy Carter is the rare exception and yet the only one I'd really want to hear "ideas" from, main man had solar panels on the White House in the 70s.
@@dfgccgggff7963 Incredibly so. Were still barely recovering from that nonsense Reaganomics of his. Not to mention the waves of dumbfuck libertarians and conservatives of all stripes that proceeded him.
Hbomberguy is a good boy, actually. I'm a little confused why Harris was juxtaposed with Ben Shapiro while Natalie was framed as a "truly great" public intellectual.
@Aleks J No they aren't. IQ is not a measurement of overall Intelligence, but more a measurement about certian skills in learning and overall unimportant if you want to learn anything about Intelligence. Also it's filled with racist garbage. What did he said about Islam that is bad?
Academics may not have much common sense or general knowledge beyond their particular specialism. I know people with PhDs who can barely function outside a college environment. Similarly, investors/CEOs aren’t necessarily that clever - sometimes they get where they are by family/connections, force of personality or dumb luck. The problem is assuming these people are automatically very smart about everything.
Pretty much all super successful investors/ceos are that because of a shitload of dumb luck at one point in their career. Tons of people have the same ideas as them just for whatever random reason they got chosen to be the one who won.
you are extremely right. Worst yet, people equate confidence with intelligence .... it makes me puke on a daily basis ... never trust anyone ever, everybody is full of shit, including your own self
Yeah people assume intelligence equals success. But there are a lot of other factors much better correlated to success. I'm smart, but I'm lazy and I'd rather smoke weed and watch videos of people watching videos.
@@jerrodshack7610 When he has thoughts on rocket science or battery technology, he's one of the most authoritive figures. When he has thoughts about climate or infectious disease sciences, you might as well be listening to a random person on the street. Most "smart people" know the limitations of their knowledge and will differ to experts, but many get put in the spotlight and start believing this "genius" narrative that their biased layperson knowledge on a subject is higher than a seasoned expert simply because they're "smarter".
The main reason that really smart people eventually seem bonkers is because of their ego/following. Eventually, very popular people will develop a following that will inflate their egos to a degree that will convince even the individual that they are correct because they are themselves. More and more people are listening to them. More and more people are sharing what they say/write. More and more people are fighting blindly to defend whatever the person says simply because they said it. No investigation, no introspection....just follow like sheep. Before long the number of idiotic things being said and shared by those involved begins to equal the intelligent things. There may be other factors but they pale in comparison to this.
Ego is definitely why. When working in finance when I had just started I one time got asked a question by a sales representative on something and told them I didn't know the answer but I would find out. My supervisor ripped me for telling him I didn't know. That was dumb to me and I brushed him off then come to find out as I moved up in the company and started working directly under the supervisor that he knew so little about the business we were helping run. Great at sales, an intelligent guy, but he had that ego about him and once his favored help all left the company due to him, he was exposed for not knowing much. The egos of these people make them think the phrase "I don't know" is something for dumb people and not them while they look dumb in talking about things they clearly don't understand.
@@jamesmarhen it’s like that at most corporate jobs. My supervisor was literally the most popular office token. He got promoted when I just started, but he knew nothing about the actual insurance policy, he knew how to buy donuts for the office parties. He gave a policy holder wrong info, along with three other agents that followed his lead. I told the woman on the phone that being a supervisor/manger at this company doesn’t mean you know what you’re talking about, it just means you’re popular. She said oh and we took the time to work out the issue.. it’s all about playing the game.
i watch you because you freak out when things look crazy(which is cathartic), and you laugh when things are arbitrary. you are funny and entertaining. sometimes i think ya got bad takes, who doesnt have some bad takes right? who wouldnt make one silly take in 12 hours of giving takes? sometimes your takes are gold. but i watch ultimately for entertainment. and i dont feel like im being swindled. i feel like im part of a large group all reacting at once.
"Smart people" are typically smart in their field, it's when they try to go outside that field when they say really dumb and silly things (for instance a lot of people might be surprised to know Ben Carson used to be a well respected brain surgeon).
He did surgery on conjoined twins, which didnt have a huge success rate at the time. The man is a medical master, but a complete brainlet when it comes to politics and morality.
Yeah bullshit. There are smart people and dumb people. Most of these grifters and scammers are smart people who are just psychopaths. Everyone wants to believe that everyone has the same intellectual talents, but that’s frankly just a pipe dream.
I think her infuriating use of examples on screen, but not called out, might charitably be seen as clever marketing. She left it up to the audience to project which of them her criticism applied to, either letting us get worked up over bad examples or satisfied with good ones.
Why are people only smart in some areas and not in all areas? Because the generic perfect general science brainiac character from fiction doesn't exist in the real world and people have relatively narrow specalisation and experience.
Remember this... The wise man knows he knows nothing, the fool thinks he knows all. That's the problem with these pseudo "intellectuals" and or "intellectuals"
Well, I'm still mad at Musk for cutting down a large part of a forest in the south of Berlin for his Tesla factory, which nobody wanted because half of Berlin assembled for a protest there.
Are you sure he did it? Because my believe is suddenly that there loads of other people also behind it. who either proposed it or did force it? With litterly every big company. Because idk how much power he has over it.
“I’m not a thought leader, I just simplify complex ideas and disseminate them to a wider audience in a way that gives me a distinguishable aesthetic” So you’re a thought leader then.
Been a long while since I watched Neil de Grasse. My main draw to him back then was how outspoken he was in support of science and learning. I almost got into physics and astronomy because of him. Once I got to uni I decided to go for something else but astronomy and all different kinds of science have always interested me.
Neil's point about philosophy is that there can never be any concrete answer, and the scientists are interested at getting to the answers, not just postulating things that can never be proven or disproven.
@@stephenpincetich2099 No, it would be more like it's not important whether a tree falling in a forest makes a noise if nobody is around to hear it. Science looks for the concrete answers. Philosophy aims at questions that don't, can't, and won't have concrete answers. Some things in morality have clear answers based on the goal. Scientists seek out the unknown; philosophers seek out the unknowable. From the scientific perspective seeking out the things that cannot be known is useless.
As someone who has a degree in philosophy, I can't possibly understate how annoying and frustrating it is to hear Neill Degrasse Tyson's takes on the subject.
