@@oscardemola1295 Joe's audience also used to say the same thing when his podcast was on UA-cam. His comment sections accused him of guest pandering & flip flopping for years
It just shows that they don’t listen to JRE regularly. Which is fine of course…..but then maybe don’t make a whole UA-cam video about it as if you knew dick about shit
The problem is that Joe’s show wasn’t built for what it has become. It was supposed to be a show where he can mess around with friends and talk to interesting people about varying ideas. He didn’t have to worry about “platforming idiots” or giving them level consideration with the experts because it wasn’t a big show and it clearly wasn’t meant to be taken seriously or spread a message. But now that it’s the biggest podcast there is, he unintentionally finds himself in a position where having a whack job on (which was just good fun before) now actually risks denigrating the opinions of the actual experts he has on his show and making their opinions seem equally valid. The solution to this can’t be to change his show’s format to that of a formal rigorous interview - then it wouldn’t be the JRE anymore. So the solution can only be to frequently make this caveat and make sure everyone is on the same page about what’s going on here, and highlight the difference between his fringe whack job guests that he’s having on for fun, and the more serious people that are actual experts in their fields
I think it's more about being open to ideas that challenge others and discerning them from there. it's okay to have "crazy people" on bc that's an objective opinion, not a factual observation. JRE is probably the only place you'll find such diverse amounts of people which can help to actual logical discussions. Crazy people listen to other normal news channels like CNN,FOX, or The View.
OR... Rogan can take some responsibility for what his show has become and the harm it is doing, and think about how he can change things. A caveat or disclamer is not going to be sufficient for most people because the morons Rogan has on often make very convincing arguments on the surface, despite not being supported by evidence, reality, science, etc.
@@suttonszoke7566 Discussion happens when opposing viewpoints meet, not if you quietly nod along. I dunno if Rogan usually features several people in one episode who get to debate their opposing viewpoints but as far as I'm aware he usually has one guest and let's them say their piece largely unchallenged. @Elim Garak Exactly, if I somehow found myself in charge of a nation I wouldn't excuse my ineptitude by saying "I really just wanted to run for the homeowner's association". I'd either take the responsibility that comes with the office or step off.
@bingly bingler He is part of the society, and his actions hurt it, hurt other people, and lead to a worse outcome for everyone. Who is responsible if not him? He is a public personality who is hurting other people through his action and inaction. E.g. by his idiotic COVID statements, Rogan has likely caused the deaths of thousands of people. Giving every wrong idea under the sun the same exposure without even pointing out that these ideas may be dumb, are unsupported by all the experts, and without encouraging a robust debate is guaranteeing the spread of the dumber and simpler ideas among the more gullible people.
The beauty of the JRE is the variability of ideas and opinions. Through his podcast i have listened to people i don't like or would give the time of day but when im at work and they are on his podcast, ill listen and gain some perspective. I find it refreshing to hear the ideas of a far leftist one day and a far rightwing person the next and hear Joe interject and even calmly argue with them while still allowing them to express their opinions and flesh out their ideas. I think people all to often surround themselves with like minded individuals with likewise world views so listening to outside perspectives and actually considering the weight of their words builds a more nuanced and considerate mind capable of considering where those people are coming from weather they are right or wrong. The challenge as a listener is you are offered a buffet of ideas that extends the opportunity for us to broaden our mental flavor palate, or you could just choose the same thing every time if you like, the point is you now have the option.
I also think they give the scientific community too much credit which makes joe an "outsider" folks these days are losing trust in universities and corporatized circles of science.
Speaking to Wisecrack, I'm excited to see epistemology actually being discussed, but I don't think you're applying it correctly here. Trying to understand somebody's opinions and perspectives, both expert and otherwise, without immediate or significant challenge is not the same thing as accepting it as true. I suspect you are arguing from a conclusion on Rogan rather than towards one (ironic given your evoking of epistemological vices). If Rogan is too credulous simply because he let's his guests present their opinion with little pushback, we shouldn't read opinion based books, because there's no way for the reader to challenge the author and editors' perspective, bias, or agenda. The way you describe credulity stands in opposition to curiosity and humility being epistemological virtues. We don't have to buy what someone is selling simply because we listened to the pitch. That said, I think you're onto something with the concept of two mainstreams. By any useful definition, I agree you have to call Joe Rogan "mainstream" at this point, and even though you didn't outright say it, I think we could agree that he's the epicenter of that new mainstream. I know the purpose of this video wasn't to discuss why that's happening, but I don't think you can really explain the Joe Rogan phenomenon without it. You tacitly acknowledged that the gatekeeping process of the old mainstream doesn't always work that well, and I think that's the key reason this new mainstream is breaking out. Whether true or not, there's a growing perception that that gatekeeping is increasingly functioning contrary to its supposed purpose. Interestingly, Wisecrack explored something like that in the news media landscape a couple of years ago and more or less suggested it might be a good thing as long as we become a bit more incredulous of it (ua-cam.com/video/YRkkkxZZpAc/v-deo.html). All of that aside, I would like to see Wisecrack explore more epistemology, because I do think it's a topic that isn't explored enough in our culture. A good topic that's somewhat relevant to this would be the evaluation of expertise. More specifically, how can a non-expert identify an expert? How do our biases cause us to misidentify experts? And why are we only not blind to it when we see other people make those mistakes?
So how would you interpret the epistemology regarding Joe Rogan? You don't explain an alternative viewpoint opposing that Rogan is credulous, just saying that you disagree. It would be interesting to hear your interpretation.
Comparing a podcast to a book, ignoring the point of the video while focusing on a minor side detail, pretending to have an intellectual discussion with a youtube channel from the comment section. All in all, really great representation of a joe rogan viewer. You masterfully captured the attempt of intellectual facade, droning on and on with smart sounding adjectives. You even talked broadly so as to move the focus of discussion to be so vague that the discussion no longer holds any more importance than a couple of stoned losers talking in a garage. Like, you realize you went off on a tangent all on your own right? That the video is going a different way? That the entire thesis of the video was about how joe rogan causes controversy? They gave several examples, then examined them to show how rogan's podcast mirrors a movement of proud ignorance.
The way wisecrack portrayed the bill burr clip is exactly why ppl trust Rogan more... Bill was making fun of Rogan, basically saying that he doesn't know more than doctors.
This is a great example of gut thinking and stopping there. That, and "tu quoque". The clips with Burr and the doctor are to compare and contrast *Rogan's behavior*, not the quality of guests on the show. If Wisecrack really wanted to make a dig at Burr they would've omitted the part where he reacts harshly to Rogan's flippant tone about masks. As for "tu quoque", you avoid the valid point of Rogan promoting anti-intellectualism and instead attack what you perceive to be a mischaracterization of Burr. And another thing, this isn't about people trusting Rogan, this is about Rogan, at best, accidentally taking a chainsaw to an integral pillar of our complex, modern civilization.
@Blaergh it would seem, politically, I'm on your side in general, but you've got this wrong. Wisecrack is great, but they actually did a voice over that paints Burr as being anti-mask when the clip plays. Go back, listen to it - when the clips of the doctor and Bill Burr play, he'll contextualize Burr as being anti-mask. Yes it is true that Rogan is pernicious for society for all the reasons outlined in this video and overall I like it as I do like all the Wisecrack stuff. I'm not however going to sit here and watch you try to gaslight this person over what they're correctly observing. It's okay to admit a small mistake was made. Like me for instance, I used to enjoy Rogans podcast exactly because of the "earnest goofball talks to smart people" vibe. Now I see I was reveling in the fall of western civilization. Oh wait. 😅 "Tu Quogue" jeez, I learned a new one today. I like this concept, but I don't think you used it right.
The idea that a single mistake, among an overall premise that is correct, could drive someone to a source that makes mistakes far more often, is odd. Very odd.
I haven’t listened to Joe much since the Spotify deal, but I do remember him saying that he trusts his listeners to not take what is said on the podcast at face value and to come to their own conclusions independently. Because of the constant ideological bombardment that makes up a large portion of how we spend our time (mainly social media), that’s an important skill to have but unfortunately it seems like fewer and fewer people actually have it. I don’t think anyone expected Joe to be as influential as he is now, especially Joe
Problem is that he mixes experts with big opinions and it's a stupidly extreme idea to think that in Democracy, freedom of speech means freedom from value. Quite the contrary, value is independent of the system you have and there will always be people whose voices we deserve to hear and who deserve to be shunned. He's elevating common morons and denigrating the experts
@@neo2419912 that's a bit of an overreaction. Do you honestly believe what you're saying? You don't have to reply to me, just try to suspend your biases
@@thesuperfluousman816 Yeah, everyone whos been critiquing him believes in the critique. Take a moment and ask yourself, why is a significant portion of the online population saying this. You dont have to respond, just look inside.
Man, that Nichols quote really expressed something I've been unable to put into words. There's this idea that every opinion has equal weight even if it's ridiculous.
Hearing both sides out used to be common decency and important to getting the full picture. Talking-point spewing propagandists exploit that expectation to put feelings on equal footing with facts, unproven nonsense with real problems. If some delicious scandal plays to my bias i go "That's hillarious! How do they back up their claim?" and soon enough the writer will have shown what they suggest should convince me and based on what.
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge'. - Isaac Asimov
People also seem to forget that opinions aren't "whatever I personally believe about any given thing." They must be, by definition, personal, and most likely unverifiable in any meaningful sense. "Vanilla ice cream is the best flavor." - Largely unfalsifiable as written, but research can be done into general popularity of different flavors, how much of each is sold, etc., to come to some sort of scientific conclusion. "My favorite flavor of ice cream is vanilla." - You do you, boo. Live your truth.
I agree with you. However, on a related note, it's important to acknowledge that any opinion can be wrong. Our perception of reality itself is based on a philosophical leap of faith. Therefore any facts, opinions, laws, observations, or any other mental model we have can always be proven wrong. None of your opinions are universally true. Essentially, be humble. Alternatively, hate everyone and yourself (this is me unfortunately 😂)
I would point out one thing that seems to have been missed in all of this (with respect to intellectualism), and that's *RECENT* history. Faith in mainstream media, and the "experts" they often roll out, has been thoroughly eroded by at least two the same epistemological vices mentioned toward the end... namely, intellectual dishonesty and dogmatism (9/11, the 2008 crash, a general tendency toward hyping things up to make a larger story, blatant favoritism toward the wealthy & status-quo, etc.). An unsurprising consequence of that is growing swathes of people looking for alternative sources for information & news. That is where you will run into issues of people's distrust of "experts:" they don't really know what would constitute a real expert, or how to discern the differences between them, thanks to years of negligence from our education system and the media. But a person acting as a source of information "feels" like the same kind of expert main stream media would tout as an "expert," then those looking for fresh sources of info will have a knee-jerk "nope" response. Framing it like this, it makes the credulity issue you mentioned easier to understand. The atmosphere Joe Rogan creates makes it much easier for his audience to "accept" those on interview... regardless of whether they're a good source of information or not.
adding onto this, it really is a matter of confidence and clarity Experts who know their field inside and out and are intellectually honest can say very little about the cutting edge issues with certainty. Those who claim to be experts but are peddling nonsense can speak with absolute confidence because they either dont know how silly it could look in retrospect once more information comes out, or they just have abandoned intellectual honesty in general and dont care if they're wrong as long as they rope in new followers now. this difference makes it really easy for misinformation machines to get a foothold in many people's minds, as they will sound way more correct to people with little understanding because they talk confidently, as though they already have the answer, as opposed to actual experts who will put a lot of caveats in their speech to honestly express the nuance to their position.
In the first two minutes you could have predicted that he would paint everything in the worst light. Wisecrack is a political channel not a philosophical one.
@@laniefeleski7288 What you mean the bright t-shirt, the hat, the beard, the pale skin is all to make the Wisecrack font of wisdom appear appealing to a demographic of impressionable minds that are unable to separate out the subtext of the channel, it's semiotic influence, and the political messages they'll unwittingly absorb through subtle covert means? No surely not! Not Wisecrack? They're philosophers, not a psuedo-marxist psyop pretending to care about humanist values, liberalism, and the elevation of human consciousness through an unbiased exploration of various ideas. Why they're clearly just nerdy, post-modernists with liberal arts degrees and a need to deconstruct everything into categories and power struggles, so that they can make sure that the proletariats know exactly what they should repeat and who precisely the bad people are... Where's the harm in that? 😁
You misrepresented Burr's comments, but like if someone takes Burr's advice over an epidemiologist then that's on them, not Rogan. Also there are many view that he holds emphatically, he isn't as much the chameleon you paint him out to be honestly.
" [...] if someone takes Burr's advice over an epidemiologist then that's on them, not Rogan." According to the video it is. Mainly because on the show he puts these two opinions at the same face value, side by side in the premisse that "all opinions are worth the same", but unfortunatley this is not the case.
I personally think he’s a bigger chameleon than what they paint him to be. One of the biggest red flags for rogan is he’s friends with Alex Jones. And even excused him for the sandy hook incident. Alex Jones also preys on his ignorant viewers to get them to buy bullshit products for 3-4 times regular prices. An honest good person couldn’t be friends with someone like that.
@@greaterthanharrowk1679 Well. At first glance I agree with this. I think this is "obvious" to us because we kind of live in a bubble where education is a thing and we can make better judgment for ourselves. But considering the millions of view he gets, I bet that a very significant portion of those won't have the "patience" to think through all the repercussions of their opinions.Considering the amount of influence he gets, I remembered that classic: with great power comes great responsability. But yeah, I also think he has the right to talk with anyone anyway he wants and post this online. There's nothingh inherently wrong with this aswell. Hence the debate.
Saying the root of the problem is that Joe does not want to engage in rigorous debate is missing the point of the podcast me thinks. The whole point is him just having conversations with people, he does not bring people on to get angry and have arguments. To be honest over the last few years I have found less and less of the guests interesting so I do not listen much but when a guest is on that I like I listen cause I appreciate the positive, constructive conversations not combative arguments.
You're assuming all arguments are inherently combative. Intellectual arguments, the ones he claims to have but, like in the video, someone like Socrates actually had, are when two people challenge a viewpoint or challenge one another's viewpoints to reach some sort of solution or compromise. And they do this all at a conversational level, no yelling. Rogan just let's his guests yammer on with whatever topic they want and he goads them along. In my opinion, as someone who also used to listen to his show years ago, any time he had someone on who really knew their shit or are experts in their field Rogan came off as a person who really wanted to ask the "big" questions but couldn't keep up with the answers the more involved the conversation would get. Then he started to have more controversial guests on and he would just let them spin their yarn and seemed much more comfortable letting them take him for a ride than pushing back in the slightest, even if he disagreed with them. The problem with Rogan isn't his approach to the platform, the fact that he is capable of bringing so many different guests is kind of amazing, but it's that he is an intellectually lazy dude with the biggest microphone on the planet.
@@0909shaggy He brings a new thought to the table, and then allows the viewers to have the argument themselves in their heads, that's what I like about the show. Joe Rogan is not a talented debater, and when he does debate it generally just derails into him calling the other person stupid and then saying agree to disagree, but what he is talented at is helping people talk through and strengthen their viewpoints in order to present them in the most intellectually honest way possible. The issue with this video is that it assumes that Joe Rogan's viewers follow him like a cult leader, when in reality we don't really care about what he thinks, and most Joe Rogan viewers that I know can list off plenty of things that they don't like about the guy. What we care about isn't what he has to say on a subject, it's his supernatural ability to bring out the best version of what others believe on a subject.