They make sense if you listen to his reasoning. Philosophy isn't as necessary now as it used to be. We needed philosophy when we didn't have the tools to see deep into space, or even around our own solar system. But now that we can get factual evidence of the planets revolving around the sun, or how the earth isn't flat, etc. Philosophy isn't as useful. He himself says it was very important in the past, but it's not as much anymore.
@@Purpletrident Cant tell if you're joking, because you state that "...we can get factual evidence... how the earth is flat." You're telling someone who's had to study informal, first and second order logic, and type theory that I'm not following someone's reasoning. Stop it. Tyson's reasoning isn't hard to follow; it's just misguided, mistaken, and self-refuting.
@@justinlacek1481 That was just a typo. Meant the earth isn't flat. Regardless, it's ironic that you refuse to understand someone else's position because of your own biases. Goes both ways then. But I guess that's just philosophy. There is no philosophy when there are facts you can prove without a doubt. And you know that. Tyson knows that. Hence his position.
@@Purpletrident Let me be clear - I have heard that discussion presented in this video. And I've heard several other interviews where Tyson has made similar statements (and his arguments don't get much deeper than what they showed in this video. *You would know that if you have listened to those talks yourself* ). Tyson's 'argument' is, again, misguided, mistaken and *self defeating * . I promise you, his point is about as hard to understand as me learning the difference between a horse and a motorcycle. 1. Philosophy isn't in the business of trying to empirically verify facts in the world. So your main critique is utterly irrelevant. Trying to argue that an intellectual discipline is useless if it can't produce undeniable facts would obliterate almost every academic field outside of the hard sciences. 2. *This is a philosophical position you and Tyson are taking* . So Tyson is refuting himself by stating that philosophy is a useless exercise if he needs to exercise it to get his point across. 3. "There is no Philosophy when there are facts that you can prove without a doubt." This has to be the silliest claim I've seen all week. You're arguing that philosophy doesn't exist because I can prove a thing to be the case... It should be immediately obvious why that's a numbskull take.
@@Purpletrident No broski, philosphy at its core is about the very essence of thinking, it helps us reflect on the nature of knowledge. Philosphy isn't a tool, its a process of rationalizing data and information in the universe. Science is one such tool or framework that helps us understand the universe. Study "Theory of Knowledge" which is a aspect of philsophy. It basically teaches you the different "Areas of Knowledge" such as - Natual science, maths, social sciences, religion, arts, ethics etc, through which we process knowledge using "ways of knowing" - language, sense perception, emotion, reason, imagination, faith etc to store knowledge within us and share it to among our groups. Essentially what im saying is Philosophy is VERY IMPORTANT as it teaches you how to think and science is just ONE competing framework to help us understand life.
Not gonna lie you had me in the first half. I thought you were going to tear this video into pieces and when you called it good I was like fuck yeah it is!!
i.redd.it/u6uz98xhvgw51.jpg Hasan is the greediest twitch streamer and doesn't even watch the ads of the video he is stealing for content. And says is against capitalism...
@@paulgotik That chart is dumb. Hasan has so many ads because it's literally a part of his Twitch contract. Also, if ads generate revenue then not watching ads doesn't somehow make you capitalist. Hasan himself says he is a capitalist I'm pretty sure.
@@thereverseeffect7269 that's not true. Every big streamer has a contract with twitch and all of them don't have even half the ads that he has with the same amount of hours. Pre rolled ads are made by twitch (something that every streamer has) but hourly ads, like he does, are only made by him in the entire platform. And Hasan has said multiple times that he wants communism as a main economic ideology even if it's not posible right now. He has supported comments of people saying that capitalism is the true problem and if we had communism economic problems wouldn't exist. This is the level of stupidity that he is fine supporting as long as it gives him more viewers.
@@paulgotik He literally has said multiple times that he doesn't like communism. He literally kicks tankies out if his community. And no, it is true that it is literally a part of Hasan's contract, friend. His contract is an exclusive contract. Why do you think he only started doing this after his contract renewal? Not to mention it says "ADS IN CHAT" not ads played
I would draw a distinction between people like Hasan and Vaush, and people like Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson. There is a difference between talking about systems and how we should collectively change the society for the better, and people who peddle ideas to individuals like saying "Oh, you are an oppressed minority? Try a power pose! or "Oh, you have pre-existing condition and trouble paying your medical bills? Try eating a meat only diet!".
TED Talk-type events now remind me of the Succession episode Argestes, where the Roys do exactly what Hasan talks about: networking, damage control, and vapid calls/ways for their industry to change.
Neil DeGrasse Tyson is a scientist and the context with which he was speaking was that at some point, in history, science hadn't yet come into its own and subjects like science were the realm of philosophy. Problem is, some philosophers still think that many areas of science is still a subject with which they have meaningful input. Philosophy was a great fall back to areas in science that we did not yet have the tools to work with but as more and more was discovered and as the scientific method was established, philosophies usefulness fell away. Philosophy can help you logic your way into a hypothesis, but the scientific method can observe and test your way into theories. As far as Elon Musk is concerned, he has never been a scientist,. He is an engineer at best and a software engineer at that, which I personally don't think is a real engineer. I can say that because I am a software engineer and I don't myself or hardly any other developers I know to be engineers. Not saying he isn't a smart guy, just saying, not a scientist.
Yea... Her NdGT take was super bad. Neil also leans completely into the "well actually" thing and it's a part of the entertainment factor. He is very good at relaying complex info pretty succinctly and in his boisterous manner.
This take is (un)surprisingly super common with people who have absolutely no idea what goes on in a college philosophy department, much less what the contemporary issues are in the philosophy of science. The primary difference is that authors in philosophy of science don't aim to solve the same questions as the natural sciences - scientists are interested in building models and verifying hypotheses which accurately describe the physical world, while philosophers of science are more interested in questioning the soundness and veracity of the methods that scientists use to build their models. Philosophers are (obviously) not qualified to judge whether a chemical reaction or physical process will derive in some specific fashion, but they are qualified to question the logical (and often ethical) inferences that scientists must make when they utilize their models to solve a practical social/technical problem outside of the laboratory. What you are missing is that serious academic philosophers, by and large, leave science to scientists because they are not interested in solving scientific questions. It is the scientists who have difficulty "staying in their lane", so to speak.
@@pranav_vijayan So in other words, philosophers of science needed to change from being the scientists, to supporting science, in order to stay relevant. I get that, if you can't make the team anymore, you become a coach or equipment manager, as a fall back, while still being "in the game". A team can't operate without those support people. It's just that they aren't the ones winning the games anymore, that's the job of the players, I mean scientists.