Joe Rogan had the CNN doctor for 3 hours, and the guy could not make a convincing argument about anything, and had to fold like a chair when pressed about the horse medicine. So maybe, just maybe, if your VIEWS and OPINIONS can't handle a simple critizims, maybe is time to recondider them.
Can I just say that the sound effects are really annoying if you try to listen to this in the background. Or do you possibly have audio-only publications of your work, because that being said, I really enjoy your content a lot :)
I personally share Joe's curiosity of other people's viewpoints regardless of factual backing. I see that there is an issue with how he presents this, but still I also like just listening to what other people think. I don't like to challenge people's arguments head on but will ask them to explain deeper, then I might later check on the factual accuracy of what either of us said. I just like to listen to other people and what they think, especially if I don't agree with them as it challenges me to examine my own beliefs and values. But again, I see the issue with an informal discussion like Rogan's podcast being spread and presented as a source of valid information rather than an intellectual exercise
The central thesis of this video is that it’s fine to “hear people out” but the the biggest difference between being curious and being gullible is the ability to discern the truth from the opinion; and discern the conspiracy theory or the lie. What makes Rogan dangerous isn’t that he brings conspiracy theorists, professional liars, and fringe scientists on his show with similar frequency as actual experts and well-intentioned rational people. The reason Rogan is dangerous is that he never fully engages in the way that you describe that you do. Rogan may occasionally ask a smart follow-up question but he doesn’t (or doesn’t often enough) seek to find truth and expose falsities in the same way that a true scientist or journalist does. In presenting all viewpoints as equally gray in a world where black and white also exist, Rogan allows his listeners to cherry-pick which “truths” to believe in the same way that a demagogue does, this is dangerous.
@@jeffreycarman2185 Those who desire to cherry pick will cherry pick. To adopt or discard an idea is the responsibility of the viewer. Rogan doesn't have mind control.
@@jeffreycarman2185 You are acting like joe rogans listeners are little children. Its not joe rogans job do deciede what people believe its the individuals.
@Jeffrey Carman his role is to have conversations he finds interesting and explore other peoples ideas, imagine getting this big at what you do without knowing your role 🤦🏽♂️
I believe exactly how this video portrays the importance of professional expert knowledge but I disagree with so much of this video. I don't think Rogan is ever trying to be some sort of thought leader of common sense. They say it themselves he let's people speak their mind in a divided political climate where people don't listen to eachother and he makes mistakes because he's just a person a comedian at that not a specialist. Im not even a fan of the podcast or listen much but I can respect how much we need this sort of thing right now. I think I understand where they are coming from but I also see why people gravitate towards a platform where both sides are heard somewhat equally when we're in a place where that's seemingly impossible. He admits he's wrong and makes silly mistakes because of the reasons yall describe but I mean should he shut everything down bc of this I don't really think so.
Of all the comments this I agree with the most. The podcast gives a platform to a lot of questionable people, but so can a box in the corner of the street. The responsibility is on the listener to choose which people to listen to. From what I have heard on the show, Rogan is genuinely well-meaning meathead and I respect that.
Accepting an expert's opinion at face value requires credulity. Challenging an expert to explain their opinion helps us wrap our minds around why they might be trustworthy, even when a detailed explanation might be above our heads.
I don't think anyone should be challenging an expert unless they have a strong fundamental understanding of that topic or an expert themselves. How do you know what question to ask? How do you know if these "experts" know what they're talking about? If you don't have a fundamental understanding of the topic, how do you critique a person's explanation of their work?
@@Dave_of_Mordor Keep in mind that challenging doesn't necessarily mean critiquing. It might simply mean asking for an explanation that will provide that fundamental understanding, seeing if the explanation sounds plausible, looking to see if there's any information contrary to that explanation, seeing if that contrary information is plausible, etc. The challenge might also be based understanding factors that might bias an expert. An expert working for an oil company decades ago might say that leaded gasoline is safe for the environment. An expert working for the tobacco industry years ago might say something similar about tobacco. An "expert" writing for "Answers in Genesis" might say the theory of evolution is fundamentally flawed. Some mostly-well-meaning experts may be biased against admitting mistakes, because they're human, and humans have a tendency to want to cover their asses. Experts might also give the truth if they think people might not handle the truth. Sometimes, it's simply being wrong - even the smartest and most well meaning among us make mistakes. There's a variety of reasons why someone regarded as an expert may be wrong, regardless of their actual expertise and biases. We need to avoid cases were those declared experts are simply unchallenged because they are called experts. We can't be familiar with every field, and we do have to some degree rely on experts in various fields, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be afraid to challenge them. When we do, trying to gain knowledge about their areas of expertise certainly helps, but challenging them for explanations can be a starting point. If they truly are experts and what they're saying isn't bent by bias, they should welcome the challenge, at least if they have the bandwidth to do so. And if they make an honest mistake, they should welcome any correction.
@@Dave_of_Mordor Listening and believing what you hear are two different things right? Since i cannot trust my common sense and personal judgement all the time as I am no expert, is it wrong to check alternative opinions apart from experts? Now I am confused. :(
@@rowdyriemer This is late and I didn’t see your comment in my notification, but how do you know if something is plausible or biased, especially if it comes to something that require fundamental understanding like climate change and the covid virus? You gave a lot of examples below and they all require the questioners to understand the basic understanding first. I’m sorry but I completely disagree with you on this
I find this assessment lacking. Primarily, the critique on the basis of credulity. The argument made being that Rogan presents a litany of guests with a variety of viewpoints that are given equal weighting. We live in an era with the greatest access to the widest number of perspectives, which are generally not equally informed. For example, this channel shares the platform UA-cam with any number of flat-earth or YEC channels. UA-cam offers equal access to any of this content which places the content on equal footing. This isn’t particularly new either, the same applies to all books in a library. The argument implies that there is a responsibility upon the curator of content on behalf of the individual (whom is too ignorant and inept to responsibly consume content with discernment). This is counterproductive, as eschewing the role of the individual in epistemological discernment in favor of placing greater onus on content curators to filter information attacks the wrong end of the problem. Put more simply, by placing more emphasis on the role of “experts” and less emphasis on the role of “laypersons,” we achieve no impact on the new media landscape as it is innately a bottom up structure that puts all sorts of content on equal footing. As long as this variety of content is accessible on every device in the modern home, the problem will be whether individuals are educated to navigate this new landscape with skepticism. Listening isn’t the same as believing, but arguing on a basis of credulity implies the argument that people are sheep that are easily led to narratives, which only lends further credence to skepticism of popular narratives and generates things like the aforementioned flat-earth narrative. Better than arguing that people are sheeps who need good shepherds, better we should effort that individuals need the tools to lead themselves by identifying nonsense that isn’t worth further consideration for lack of epistemological merit.
Which brings the focus imo to pedagogy in the “Information Age”. How do we as a society train our offspring to deal with this unprecedented situation we are in? Do we upheld the institutions of learning we build way before the internet was even thinkable?
@@tillwarzecha7230 that’s not an easy question to answer, as it is easier to identify things that are not solutions than things that are. Bad ideas are more interesting and more convincing when one has never heard of them before than when one has seen them properly rebutted. If you want to decrease the number of flat earthers and young earth creationists, deplatforming discussion on the topic *might* be effective, but it also leaves people un-inoculated to the idea and places the onus to debunk the idea on them since avenues for fair discussion on the topic are not available. Moreover, the effort of removing such misinformation affords it credence by validating the idea of conspiracy because “they don’t want you to know this” becomes true. Good light alone doesn’t get rid of roaches, but it makes it harder for them to breed in the dark.
I’m concerned with the school system primarily. How do teachers react to the fact that their role is severely undermined in this new situation. That they still have to present “official knowledge” to kids who can access endless spectacle anytime, anywhere.
And he often throws number 2 out the window. Like when he was proven wrong by a primatologist and then he got mad and made some sexist comments. For more: ua-cam.com/video/LQCbT49VTTE/v-deo.html
So, just to make sure I'm understanding this correctly: Hearing someone out and allowing the viewer to make up their own mind in a sea of conflicting voices is a bad thing?
Depending on who the guest is and what they are saying. Think of it like if he had Hitler on and let him spout all his disgusting ideologies to the masses while Joe sits there and goes "hmm yeah...right uhh sure" not stopping or opposing him. Extreme example and what the video is saying Joe essentially allows everyone to always say whatever unopposed equally so the audience can misconstrue what is good and what's harmful ultimately
@@Ekim2F94 The Hitler argument. I'm guessing you picked that name not for what he actually said, but of what he's done along with what he said. Hitler was spewing government propoganda and killed millions. Just focus on the actions of all the people Rogan has had on, and tell me what the worst actions were committed by the guests
@@Mike-sp7zv it was an extreme example to help illustrate the point nobody's committed what he did but the core idea of spreading bad unchallenged information is what iwas trying to draw out the videos musings
If you have to explore Rogan through a philosophical lens IMO the most relevant one would be the liberal democratic tradition of valuing open discourse and dialectic discussion in good faith.
@@DavidHeffron78 you're subscribed to Bernie Sanders, Trevor Noah, "beta boys," and more. You didn't or choose not to comprehend the comment you originally replied to. Edit: also Stephen colbert, vausch, Thom Hartmann. You live in an echo chamber of ideas and entertainment escapism
Charles: On the contrary, most mainstream media (Fox News-the most mainstream of all-excepted) interview the most vetted and well-known experts. You can choose to see Fauci in whatever way you please, but you cannot deny his stellar experience and credentials. He is the epitome of an expert. Many of the people Rogan has on his show are just confident charismatics with poor or non-existent credentials and experience in the relevant subject matter.
@@BruceHurley Appeal to authority for the sake of authority is dangerous and wrong. For example smoking companies in the 1950s lobbied and had top American scientists create bullshit studies saying cigarettes did not harm lungs. Just because someone has credentials does not mean jack shit because they are still humans who can make mistakes or can be corrupted. I don't have a hard on hatred of Fauci but the man is clearly more of government bureaucrat who will say what is the politically correct opinion on the pandemic at the current moment in time and radically flip-flop on core basic facts rather than telling people the cold truth that nobody had a fucking clue what was going on. Just now are virologists starting to get a grasp of this virus(spreads airborne not just respiratory droplets so cloth/surgical masks do not work) or how the current covid vaccines actually work(effective at disease severity poor at stopping transmission).
It is a fallacy…but many people believe what they believe because they hear it from Joe Rogan and co without diving into the actual body of study that has an evidentiary basis. That’s also a fallacy. Unfortunately, scientific communication simply cannot be perfectly argumentatively sound. Why? Because unfortunately, that’s just not how people absorb information. Experts in a specialized field or people speaking on behalf of them with greater communication skills have a greater chance of leading into better bodies of study than a podcaster citing an video essayist citing a news article citing an untrained interpretation or sometimes completely erroneous and biased interpretation of a study. It isn’t perfect, but it’s better than other alternatives.
@@hailbane9633: Those are some good points. I don't think it's an appeal to authority for the sake of authority, but rather an appeal to the source most likely to have the best information. You can dismiss Fauci by calling him a bureaucrat, but he is probably the most qualified epidemiologist in the country. I hear all the theories about why we shouldn't listen to him, but none of them make sense. What is his incentive for encouraging people to wear masks if he didn't think that was a good idea? The truth is that their information was changing all the time and therefore their recommendations were changing. That's the definition of good science. Now, if he had held a hard line on everything and refused to change despite the evidence, that would be a valid reason to criticize him. It's not that experts are always right but that they are far more likely to be right than non-experts. Joe Rogan has described himself as a non-expert, and in fact it's his M.O. to be just a regular guy asking questions, but yet he specifically said in one episode that if a healthy 21 year old came up to him and asked if he should get a vaccine, that Joe would tell him no. He has no business sharing those kinds of opinions when he knows how much his audience trusts and believes him. It's dangerous and irresponsible. Ditto for trotting out fringe theorists and assigning them the same credibility as true experts. I think it's a good thing that he provides a venue for out of the box perspectives, but he has to frame them correctly so that the average person isn't conflating those perspectives with real science. Thanks for your comment!
Absolutely right! Thank you for pointing that one out. Wisecrack saying this in the first minute of the video made me question the quality of their research and what kind of bias they have.
I think Rogan is hard to pin down bc his biggest strength is his biggest issue. Which is he talks to pretty much anyone as if this is a private and casual conversation between friends. So it connects to people in a personal way, but at the same time means he generally isnt confrontational on subjects. Generally when you talk to your friends you are not verbally attacking them if you disagree. So if he is feeling the guest in a positive way he generally is not confrontational and humors them. If he isnt jiving with them he then gets a bit more combative. So it it really tough to really know where he stands. My one complaint is his whole “I am just a guy talking shit”. Naw… you are self aware enough to understand you took a crazy amount of money and have a vast base of ppl. Lets not act like you are just some dude in a basement. The level of influence and money you have means you will get criticism. Cant have it both ways
Yeah on face value JRE is a cool idea, just get a bunch of people and have them talk. Rogan just doesn't take responsibility for the things said on the podcast. Maybe something like a fact checker or someone more confrontational to play off Rogan could help
Here's the thing, that all works well an good "in theory", but in practice, how far do you extend it? If Joe Rogan suddenly decides to have a nice fire side chat with Nazis calling for the extermination of a portion of the population and does his "haha, yeah I see your point" routine, is it still worth listening to now that we are long past knowing that this isn't a point worth listening to? Heck, we don't even have to mention Nazis. Let's talk flat earthers. Do we really need to hear a flat earthers talk a bunch of flat earth talking points anymore and have a platform where they can do so with a host going "haha, yeah I see your point"?
@@Lunch_Meatagree with you. He isn't respecting the impact of his platform to dumb down the national discourse when he has the power and ability to do the exact opposite.
the podcast has always been just a dude talkin' shit. occasionally it gets serious, but it's an informal podcast. it doesn't matter how many people are listening. it all started as a couple friends in a basement and not much has changed. people take JRE way too seriously these days, it's just a conversation.
@@asdf52708 Got to disagree some. Things change. As time has gone on Joe likes to speak out of both sides of his mouth. When he wants to shield himself his is just a guy not claiming to be an expert. When he wants to be aggressive he points out that he has more views than places like CNN and they are the joke. At one point he even bragged that he is basically the mainstream media now. You cant have it both ways. You cant take a 200 million dollar deal, brag about your reach being larger than traditional media and then when critiqued act like you are just a mom and pop show barely making in on public radio.
Socrates being forced to drink hemlock for being a heretic tells me you would likely have made this exact same video in his time since it would have been the most profitable perspective in Greek ethos at the time. Humans have such a hard time allowing other humans to use judgment for some reason.
Let's face it, society either burns witches or poisons philosophers. That's the extremes. Any nuance, any attempt to look at things from a macro perspective is not allowed. The zeitgeist and "the message" is all that's permitted.