@@sevilnatas I am not sure where your fascination with demonstrating the superiority of natural scientists and diminishing the achievements of humanities scholars is coming from. If the natural scientists were so far superior than the philosophers of science as you are claiming they are, this fact would be self-evident. The very fact that this continues to be discussed shows it is clearly not the case. Your analogy of philosophers of science "not being able to make the team" is wrong, and frankly insulting to humanities scholars. These two camps are not competing for the same job as your analogy would posit - a point made evident by my previous post. Additionally, a cursory study of the history of philosophy will show you that modern scientists are simply descendants of early "natural philosophers" (such as Avicenna, Aristotle, and many Chinese and Indian scholars). What we see today as modern science *is* natural philosophy in the strictest sense. The divide you are seeing between natural philosophers and modern day scientists is not as wide as you think it is. Philosophers of science, on the other hand, are closer to epistemologists than they are to natural philosophers - this is because the natural philosophers of old *became* today's scientists. The job of a philosopher of science is to understand the context under which, and the method by which, scientific knowledge can be produced. It is not their job to produce that knowledge; philosophers of science understand this, and that is why they leave question of natural science to the natural scientists. While I agree with you that support staff are necessary to enable "players" to "win the game" when it comes to sports, I disagree that there is a game being played here in the first place. Natural scientists and philosophers of science are not seeking to "win" anything because academia is not a competition - it is a fundamentally cooperative process by which knowledge is cultivated through rigorous testing and peer review. It is foolish to suggest that recent technological advancement pushed forward by natural scientists makes the achievements of those who study the underlying theory behind how scientific knowledge can be generated and/or implement irrelevant.
In creative and media industries there's the concept of 'ideas guys' who have big ideas and if they have money will try to fund them but never want to put work into the execution. This sounds similar but for science
This is totally false. You have obviously never worked in the private sector. Most of those “idea guys” were formerly the genius engineers. The problem is that engineers are capped out at around 150k per year, so most of the good engineers go into business after engineering. Of course when they are designing huge ideas they will not do trivial matters such as engineering; that’s the field they retired from. Rather, they focus on the design process.
I hope as Hasan gains popularity, he doesn’t become more of a thought leader. If he’s acute aware of it, then I think he can keep his integrity even if he profits a lot from twitch.
this is so hilarious, I rememember when they were trying to come up with an alternative to "thought leader" before it had solidified. Also as a 72in cis dude bro power poses work well for me. Fake it till you make it!
Solid theories come from years of research. People become popular with one theory or discovery, which took a long time to come to, and are pressed to come out with theories in a couple months (or less). That’s why they seem to get stupid. Nothing good comes from a month or two to discover some grand new truth
In their defense, I don't think Wisecrack interprets the term "public intellectual" to have anything to do with how smart they are. It is more about the influence your ideas have on other people, than the content of these ideas themselves. I have no problem with calling even Rush Limbaugh a public intellectual. It isn't a compliment, it's a neutral term.
He is pretty self-centered, he likes to hear himself speak and therefore interrupts A LOT in interviews and podcasts. But in general I do like listening to him.
technical intelligence isn't much without emotional intelligence, but it's easier to be respected and rise to the top if you only care for yourself and exploit others. also many "intellectuals" are just seen that way because of their power and the way they assert themselves
100% also technical intelligence in one area does not equal technical intelligence in ALL areas and fields like some public figures present it as prime example jordon Peterson’s idiotic descent into politics
Hazan: "NO they're not talking about me! I admit I'm dumb all the time! Hazan 5 minutes later: "Yes of course I know what these are I've been invited to them. I've spoken at events like this.
"Intellectuals" are ppl, ppl are motivated by easy money, social media is an easy way to make money from clout, clout is composed of the masses, the masses are of average intelligence, therefore "intellectuals" have to become influencers to make easy money by dumbing down their ideas for the masses who comprise the majority of social media clout.
Neal Tyson makes his bread by blowing normies minds by telling them stuff astrophysicists learn in 7th grade. Also he hasnt said anything Carl Sagan hasnt said decades before him.
Intelligence is 4 basic categories, recognizing spatial/angles, learning relate, keeping it in, and visual stuff. Those make up in. There is also emotional intelligence in how a person can read to people and get their views acrosss to others. Also smart people seek to learn constantly while dumb people think they know all the answers and will never see a different point, i for one admit I do not know everything, I never will. But I would rather be honest with myself that way than try to bull shit others on everything.
Off-topic, but does anyone know who the woman at 4:10 is? I'm already 100% committed to copying her amazing hair when I'm old, but I'd like to know who she is.
the former pm of the uk is currently earning hundreds of thousands of pounds on the lecture circuit. boris is also apparently jealous of her and thinking of doing this as well after resigning in spring because his current salary (£150k) isn't enough
The reason smart people will seem dumb sometimes is because... they're people. People think with their emotions first, logic follows after. That's literally how we work, and that's why some people will come up with false beliefs off stupid assumptions just so that it can fit with their emotions.
Yes people are fallible. The problem comes when people think that their ideas aren't. This comes from ego. Take any smart and give them enough ego and you will get an idiot because they are blinded to their fallibility and they can't distinguish between their good and bad ideas. We are all wrong about so many things. The key is to realize when we are right and when we are wrong. The key to being intellectual is legitimate humility. The key to being wrong is overconfidence.
People can be "smart" in one specific area, but dumb in all others. The dumbest person I've ever met was a straight A student.
Yeah. People who know me know I am selectively smart and none of them take me seriously. You shouldn't take someone as an authority just because they're good at a specific thing
socrates said this shit thousands of years ago.
lol why do I feel like you're talking about an ex
Big problem with assigning certain traits or actions as “smart”
I have an ex that was " smarter" then me and he was the a+ student who talked about how he enjoyed going to school, and at home the " smarts" didn't fully translate, more likely it was an intense life long toxic self view that degraded him to the point of what i remember him being, hed only clean his room because i was coming over, he would degrade himself all the time and then act like my coping skills of being terribley honest was bad( didn't know i had autism when i dated him, so i was pretty brutally honest because at the time i thought that 'if i didn't know what to say, just be honest because people don't trust dishonest people'.) Or he'd look at my games and what i play on the xbox and degrade the games i played. I tried downloading multiplayer games to play with him but hed never want to play them. But wed go to his place and hed play games with his friends online, sometimes id be talking in the background and trying to talk with them because i heard them out of the headphones and they started talking about me. It felt reeally weird like i was some sort of elaborate generalization of "female". I got out of his grasps quick tho, only lasted like maybe 3 months. Im still his " friend " on xbox but thats kinda just to have him think that im friends with him because hes the type of ex that would talk shit to people i know, and i already dont have many people from high school that keep in contact with me so that would suck.
You could take the smartest person on planet earth, give them a huge platform/podcast and they would say dumb shit consistently.
Ironically, the smartest people you'll ever find are the ones that don't really make dumbass claims about reality or life.
That's not necessarily true. A lot of people won't speak on what they don't know about
@@angelgodplace ehhhhh. I think the problem is these people become famous in things they know, and gradually talk about things that are sort of close to what they know, but aren’t close enough for them to actually have studied it. Most people would be prone to this, and the people who aren’t probably won’t get so popular on social media platforms
@bla bla bla You're assuming that being the top in a specific "smart" field is the same as being smart. In doing so, you neglect hard work and time management, as well as other factors like personality and the proclivity toward mental disorders of a given person.
People who are at the top in a specific "smart" field are merely relatively smart. If they start rambling in topics they know nothing about, then that's pretty not smart. If someone is doing unsmart things, then it's pretty obvious that they're not smart. If they happen to be an expert in something, then it means they're not that smart.
Also, if you're familiar with psychometrics, then you'll know that people who have genuinely high IQs tend to have subtest scores that are all high. E.g. if you score high in verbal memory, you more than likely scored high in visual memory or numerical memory. This observation is based on the concept of g. Meaning that anyone with a high g factor can pretty much learn anything relatively quickly. This is a bit presumptuous of me and I'm too lazy to see if there are actual studies about this, but such people who are genuinely high IQ tend to learn that talking bullshit isn't very smart for a variety of reasons. Of course I am assuming that IQ equates to being intelligent. Not quite literally of course. More or less, it seems to be the case that higher IQ people seem to be more intelligent, though. With this assumption, then you should find it easy to see how a genuinely intelligent person would avoid being in the spotlight of saying stupid shit.
@bla bla bla Did you not read the part where I said IQ doesn't measure personality or hard work? My whole argument was that being at the top of a field isn't wholly a matter of intelligence. Hence why people at the top of a field can say stupid things or think stupid things. Hence why someone who is smart enough could understand why an expert in one field is not smart enough to have a generalized understanding of various other fields. However, generally people with higher IQs tend to have more awareness of social situations though as well as better understanding of said situations. Hence why higher IQ people, aka intelligent people (more or less what they are), tend to know when to stop speaking. Usually that's when they don't know what the fuck they're talking about. Somehow less intelligent people don't know their limits. Probably an indicator about the actual intelligence of the "intelligent expert".
I love when Alex Jones interjects in every video and says "His name is Azan!" Even when it's not relevant.
wrestling opening
He seriously needs to disable that shit. All of them. Dono sounds disrupt and interrupt whatever Azan is watching and he doesn't even pause when clearly you can't pay attention to three fucking things at the same time.
Good content tho.
@@Panzer731
but... but his name is hassan 😢
@@Panzer731 UA-cam frog????
@@marcelkuhn5310 probably lol azooni turned them off a long time ago
I went to what is considered the best university for STEM fields in my country. In my experience of being around conventionally intelligent people is that they built their whole identity around their intelligence, so they feel the need to be smart about everything even though they’re not. I certainly behaved that way in high school, but in uni I realized I was just another scrub who didn’t know anything.
Elon has the right to act that way though. You have to be super intelligent to design and create rockets, electric automobiles, satellites and etc. It’s actually people like Hassans audience who tend to think that they know a lot of thinks when they clearly haven’t achieved anything notable in their lives.
@@andriangutium5827 He has a team of thousands of engineers that do most of that for him. Hes more a creative idea man over anything else.
Brah, you could be smart in one area of life and be complete stupid in another. Look at Ben Carson. You think people have all the time in the world to know everything? Are you saying that skill and expertise comes so easily? You’re downplaying people’s ability and effort they put in into achieving their specialized set of skills.
@@steveno4871 I do understand that the skill and knowledge are not achieved overnight. But it is ignorant to say that people are ignorant on other subjects other than their field. I can be a financial field my whole life, but that does not mean I’m not interested in other things. I’m sure those people do research before stating something, they are scientists for god’s sake. Obviously some of them do less research than others, but it is still wrong to say that those people know nothing.
@@ZERO_O7X You could say that to any corporation. But this team wouldn’t exist without Elon Musk, he worked really hard for it.
Imagine you're an intelligent person who is educated and well-versed in your field. People come to you when they have questions that fall into your area of expertise and you answer with confidence. Suddenly, you're popular and you're being asked to comment on things all the time. At first, it's always about your field, but then people start asking you about peripherally related things. Even though you're not as confident at first, you answer in the same way and your fan base accepts your answers with the same enthusiasm as when you answered about your field.
Now, you're not just "the physicist guy" or "the economist" or "the pine tree expert" -- you're a public intellectual and people want to hear your opinion about anything before they form their opinion --- **because you're just SOOO smart and informed**. And you drink the Kool-Aid too and you think "maybe my opinion about everything DOES matter". And before you know it, you're talking about the merits of capitalism over communism even though you did your PhD in psychology or nuclear physics and you think your opinion is as valid as an expert in that field.
thats what happened to jordan peterson
Slow transition away, you never notice that you're beginning to speak further and further from your actual expertise..
Ah yes blame everybody else for what the smart dude is doing.
@@MegaJotie It's not about blame. It's about how positive reinforcement can cause intelligent people to lose sight of things.
@@George12String Hm yes, because of the positive reinforcement they get from other people.
People advocating for the oligarchy like Pinker and Peterson are doing it because of how intelligent they are and the rabble asking them so many questions. Before they even thought of becoming a neocon mouthpiece themselves.
27:25 Wow. Watching a UA-cam video of Hasan's Twitch stream of him watching a UA-cam video where he watches himself watching a UA-cam video that mentions his Twitch stream. What a world we live in.