I like that you pointed out the fact that he gives people that the corporate media not only ignore but sometimes vilify a platform to speak, for example edward snowden who is a fugitive for letting the american people know about the unconstitutional personal data collecting by government agencies such as the nsa. I have enjoyed and been enlightened by so many of his podcast and the fact he has such varied guest and lets them speak so freely is exactly why i enjoy them so much.
@@JayV98 And that's the point. Joe doesn't tell you what to think. He has people on tje show, gets them comfy, let's their mask fall off, and what you see is the genuine person and whether their words hold truth, or whether like Mark Zuckerberg you're just a lying corporate shill. Joe doesn't have a philosophy, he just talks, tries to understand the person in front of him. It's on the viewer to decide what to make of who he interviews.
@@angryherbalgerbil but he does. He obviously isn't a neutral party offering a public forum to everyone equally, he is a person with his biases and ultimately financial interests at heart. He obviously took a non-neutral position on vaccines. Alternatively the philosophy he tries to emmulate is radical centrism where he will try to pick the middleground on every issue. They pretty much nail it when they say Joe Rogan's show pursues the mantra of we believe all truths to be self evident.
@@georgigeorgiev891 so what. A politicians has his own interest and still tell truth. If ı montly have million dollar of wage, i still think capitalism sucks.
He seems pretty secure in his masculinity so yeah, I stopped listening to most episodes because I hate spotify. But what kind of macho insecure "I'm a MAAIIIN!!!" man would allow countless videos of himself crying be up online?
I'm taken aback by the intro. I think it's a categorical example in the hubris of this channel. I find it curious that we can lay superficial observations of arc-atypical human behavior (fluidity of personal convictions and beliefs) and then assert that the inherent fluidity in one's persona should be the basis in which we are to judge an individual's trustworthiness. I'm also chuckling at the irony in critiquing lengthy podcasts. If you haven't noticed, there's a hunger for a long-form dialogue in society, otherwise Rogan's podcasts and others' of comparable length wouldn't be so popular. Additionally, the long-form dialogue allows for people to fully articulate their point, opening up themselves to the opportunity of criticism. The long-form also allows for the hosts/guests and listeners to get into the nitty-gritty details that actually matter. And in this painstaking process the wheat is separated from the chaff, so we can let threadbare ideas wither in their own light... It would serve the chaff at Wisecrack better to actually articulate their nitty-gritty points as oppose to allude at morally/ethically damning characteristics of things - like a postmodernist-twitter-pantomime. If I wanted topical evaluations of mainstream personalities, I'd rather do it myself.
I disagree with the video's take on why people have trouble trusting experts. It's not as simple as just preferring intuition over fact, or not being comfortable admitting our own ignorance. It's because some experts have hidden agendas, and they know how to pass off their claims convincingly. A car mechanic is an expert on repairing cars. Car mechanics are also notorious for lying to customers about what's wrong with their car in order to get a bigger payment out of them. We depend on mechanics in our society, but we have good reason not to trust mechanics. The same can be said for journalists, public health officials, and policy experts. They're qualified for their jobs, but we have good reason to doubt many things they say.
I don’t think what is said in the video is necessarily wrong. It IS a bit of a stretch to say that “trust your gut, not a book” is the foundation on which the mistrust is born out of, but i think that’s just oversimplification for the sake of getting the point across. Then again, I can’t really add much to the conversation except for my two cents. I do 100% agree with the point you made though, and they just barely touch upon the subject of hidden agendas when they talk about the whole communism scare, but I wanna say they could’ve just overlooked this facet of the issue while doing their research, because it is a valid point.
I’m not so sure that is the issue. People that tune in and hear these problematic views/disinformation would just hear it somewhere else. If someone is stupid enough to believe blatantly ignorant spew then that’s on them. This is one of those things that it actually is the responsibility of an individual to think about what they hear. We all should hear what others have to say but we equally should think for ourselves.
14:46 "In situations like this we understand that someone who's been certified and trained and worked at this for years is probably the person we want" Half of America: "let's vote for Trump!"
@@chase-warwick One man on one show cannot represent all intellectual positions equally. It's technically impossible. There are plenty of outlets for corporate-mainstream point of view (which happens to favor the products of giant corporations as the solution, probably coincidence). Joe is not bound by corporate interests, or at least he didn't used to be before the spotify deal (plenty of episodes removed since he moved to spotify).
@@chase-warwick When you look at all media combined, you'll have a good representative proportion. Why does one podcast on his own need to have all perspectives when other outlets like CNN/Fox/etc don't have that either? It's far easier to simply let people say what they want than to engineer some sort of outcome. By the way, how would you measure which outcome you want beforehand anyway? Joe would need to do a study on expert's opinion every time before he can decide which person to invite in order to get the right quota. What nonsense.
Don't forget that virtually all of our society's gatekeepers expect to be paid before letting you pass. If it were truly a public service, we'd call that "corruption", but since it's privatized we just call it being a "client"/"patient"/etc. Please don't pretend that a sufficient amount of money can't buy your desired result in a scientific study, court proceeding, or trip to the doctor.
Personally I like how many different people handle informal conversation. Some hold up better than others when they have to talk to non curated people.
Personally I don't like how people react to being wrong like when Joe Rogan made sexist comments about a woman primatologist because he was wrong about the bondo ape (it being fake news) For more: ua-cam.com/video/LQCbT49VTTE/v-deo.html
I hate the human propensity for trying to tell others how they should live and what they should think, believe and say. Everything outside of physics and other stem fields is just assinine human bullshittery to try and assert or gain influence.
To the statement in this video criticizing Rogan for not providing rigorous debate to all his guests; that is why he is able to get some of those guests on. Giving an opportunity for the guests to share their opinions and go deeper in their points without feeling like they have to form an argument, necessarily, is a catalyst for a better flow in his interviews. It is a talk show, not a debate show.
For all the intellectual rigor you put into this video you missed the point. It is up to the viewer to decide what is true and what is not. Simply present the viewpoints and opinions. This clearly characterizes you as a member of the intelligencia actively condescending to the common people, implying them inadequate to differentiate the truth.
But you’re also proving their point that despite having done research, field work, training etc. a lot of people in American society do not take intellectuals seriously because personal experience and intuition trump expertise. This guy put together a whole presentation with credible sources and examples and you’re still can’t find value in what he’s saying.
It's important to be open and curious and "try on" different ideas to see if they fit, to discuss concepts as if they were true or real, and then put them down and reformulate your own beliefs. In podcast form, however, this smorgasbord of ideas provides any viewpoint a listener might want to cherry pick as seemingly legitimized by Rogan's open style of inquiry. JRE is like if you took the internet and put it on a podcast.
Once upon a time that would have been considered a good thing. We used to have these institutions which provided education to the public which were capable of teaching the difference between fiction and reality. They didn't always work perfectly, but they used to be good enough that you could say something, and the world wouldn't end. Apparently now everyone has become so brainwashed by... something... that they can't be trusted with free access to media. That's why we must obviously restrict media further and wonder why someone like Rogan seems so popular.
It's kind of fun to have entertainment where there is no agenda. Rogan is there to get people to talk, and the guests have agendas, but in my opinion having both sides talk freely cancel each other and the JRE amounts to almost nothing but entertainment. Remember when entertainment for entertainment sake was not a bad thing? Now everything have to have a message and try to improve society in some way... It's exhausting. Joe Rogan is jackass but for another part of the brain.
@@Puerco-Potter Everything always had a message. The American public was able to convince itself it wasn't being bombarded by propaganda during one of the biggest propaganda ages in history. If you think the things you loved as a kid didn't have hidden political messages, go back. You missed a lot.