M E T A
"He didn't say what year!" Elon Simpin ain't easy! 😂🤣
elon musk is just bargain bin tony stark without the “genius, playboy, philanthropist” part
Hurts but true
And Tony Stark is "billionaire philantropists are actually heroes" propaganda, art imitates life as they say 🤔😏
@@islandboy9381 Tony Stark was made to be a likable incarnation of the most unlikable things possible
Elon musk isn’t a genius?
@Drive A Sandwich A hard feat to pull but not surprising then that the billionaire characters like Iron Man and Batman are the most popular superheroes.
So basically all of this stems from the same issue that has plagued society for too long: everyone is a slave to money and can be bought out.
Yes.
Today it's done for money, but this tale is much older than the invention of currency. Power has taken many different forms throughout history - sometimes it's a bigger stick, sometimes it's a bigger army, sometimes it's more resources, sometimes it's public opinion - but in all instances power bias favors those willing to exploit their power to create more. Then you get a group at the top that sets the rules of success to conveniently align with their interests.
@g caba it is compulsory where I'm from, the issue still persists. Been this way since USSR.
Is that a problem I just thought that’s how society works. If people wanna give you money for spouting bullshit more fool them.
The problem isn't that everyone is a slave to money. The problem is that it is extremely hard to both keep your integrity as an intellectual _and_ manage to make your ideas relevant.
I love how Jimmy Carter is the rare exception and yet the only one I'd really want to hear "ideas" from, main man had solar panels on the White House in the 70s.
It's such a shame he lost to Raygun. America would be so much better with two terms of carter
@@dfgccgggff7963 Incredibly so. Were still barely recovering from that nonsense Reaganomics of his. Not to mention the waves of dumbfuck libertarians and conservatives of all stripes that proceeded him.
Hbomberguy is a good boy, actually.
I'm a little confused why Harris was juxtaposed with Ben Shapiro while Natalie was framed as a "truly great" public intellectual.
Harris has made some of the same morally and empirically inaccurate statements that Ben Shapiro has regarding ethnicity.
@@myjciskate4 Such as?
@@myjciskate4 Well, so much for that.
@Aleks J ??????
@Aleks J No they aren't. IQ is not a measurement of overall Intelligence, but more a measurement about certian skills in learning and overall unimportant if you want to learn anything about Intelligence. Also it's filled with racist garbage.
What did he said about Islam that is bad?
Academics may not have much common sense or general knowledge beyond their particular specialism. I know people with PhDs who can barely function outside a college environment.
Similarly, investors/CEOs aren’t necessarily that clever - sometimes they get where they are by family/connections, force of personality or dumb luck.
The problem is assuming these people are automatically very smart about everything.
Pretty much all super successful investors/ceos are that because of a shitload of dumb luck at one point in their career. Tons of people have the same ideas as them just for whatever random reason they got chosen to be the one who won.
you are extremely right. Worst yet, people equate confidence with intelligence .... it makes me puke on a daily basis ... never trust anyone ever, everybody is full of shit, including your own self
This applies to Musk more than anybody. It's insane anybody takes his opinion seriously on absolutely anything scientific or political.
Yeah people assume intelligence equals success. But there are a lot of other factors much better correlated to success. I'm smart, but I'm lazy and I'd rather smoke weed and watch videos of people watching videos.
@@jerrodshack7610 When he has thoughts on rocket science or battery technology, he's one of the most authoritive figures. When he has thoughts about climate or infectious disease sciences, you might as well be listening to a random person on the street.
Most "smart people" know the limitations of their knowledge and will differ to experts, but many get put in the spotlight and start believing this "genius" narrative that their biased layperson knowledge on a subject is higher than a seasoned expert simply because they're "smarter".
On a long enough time line, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
The main reason that really smart people eventually seem bonkers is because of their ego/following. Eventually, very popular people will develop a following that will inflate their egos to a degree that will convince even the individual that they are correct because they are themselves. More and more people are listening to them. More and more people are sharing what they say/write. More and more people are fighting blindly to defend whatever the person says simply because they said it. No investigation, no introspection....just follow like sheep. Before long the number of idiotic things being said and shared by those involved begins to equal the intelligent things. There may be other factors but they pale in comparison to this.
Ego is definitely why. When working in finance when I had just started I one time got asked a question by a sales representative on something and told them I didn't know the answer but I would find out. My supervisor ripped me for telling him I didn't know. That was dumb to me and I brushed him off then come to find out as I moved up in the company and started working directly under the supervisor that he knew so little about the business we were helping run. Great at sales, an intelligent guy, but he had that ego about him and once his favored help all left the company due to him, he was exposed for not knowing much. The egos of these people make them think the phrase "I don't know" is something for dumb people and not them while they look dumb in talking about things they clearly don't understand.
@@jamesmarhen well said!!!
"Ego is the enemy"
Is the title of a self-help book written by a self-help grifter THE IRONY LMFAO
@@jamesmarhen it’s like that at most corporate jobs. My supervisor was literally the most popular office token. He got promoted when I just started, but he knew nothing about the actual insurance policy, he knew how to buy donuts for the office parties. He gave a policy holder wrong info, along with three other agents that followed his lead. I told the woman on the phone that being a supervisor/manger at this company doesn’t mean you know what you’re talking about, it just means you’re popular. She said oh and we took the time to work out the issue.. it’s all about playing the game.
i watch you because you freak out when things look crazy(which is cathartic), and you laugh when things are arbitrary. you are funny and entertaining. sometimes i think ya got bad takes, who doesnt have some bad takes right? who wouldnt make one silly take in 12 hours of giving takes? sometimes your takes are gold. but i watch ultimately for entertainment. and i dont feel like im being swindled. i feel like im part of a large group all reacting at once.
I ship Hasan with this girl tbh.
She is bad 😂 cute nerd
@@willieschick7315 A cynical politics nerd too. They were practically made for each other.
"Smart people" are typically smart in their field, it's when they try to go outside that field when they say really dumb and silly things (for instance a lot of people might be surprised to know Ben Carson used to be a well respected brain surgeon).
He did surgery on conjoined twins, which didnt have a huge success rate at the time. The man is a medical master, but a complete brainlet when it comes to politics and morality.
Almost like their aren't "smart people" and we are all equally dumb just at different things.
Yeah bullshit. There are smart people and dumb people. Most of these grifters and scammers are smart people who are just psychopaths. Everyone wants to believe that everyone has the same intellectual talents, but that’s frankly just a pipe dream.
Bro.. there*
This is above my pay grade.
Everytime I see or hear of rich liberal "intellectuals" coming together and talk "wisdom" all I hear is them saying: "Hey let's network and film it."
hmmm rich liberal "intellectuals" you say. I think I know a rich communist "intellectual" i.redd.it/u6uz98xhvgw51.jpg
@@paulgotik fuck is ADS?
@@cementbox4430 advertisments?
Just checking in from May 2021.
Maybe next year, Elon.
I get what their going for here but cmon why do they put a pic of Joe rogan along "intellectuals".
Both sides!
Yeah that got a little muddled. I think they included him as a kind of ‘ideas leader’
All the Roganites claim he is an intellectual.
MMA intellectual
I think her infuriating use of examples on screen, but not called out, might charitably be seen as clever marketing. She left it up to the audience to project which of them her criticism applied to, either letting us get worked up over bad examples or satisfied with good ones.
Why are people only smart in some areas and not in all areas? Because the generic perfect general science brainiac character from fiction doesn't exist in the real world and people have relatively narrow specalisation and experience.
Remember this...
The wise man knows he knows nothing, the fool thinks he knows all.
That's the problem with these pseudo "intellectuals" and or "intellectuals"
So does the power pose work or not? Cause I’ve been standing like Superman for the length of this video
When Hasan talked about writing a self-help book...
Someone in chat: "HOW TO COOM" KEKW
Well, I'm still mad at Musk for cutting down a large part of a forest in the south of Berlin for his Tesla factory, which nobody wanted because half of Berlin assembled for a protest there.
Are you sure he did it? Because my believe is suddenly that there loads of other people also behind it. who either proposed it or did force it? With litterly every big company. Because idk how much power he has over it.
OMG who the hell cares it was a small patch of land with couple of trees, also all the german automakers are conspiring against him
“I’m not a thought leader, I just simplify complex ideas and disseminate them to a wider audience in a way that gives me a distinguishable aesthetic”
So you’re a thought leader then.
i’ve never heard a more accurate description of me than “chronically online person who likes to learn”
What's Brunette Hermione's problem with HBomberGuy? Cause he gave a Ted Talk once?
Probably just put him in for the sake of balance
@@JP-oi8mj Didnt catch that. I thaught that he was the example of a bad one and Contra was the example of a good one. And she definitely is.
@@jerrodshack7610 Could be.
@@JP-oi8mj Ok then, i stand corrected.
@@gr0inhernia Contra isn't Hbomberguy though, he is perfect.
Been a long while since I watched Neil de Grasse. My main draw to him back then was how outspoken he was in support of science and learning. I almost got into physics and astronomy because of him. Once I got to uni I decided to go for something else but astronomy and all different kinds of science have always interested me.
people tend to confuse accomplished and intelligent
Neil's point about philosophy is that there can never be any concrete answer, and the scientists are interested at getting to the answers, not just postulating things that can never be proven or disproven.
@@stephenpincetich2099 No, it would be more like it's not important whether a tree falling in a forest makes a noise if nobody is around to hear it. Science looks for the concrete answers. Philosophy aims at questions that don't, can't, and won't have concrete answers. Some things in morality have clear answers based on the goal. Scientists seek out the unknown; philosophers seek out the unknowable. From the scientific perspective seeking out the things that cannot be known is useless.
I like watching hasan react to videos like this rather than watching themselves because he's functions as an automatic adblock :)
He do be pausing alot tho PauseChamp
Simon Sinek is literally the perfect example of what this entire video was talking about.
I was thinking of him as soon as I heard 'Thought leader'.
We're all thought leaders. Wish she gave a shoutout to Facebook comments, where most of us have quickly cultivated a nihilist worldview.
As someone who has a degree in philosophy, I can't possibly understate how annoying and frustrating it is to hear Neill Degrasse Tyson's takes on the subject.
They make sense if you listen to his reasoning. Philosophy isn't as necessary now as it used to be. We needed philosophy when we didn't have the tools to see deep into space, or even around our own solar system. But now that we can get factual evidence of the planets revolving around the sun, or how the earth isn't flat, etc. Philosophy isn't as useful. He himself says it was very important in the past, but it's not as much anymore.
@@Purpletrident Cant tell if you're joking, because you state that "...we can get factual evidence... how the earth is flat."
You're telling someone who's had to study informal, first and second order logic, and type theory that I'm not following someone's reasoning. Stop it. Tyson's reasoning isn't hard to follow; it's just misguided, mistaken, and self-refuting.
@@justinlacek1481 That was just a typo. Meant the earth isn't flat. Regardless, it's ironic that you refuse to understand someone else's position because of your own biases. Goes both ways then. But I guess that's just philosophy. There is no philosophy when there are facts you can prove without a doubt. And you know that. Tyson knows that. Hence his position.
@@Purpletrident Let me be clear - I have heard that discussion presented in this video. And I've heard several other interviews where Tyson has made similar statements (and his arguments don't get much deeper than what they showed in this video. *You would know that if you have listened to those talks yourself* ).
Tyson's 'argument' is, again, misguided, mistaken and *self defeating * . I promise you, his point is about as hard to understand as me learning the difference between a horse and a motorcycle.
1. Philosophy isn't in the business of trying to empirically verify facts in the world. So your main critique is utterly irrelevant. Trying to argue that an intellectual discipline is useless if it can't produce undeniable facts would obliterate almost every academic field outside of the hard sciences.
2. *This is a philosophical position you and Tyson are taking* . So Tyson is refuting himself by stating that philosophy is a useless exercise if he needs to exercise it to get his point across.
3. "There is no Philosophy when there are facts that you can prove without a doubt."
This has to be the silliest claim I've seen all week. You're arguing that philosophy doesn't exist because I can prove a thing to be the case... It should be immediately obvious why that's a numbskull take.
@@Purpletrident No broski, philosphy at its core is about the very essence of thinking, it helps us reflect on the nature of knowledge. Philosphy isn't a tool, its a process of rationalizing data and information in the universe. Science is one such tool or framework that helps us understand the universe. Study "Theory of Knowledge" which is a aspect of philsophy. It basically teaches you the different "Areas of Knowledge" such as - Natual science, maths, social sciences, religion, arts, ethics etc, through which we process knowledge using "ways of knowing" - language, sense perception, emotion, reason, imagination, faith etc to store knowledge within us and share it to among our groups. Essentially what im saying is Philosophy is VERY IMPORTANT as it teaches you how to think and science is just ONE competing framework to help us understand life.