@@theignorantninja I believe I have bit of an issue fundamentally with your premise, the desimination of knowledge freely is quite consequential to my worldview in regards of science, mathematics, medicine, and the culmination of those three. Open debate and experimentation is necessary. Imagine a world where Dr Robert Liston was censored for going against the grain or Louis Pastuer, would science be at the state it is? They questioned the status quo and proved their theories true, their discoveries save untold lives. This idea of such knowledge being rejected because it outside the accepted community whilst being hidden amongst them is the general gist of the premise I interpreted from your post, you are not only entitled but invited by myself to correct any glaring inaccuracies in my estimation there of.
Corporate media is way more subversive imo, because it presents its significant biases under the guise of journalistic integrity and those "rules" you talk about, while omitting things that challenge it.
Always said it JRE is Oprah for men. That being said his guest choices arent always endorsements to that guest. ‘He’s ‘giving them a platform’ but he wants to learn about the person he’s talking to and you’re open to make of what that person says as you will most of the time. There’s no pandering there.
While he's had a guest here and there i was able to actually learn something from, i've never thought the show to be anything other than pure entertainment at a decently high level.
For sure, I don't think that the show has ever tried to assert opinions as fact or take a hard stance on political shit, it just brings new things to the table in a fun manner so that your average person can get to see more viewpoints.
@@bevta except for the vaccine and covid as a whole. his stance on that hasn’t just been playful and joking. he’s really pushing his own narrative on that stuff
@@drewforbes8980 I don't blame him, he's being attacked by a mob of idiots spreading constant misinformation and harassing any big creator that has a differing opinion to him, he's been slandered by the news, and targeted by tons of internet activists. It's not hard to think that you're universally right when the only opposition to your opinion is as comically stupid as the people attacking him on twitter are.
@@drewforbes8980 In your mind, if you are being attacked by the other tribe, yes, it does. When you take the intellectual conversation out of an argument and instead go after the person then it is no longer about the opinions, it's about me versus you. Don't pretend that humans are above tribalism, it is built into us genetically, it's not like this is what society has "come to", this is what society is, society reflects humanity and humans are inherently tribalistic.
I can tell by some of the comments that the presenter of this video is clearly biased to the left, which kind of goes against what Joe is against. He wants to talk to anyone and everyone, but the detractors always have a condescending undertone whenever he speaks with people with whom they don't like. The reason we like him has nothing to do with where he lays on a political spectrum. We like him because we also refuse to be told who we can or cannot have discourse with. It really is simple.
Having discourse for what purpose? Providing legitimacy to factually incorrect claims that pertain to public health is irresponsible. Entertaining ideas that are novel is fine, but to what end? Believing something simply to be contrarian seems to throw out the truth in order to rebel against experts in order to claim nonexistent superiority.
I'll just say I appreciate the take not being focused on politics. I'm not a Joe Rogan fan but I've listened to some of his interviews and I don't get the impression that he has an agenda and I think that's what people who listen to him appreciate about the show. However, everyone should be able to be critical of the way he tries to accomplish what he's trying to accomplish and the people he interviews. That means, even if Rogan is giving a platform to people who you don't agree with, people should understand it doesn't mean Rogan is saying they're right and people should just believe what everyone says. But also, just because Rogan has interviewed some controversial people, it doesn't mean he's a conspiracy theorist and a crazy right-winger. Furthermore, the attempts to smear Rogan are more likely to backfire with his audience because people trying to smear him do have an agenda so it ends up being more dangerous.
@@Antifadiva Oh my god that's so horrible. How much did you ride your bike today to offset your carbon foot print? I hope you only bought fair trade coffee this morning. You aren't wearing cotton which came from India, right? You know where they stand on nuclear disarmament. So anyways I was taking these opioids for my back injury while playing college football for that university that used to be named after a genocidal war criminal and my Israeli friend mentioned that the 3 richest people in the US just earned another 100 billion dollars during the global pandemic which was handled just.... just great by everybody let me tell you.
I dont think Rogan gives all opinions equal weight, he just doesn’t believe in censorship and instead advocates for open public discourse where the best ideas win. The problem with deplatforming or banning is that it creates the opposite effect of what is intended.
The problem is that it doesn't always work. Some ideas don't belong in the public discourse because it legitimizes them and makes it harder to stamp them out. It's why colleges don't let white supremacists speak.
@@AtomicVoid95 Wrong. Some ideas are flat out useless and don’t deserve a public forum. Some ideas don’t deserve that sense of legitimacy. White supremacy for one doesn’t need a platform and must be shouted down.
The thing is, Rogan is also generally a really good interviewer. Unlike many interviews on corporate media, he interviews without an agenda or trying to trap the interviewee, no matter who he’s interviewing. And I’m not even a fan of him and thing a lot of his personal opinions are pretty dumb
@@Mike-sp7zv But this video is pretty accurate as to why JRE is so appealing to people who bristle at the idea of "experts" and "authority." The show is presented as having no bias, which ends up lending most ideas a pedigree of fairness and accuracy, even when they're blatantly false.
Y'all totally misrepresented the Bill Burr conversation! Bill Burr was not being anti-mask, he made fun of the anti-mask people. He was just making fun of the self-righteousness of people who are evangelical about masking
So basically, you’re saying we’re too stupid to form our own opinions, so Rogan shouldn’t offer these guests that are banned by the media an alternative platform to speak… because the media has been proven to always be so reliable Got it 👍🏿
I think the biggest problem with public discourse is the general audience being unable to push past confirmation bias, most people aren't looking for truth, they just want validation that what they believe is the truth. Rogan has said "I'm a dumb guy people shouldn't listen to me" and yet the reality is millions of people listen to him every week, and he wouldn't be successful if his audience viewed him as "just some dumb guy." I don't think the problem is Rogan's format or the guests he brings on, it's the individual's natural urge to believe whatever affirms what they already think is true. The basis of manipulation is affirmation and likability, he brings on guests that say what his audience wants to hear and humanizes his guests with an extended conversation, as long as the guest doesn't do something to offend the audience, they're practically guaranteed to believe whatever they say. The solution to that isn't to change a format that works remarkably well or to limit who he brings on, Rogan needs to model behavior that acknowledges and pushes back against confirmation bias. He's good at interviewing people, and the way he pushes back against things he disagrees with is great, all he needs to do is apply that same skepticism to things he agrees with, when he and his guest agree on something it's an opportunity to play devil's advocate and try to find fault in what he already believes. Telling his audience to do that will have little effect if any, but if Rogan's the one doing it they'll start imitating him and pick up some basic media literacy skills. Just saying "I trust my viewers to not take what is said on face value" is just a denial of reality, listening for validation is exactly what his audience does and it's irresponsible to just ignore that with baseless optimism, it's not trust it's an abdication of responsibility.
The lack of likes for this comment says it all! I guess the Wisecrack audience found your words to hit home so much that they had to ignore them... Anything to protect the bubble.
@@angryherbalgerbil no, years ago, I regularly saw right-leaning people post "Joe is a sell out" Now it seems more often left leaning listeners do the same. It's not "not offending" its only offending enough to participate, watch the video, and watch the YT ads. Because this is monetized as much as sympathetic views and people posting agreement. It's the inverse of what the OP suggests. Its disagreeing just enough to still participate. The mainstream media is polarizing, while Joe doesn't. I think the media should be doing more of this(with different shows with different hosts)and not have Joe the only one. PBS used to have William F Buckley regularly, after all.
I don't think people mistrust "expertise" so much as they mistrust the organizations that employ those experts. Most businesses, media organizations, and governments have demonstrated that they are much more interested in selling their product or ideology than they are in actually helping the public, and as a result they have destroyed not just their own credibility, but the credibility of their experts as well. If we had public-owned research organizations that were compensated based on the well-being of the population as a whole, we wouldn't have this problem.
I can only partly agree with you. I live in Australia though and have a post graduate degree so I guess I am personally biased. Clearly, the corporatisation of media is a threat to a good faith enquiry into the truth, however that doesn't mean you should listen to the likes of snake oil salesmen either.
I mean public-owned as in the citizens would be shareholders with voting power over how the organization conducts itself. Corruption is a constant threat, but it is much harder to pull off if power is distributed rather than concentrated.
Of course you're right that people shouldn't trust snake-oil salesmen, just saying that when institutions' interests don't align with the interests of the rest of society people naturally tend to distrust them, even when their experts are correct.
I loved every bit of this, but it's missing a big part of the story: Experts lose credibility when they (1) get things wrong, and especially when they (2) refuse to admit it. Most recently, we can look at the COVID public policy missteps regarding excessive school closures, draconian restrictions on outdoor activities, retconning on mask policy, general lingering "COVID theater," etc. I personally think most of those can be explained as good-faith overcorrections during a novel emergency, but they definitely discredit "experts" in the eyes of those who are already dubious of self-proclaimed intellectuals.
@@Efesus67 Absolutely. And even more recently, all the economists and politicians telling us that inflation concerns were just fear-trolling. It's OK to get things wrong, but it's not surprising that the experts' cocky certainty followed by quiet revisionism gets under a skeptic's skin
@@nathand6232 what's worst is that there is evidence that all these experts contributed, if not created, the financial crisis of '08 and the inflation situation were in.
If we’re willing to hold our gut to the same high standard of various institutional and individual experts, i would agree with you. We also may show a bias to dismiss incorrect takes by experts we like/trust over those that we don’t. We may also over use the term expert, if that person is an outlier who we agree with.
Biggest point right here.^^^ I enjoy how Joe points out that CNN misrepresented his ivermectin gambit of treatment. Or how Jordan Peterson is considered a right wing nut bag because the govt passed a law that tried to force the words that come out of our mouths by fines or jail time. Or dammit I had another one that he's been on about. Forgot it. He's a "regular joe" asking and talking about things I wanna ask. Not some curated bs. Like how we're just supposed to accept the political right or left as THE truth. He is getting better about pushing back on some issues. Like how Ali siddiq is a homophobe on this latest pod. But I feel he used some of what the guy who converting kkk members technique. He listened to him and then pushed back a bit by saying that he's been around gays his whole life. Oh or what about the trans athletes winning from pen state. We are at a point in society where issues are not simple in any way and some factions of politics and academia are presenting their views as the only right way and that if you don't chose you are the problem. As though, in some scientific and societal issues, talking heads like this video say that there is consensus, thats not how the soft sciences work. I mean it like physics. In some cases I agree. On others I do not. At the very least what about masks? While I have no problem wearing a surgical one, believing that something is better than nothing. Anything below an n95 fitted does not completely prevent transmission. While people were shamed and legally harassed. They are essentially a token gesture. I also like how he has Hancock on. But ive found out that Hancock is referencing people in his books that are presented as scientists but are actually teachers. It's helpful to find new stuff. I enjoy it cause it's long. It's layman friendly when it's experts and I can fact check them myself and make up my own mind. Not be shamed and talked down to by the heads on cnn, fox or w.e. mainstream media. All them yelling and saying that "this is the right way to think and that is wrong think"...oh apparently trans athletes have no advantage in sports...all I know is that I know nothing. Edit all I know is that I know nothing, but I still have to form an opinion while being misled and lied too by media and world leaders who can't or won't put in the time to say "hey this is a complicated issue but we're going to go with this cause it suits our narrative or fits our ideology." And ya know what, I gotta do the same. I'm trying to be a better person but as far as I can tell, for example, the trans athletes issues being an example, I want them to be safe and accepted and to grow with the rest of us, but if they go into a competition with an unfair advantage, it doesn't hurt me and it's not my problem but I still want them to be safe happy and healthy AS WELL AS female athletes. It's not easy problems we have these days. Discussions are good. Tactics like screaming down people you have labeled to dismiss and berate while calling bigots because you don't want to let them speak... that's not free speech. That's harassment and verbal assault. Ideas sold be judged on their merit. Some "expert" people don't get to tell me what to think on complicated nuanced topics.
Ok... but Noam Chomsky said that mainstream media will always be biased and always be pro-corporate because of financial sponsorship, and even NPR and PBS have huge corporate donors and sponsors. So maybe we need a Joe Rogan? And Noam Chomsky is just about as intelligentsia as you can get.
The idea that legacy media has standards and practices that it adheres to is up there with Santa and the easter bunny as far as credibility is concerned
I don't interpret this piece as a criticism of Rogan, so much as an explanation of his format. The Rogan experience is one of polite conversation, and does not necessarily require "confrontation". Just like Rogan uses the popularity of his guests to promote his podcast, WC uses Rogan's popularity to boost their channel. It;s that simple, why hate?
"gave a platform to x horrible person" is such a dumb thing to say. "controversial" people with controversial views should be interviewed. different ideas need to be freely explored.
Since you mentioned debate, I'd love a video on the recent debate bros vs. essayists topic. Does internet debate have value or is it just spectacle? How could both be improved?
I liked the analysis done here by Wisecrack. I wish they had included this in the context of how scientific facts and ideas have become politicized and now carry more social implications. I'm a long time JRE listener but listen critically, as I do with everything. I didn't get vaccinated because Dr. Fauci said to. I did it because I pay my doctor for that information and she recommended it.
The thing is that some doctors are also anti vaxxers because even if they have knowledge about human body and madicine they don't have expertise in specific part of body, that's why your regular doctor will never do surgery (especialy on heart or brain).
I feel like Joe Rogan is a great example of the difference between "smart" and "educated." He's clearly a very intelligent man (smart) but can't build that knowledge into something cohesive, via critical thinking or whatever (educated.) People complain all the time that schools don't teach -insert whatever skill here- (auto maintenance, taxes, cooking, whatever) and that just shows that they have NO IDEA how education works. Education is about laying a basic foundation to build from. Beyond the absolute fundamentals (reading, basic math, whatever) education is about teaching you how to learn, how to come to an informed conclusion, how to reason. No matter how smart you are, if you don't learn to use that information appropriately, it's worthless, incongruous nonsense. See: Joe Rogan. The opposite, someone who is very educated, but dumb as a box of rocks, are the people who are really good at memorization and following directions. They can follow really complicated processes, but they can't adapt any of those processes to foreign situations. In short, education without intelligence or intelligence without formal education are both absolutely worthless.
The biggest problem I have is the questions = smart pipeline. Goes like this: 1. Being skeptical of mainline narratives is a good thing, because you don't want to be tricked. Therefore 2. Asking questions is the sensible thing to do when presented with information Therefore 3. Questioning things makes you smart Therefore 4. Disbelief makes you smart And thus 5. Kneejerk contrarianism makes you smart It's that thinking that kills me. By Joe doing nothing but "asking questions" and treating all opinions as equal, and then contradicting himself, he allows his listeners to basically find at least one instance in which he bluntly states their opinion (or disagrees with an opinion they disagree with), and assume that their opinion thus has reasonable merit and intellectual rigor. This isn't just hypothetical. I worked with a young man ten years my junior, who was very anti vax and very conspiracy theory oriented, and he said "I honestly think Joe Rogan is probably the smartest guy I've ever listened to." Exact words.
Joe Rogan dosnt basically say all views are equally valid, as you claim in this video. He simply gives all views a chance to be heard, weather they are valid or not, is for the listener to decide. This is why he is so popular. Viewers are not being told what to think, like the mainstream media does, instead, viewers are told what others think. His show is about exploration, not obedience.
I just like the wide variety of opinions and people on the show. Joe initiated me to look outside of my own bubble and is a big inspiration to be open-minded to other people until this day.