Not gonna lie you had me in the first half. I thought you were going to tear this video into pieces and when you called it good I was like fuck yeah it is!!
Seeing Hasan skip the paid promo makes me feel validated for the great many paid promos I've skipped ;)
i.redd.it/u6uz98xhvgw51.jpg Hasan is the greediest twitch streamer and doesn't even watch the ads of the video he is stealing for content. And says is against capitalism...
@@paulgotik That chart is dumb. Hasan has so many ads because it's literally a part of his Twitch contract.
Also, if ads generate revenue then not watching ads doesn't somehow make you capitalist. Hasan himself says he is a capitalist I'm pretty sure.
@@thereverseeffect7269 that's not true. Every big streamer has a contract with twitch and all of them don't have even half the ads that he has with the same amount of hours. Pre rolled ads are made by twitch (something that every streamer has) but hourly ads, like he does, are only made by him in the entire platform. And Hasan has said multiple times that he wants communism as a main economic ideology even if it's not posible right now. He has supported comments of people saying that capitalism is the true problem and if we had communism economic problems wouldn't exist. This is the level of stupidity that he is fine supporting as long as it gives him more viewers.
@@paulgotik He literally has said multiple times that he doesn't like communism. He literally kicks tankies out if his community. And no, it is true that it is literally a part of Hasan's contract, friend. His contract is an exclusive contract. Why do you think he only started doing this after his contract renewal?
Not to mention it says "ADS IN CHAT" not ads played
@@paulgotik When he says he wants communism he's usually memeing
I would draw a distinction between people like Hasan and Vaush, and people like Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson. There is a difference between talking about systems and how we should collectively change the society for the better, and people who peddle ideas to individuals like saying "Oh, you are an oppressed minority? Try a power pose! or "Oh, you have pre-existing condition and trouble paying your medical bills? Try eating a meat only diet!".
Wait how does this apply too vaush and hasan?
@@YangyChaddyDad It doesn't, that's my point.
I died when she said David Brooks 🤣
i bet hasan writes a self help book about how to avoid getting taken in by a grifter
Yeah, they taught the power pose shit in business school. Hilarious 😂😂😂
TED Talk-type events now remind me of the Succession episode Argestes, where the Roys do exactly what Hasan talks about: networking, damage control, and vapid calls/ways for their industry to change.
it's the "chat your'e in it too" 🥺
20:13 When talking about Think Tanks, does she say 'some of them are *shill* around today'?
Neil DeGrasse Tyson is a scientist and the context with which he was speaking was that at some point, in history, science hadn't yet come into its own and subjects like science were the realm of philosophy. Problem is, some philosophers still think that many areas of science is still a subject with which they have meaningful input. Philosophy was a great fall back to areas in science that we did not yet have the tools to work with but as more and more was discovered and as the scientific method was established, philosophies usefulness fell away. Philosophy can help you logic your way into a hypothesis, but the scientific method can observe and test your way into theories.
As far as Elon Musk is concerned, he has never been a scientist,. He is an engineer at best and a software engineer at that, which I personally don't think is a real engineer. I can say that because I am a software engineer and I don't myself or hardly any other developers I know to be engineers. Not saying he isn't a smart guy, just saying, not a scientist.
Yea... Her NdGT take was super bad. Neil also leans completely into the "well actually" thing and it's a part of the entertainment factor. He is very good at relaying complex info pretty succinctly and in his boisterous manner.
This take is (un)surprisingly super common with people who have absolutely no idea what goes on in a college philosophy department, much less what the contemporary issues are in the philosophy of science.
The primary difference is that authors in philosophy of science don't aim to solve the same questions as the natural sciences - scientists are interested in building models and verifying hypotheses which accurately describe the physical world, while philosophers of science are more interested in questioning the soundness and veracity of the methods that scientists use to build their models. Philosophers are (obviously) not qualified to judge whether a chemical reaction or physical process will derive in some specific fashion, but they are qualified to question the logical (and often ethical) inferences that scientists must make when they utilize their models to solve a practical social/technical problem outside of the laboratory. What you are missing is that serious academic philosophers, by and large, leave science to scientists because they are not interested in solving scientific questions.
It is the scientists who have difficulty "staying in their lane", so to speak.
@@pranav_vijayan So in other words, philosophers of science needed to change from being the scientists, to supporting science, in order to stay relevant. I get that, if you can't make the team anymore, you become a coach or equipment manager, as a fall back, while still being "in the game". A team can't operate without those support people. It's just that they aren't the ones winning the games anymore, that's the job of the players, I mean scientists.
@@sevilnatas I am not sure where your fascination with demonstrating the superiority of natural scientists and diminishing the achievements of humanities scholars is coming from. If the natural scientists were so far superior than the philosophers of science as you are claiming they are, this fact would be self-evident. The very fact that this continues to be discussed shows it is clearly not the case.
Your analogy of philosophers of science "not being able to make the team" is wrong, and frankly insulting to humanities scholars. These two camps are not competing for the same job as your analogy would posit - a point made evident by my previous post. Additionally, a cursory study of the history of philosophy will show you that modern scientists are simply descendants of early "natural philosophers" (such as Avicenna, Aristotle, and many Chinese and Indian scholars). What we see today as modern science *is* natural philosophy in the strictest sense. The divide you are seeing between natural philosophers and modern day scientists is not as wide as you think it is.
Philosophers of science, on the other hand, are closer to epistemologists than they are to natural philosophers - this is because the natural philosophers of old *became* today's scientists. The job of a philosopher of science is to understand the context under which, and the method by which, scientific knowledge can be produced. It is not their job to produce that knowledge; philosophers of science understand this, and that is why they leave question of natural science to the natural scientists.
While I agree with you that support staff are necessary to enable "players" to "win the game" when it comes to sports, I disagree that there is a game being played here in the first place. Natural scientists and philosophers of science are not seeking to "win" anything because academia is not a competition - it is a fundamentally cooperative process by which knowledge is cultivated through rigorous testing and peer review. It is foolish to suggest that recent technological advancement pushed forward by natural scientists makes the achievements of those who study the underlying theory behind how scientific knowledge can be generated and/or implement irrelevant.
@@pranav_vijayan tldr, let me ask you one question. Are you a scientist or.....?
In creative and media industries there's the concept of 'ideas guys' who have big ideas and if they have money will try to fund them but never want to put work into the execution. This sounds similar but for science
This is totally false. You have obviously never worked in the private sector. Most of those “idea guys” were formerly the genius engineers. The problem is that engineers are capped out at around 150k per year, so most of the good engineers go into business after engineering. Of course when they are designing huge ideas they will not do trivial matters such as engineering; that’s the field they retired from. Rather, they focus on the design process.
Buckley an intellectual, lol
A truly smart person knows their limits.
Intelligent doesn’t mean they don’t want money. It just means they know exactly what they’re doing
This Amy clown's advice really be: "power up like a Super Saiyan and workplace harassment solved" LMAO
I hope as Hasan gains popularity, he doesn’t become more of a thought leader. If he’s acute aware of it, then I think he can keep his integrity even if he profits a lot from twitch.
A science communicator and an entrepeneur. There's no genius there.
My sister who is a doctor was trying to figure out how to turn off the skylight in her bathroom
this is so hilarious, I rememember when they were trying to come up with an alternative to "thought leader" before it had solidified. Also as a 72in cis dude bro power poses work well for me. Fake it till you make it!
that burn at the end oof
i love that "public intellectuals" was said over contrapoints followed by JBP
I'm smarter than all the smart people I disagree with. - hasan piker
Watch the last part of the video. 😁😁😁
take a shot every time hasan says self-help
Solid theories come from years of research. People become popular with one theory or discovery, which took a long time to come to, and are pressed to come out with theories in a couple months (or less). That’s why they seem to get stupid. Nothing good comes from a month or two to discover some grand new truth
i liek the part what she say dark souls
This just says that even these prestigious public intellectuals don't look sh*t up properly.
In their defense, I don't think Wisecrack interprets the term "public intellectual" to have anything to do with how smart they are. It is more about the influence your ideas have on other people, than the content of these ideas themselves. I have no problem with calling even Rush Limbaugh a public intellectual. It isn't a compliment, it's a neutral term.
hehehe, that guy at the end who tried to slam dunk him by saying he's attractive xD
my exes uncle wrote a book with Neil and he said that Neil was annoying and cringe 😭
He is pretty self-centered, he likes to hear himself speak and therefore interrupts A LOT in interviews and podcasts. But in general I do like listening to him.
Hank parker big fan love your videos!
technical intelligence isn't much without emotional intelligence, but it's easier to be respected and rise to the top if you only care for yourself and exploit others. also many "intellectuals" are just seen that way because of their power and the way they assert themselves
100% also technical intelligence in one area does not equal technical intelligence in ALL areas and fields like some public figures present it as prime example jordon Peterson’s idiotic descent into politics
Whenever you’re wrong you use the joe Rogan excuse. “I’m just a dumb guy I don’t know better”
@5:06 is that Azooni? The middle cartoon chararacter on the right of the video that pops up.
I was part of the production for the WORLDZ event. Been a fan since.
Hazan: "NO they're not talking about me! I admit I'm dumb all the time!
Hazan 5 minutes later: "Yes of course I know what these are I've been invited to them. I've spoken at events like this.
No one says Dark Souls like that....
lol, IKR...AMy Cudi is the GOAT she helped mad fools crush mad dark souls
The quicker you realize you don't know anything the better
Elon musk isnt a scientist, hea a salesman with a great marketing and research department
That fucking Dark Souls comparison was a direct assault at Azan.
"Intellectuals" are ppl, ppl are motivated by easy money, social media is an easy way to make money from clout, clout is composed of the masses, the masses are of average intelligence, therefore "intellectuals" have to become influencers to make easy money by dumbing down their ideas for the masses who comprise the majority of social media clout.
Dunn-Kruger effect.
Neal Tyson makes his bread by blowing normies minds by telling them stuff astrophysicists learn in 7th grade. Also he hasnt said anything Carl Sagan hasnt said decades before him.
True. I think that's a symptom of the failure of the education system more than anything.
you made it ! how exciting !
Intelligence is 4 basic categories, recognizing spatial/angles, learning relate, keeping it in, and visual stuff. Those make up in. There is also emotional intelligence in how a person can read to people and get their views acrosss to others. Also smart people seek to learn constantly while dumb people think they know all the answers and will never see a different point, i for one admit I do not know everything, I never will. But I would rather be honest with myself that way than try to bull shit others on everything.
When he talks about Elon saying corona will be over by April, and you realize he meant last year
You must have good ass internet you are able to upload a shit ton of videos a hour 🔥🔥
Hardworking happiness. Not exactly self help but explains how the biology if the brain effects r day to day and how to recognize and correct them.
There’s a book called SHAM by Steve Salerno it’s an expose of the self help industry
36:13 OMFG! Andrew Breitbart! 🤣🤣🤣
Just read book and no phone lmao smh 🤦♂️
When Hassan goes mask off with the commenters trying to own lol
27:28 Congrats to Hasan and chat.
Wisecrack: Jan 1 is a good, new disruptive idea
dont be diluted LMAO
Pog Twitch Streamer 😲
😮 XQCL?
Poggers 😲
Off-topic, but does anyone know who the woman at 4:10 is? I'm already 100% committed to copying her amazing hair when I'm old, but I'd like to know who she is.
the former pm of the uk is currently earning hundreds of thousands of pounds on the lecture circuit. boris is also apparently jealous of her and thinking of doing this as well after resigning in spring because his current salary (£150k) isn't enough
I make stuff with legos well he does live in London xd
Giving me the vibes of Chappelle after his new special came out
I could make self defeat books if you need
The reason smart people will seem dumb sometimes is because... they're people. People think with their emotions first, logic follows after. That's literally how we work, and that's why some people will come up with false beliefs off stupid assumptions just so that it can fit with their emotions.
Yes people are fallible. The problem comes when people think that their ideas aren't. This comes from ego. Take any smart and give them enough ego and you will get an idiot because they are blinded to their fallibility and they can't distinguish between their good and bad ideas. We are all wrong about so many things. The key is to realize when we are right and when we are wrong. The key to being intellectual is legitimate humility. The key to being wrong is overconfidence.
It's hilarious how especially relevant this video is 2 years later with regards to Elon Musk