I think its tough in the States these days bcs media is so set in 2 distinct groups - liberals vs conservatives - so its uncomfortable to see some1 who shifts all over the place
@@lm_b5080 i haven't watched since spotify, but i used to be amazed how often right/libertarian "bros" would comment "Joe is a sell-out", when it seemed clear UA-cam counted this as, and monetized this, as interaction. I knew Joe was laughing his way to the bank with this, but I think everyone underestimated just how lucrative it was. To get views and comments from people who totally disagreed with both Joe and the guests.
It's almost as if people don't like being talked down to and told what to believe 🤔 Pretty hard to come by in the modern media landscape also known as the Buzzfeed era. In this era, the more extreme and partisan the view, the more traction it will get. It need not be factual. It just has to be catchy and have a stick it to your rival kind of quality. And CNN WaPo, BBC, CBC and NYT got sucked into this vortex as well. Joe Rogan is the loveable everyman who can be surprisingly knowledgeable and stupid depending on the situation. He's been dragged far too much in the last couple years. I can't think of a platform that has had a more positive influence on thinking for oneself.
When you say "intellectuals" you aren't referring to plumbers and electricians. You're referring to those who have college degrees in fields which have very very little real use or demand in our society. That's the biggest flaw with your ridiculous "Americans hate intellectuals" argument. In the 21st century one doesn't need to go to a university to become educated on political science, history, literature, philosophy, and so on. Universities are an obsolete concept, and I say that as someone with a masters.
I think you missed their point about “jack of all trades, master of none.” If you need an opinion on how to get a toilet fixed, you go to an expert on toilets. If you need an opinion on how a virus spreads, you do not also go to an expert on toilets.
@@masteroogway7624 I didn't say they didn't possess expertise. Don't twist my comment into something I never said in order to support your own prejudices and bias. He clearly grouped "plumbers and electricians" in the same category as the sort of "intellectuals" who go to college for the aforementioned majors. Universities are businesses which sell you a degree. Learning is up to you. You do not need to pay someone $100,000 to learn. The fact that you clearly have internet access right now means you can do it on your very own initiative. Everything I learned in six years at university I could have learned for free under my own initiative. As a matter of fact, I've learned much more unbiased information _outside_ of university than inside. Americans don't "hate intellectuals". They despise universities which scam people out of _billions_ of dollars of what usually originates as tax money.
A lot of the controversy around Rogan is somewhat self-perpetuating. Whether it be a criticism or a defense of him, either way its an algorithm friendly subject that guarantees a high click rate.
Listening is important. Almost no ones does it. Supply and Demand is why Joe Rogan will live forever and copy cats will follow when he retires. No one wants to listen. We have communication majors, public speaking, improv, and so so so many books on how to speak. But there's almost no one who teaches people how to listen [7 habits of highly effective people maybe]. All these talk shows and people on TV won't take time to listen and just have shouting matches. We know Joe Rogan listens and it has almost never turned into a shouting match. He has thousands of episodes where we can hear what people truly think uninterrupted. People get to speak for themselves and we can make up our own mind. Even if someone is speaking absolute non sense, let them speak. Then slowly break down and dissect what they say. Slowly [and dare I say lovingly *GASP*] show them a better way of looking at things. People are starved for that type of dialogue. And for whatever reason the mainstream media will NOT give us that. And people want it. We desperately want it.
It took you 2 weeks to replace a toilet? I’m a college dropout drummer and I can replace a toilet in about an hour and a half. You really blew this one. People don’t watch Joe Rogan because they want to know what he thinks. They watch because they want to know what the guest thinks, and Rogan knows how to get to the nitty-gritty in an interview. I swear, sometimes formal education can make people dumber they naturally are. Where’s Sparky Sweets when we need him?
They never claimed people listen to hear Joe's opinion. People are interested in Joe's method of acquiring knowledge. Joe gives the people a buffet of all opinion and ideas through varied guests, many contradictory or even demonstratively false, and he encourages us to pick 'what feels right'. That being said, the dude has a ton of sycophants who DO listen to him for advice. It's a small minority of the total group, but considering how big the listening base is, that's a huge amount of people. This is the 'Rogan is the new mainstream' point they brought up.
@@aritramazumdar240 Some of us are autodidacts. But of course you wouldn't have learned that in college. Those tuition fees and endowments have to keep rolling. I scored in the 100th percentile on the SATs, got the highest ACT score in my graduating class, and attended Loyola University for a year and a half on the Presidential Scholarship. So save your ad hominems and never underestimate your opponent. Now, run along, you effete snob.
@@paganlecter6819 respectfully disagree. Jordan Peterson is by his own account a traditionalist, and very often aligns himself with America's political right-wing.
@@paganlecter6819 I mean neither right nor left. I mean people who can discuss disagreements and those who can't. Too much complaining about 'platforming questionable figures'; not enough engaging kind critiques. We don't need to protect people from wrongthink, just need to grow up, listen, and be discerning.
@@kevinbeck8836 partly because the entirety of the political compass has shifted to the left. Jordan has actually posted his own results on twitter some time in the past and indeed, he falls under the left. Much of his work, however is the introduction to the idea that there are corners of society to be preserved and the fundamental assumption that the West has gotten some ideas right, which are to be preserved. He described this notion, both on the individual level and its logical political extension, as an island where you should be standing on the beach, not in the chaos and novelty of the sea, and not in the tyranny of the explored territory of the islands center. In a sense, that is analogous to the symbolic representation of the world within the yin and yang id also like to add that there's an issue with the political compass, or rather its execution. Many issues of political nature are reduced to yes or no questions, which is partly the reason why today we speak about "the wide political gap in the USA". This does not allow for traditional centrist beliefs which in my estimation are the only ones that allow for proper discourse to flourish, as it rids itself of ideological obsession. Jordan himself is very close to the center, and id say thats why so many people like him.
To me Joe Rogan is what a true neutral platform is like. You let people from all sides come up and talk their stuff. You don't interrupt them and judge them on what they said. You let the audience decide what to take home from what is being said, and exercise thinking on whether you agree or disagree with the person coming onboard the platform. The reason why I enjoy it is I'm not told who to believe on every episode, I'm just there sitting like an audience in a hall where people from many different places are asked to come pitch their stuff. I don't have to agree with everyone, but I can get to see different people's perspective on what drives them. The issue is the culture now is all about picking a side and rejecting the other side. Best example is what happened at the Oscars with the iconic slap.
What if someone is lying? Is Joe equipped to handle the most skillful liars? Are you? There's a major risk involved with his format and the risk normally comes packages *as something that feels good*.
....and basically implies that MSM consumers are the real critical thinkers. Lmao If you trust MSM (right or left) after the blatant partisanship, and sex scandals, and outright lies....yeah I can see you believing that.
The thing I find funny is how people say Joe is so open minded, he invites everyone, he lets both laymen and experts speak...yet I don't see any of his listeners walking away with the experts opinions, it's always the conspiracy theorists and similar nutters who's ideas stick around in their mind. Wonder why...
I feel Joe Rogan may the the perfect balancing point for people who like, or dislike the way our society is headed. People who like where our society is going hate Joe Rogan, and people who don't like the direction of our society love him. He just hit that perfect counterculture/mainstream balancing point. One of the biggest sticking points for him, is that Joe Rogan wants to listen to all sides of the argument, while mainstream want to "Follow the Science" and get rid of "Misinformation" which while at face value can sound noble, ultimately means just listening to one side only.
That balancing point keeps shifting as society shifts. People will watch and listen to what they want to hear from the ease of their phone whenever someone in person challenges their opinions and stances, creating mobile echo chambers. I left this channel because it became an echo chamber, but I returned to see if anything had changed. It hasn't. This channel does not strike that balance you speak of. It only pretends to
Long time on and off rogan listener here since 2015. I frankly think people give him too much credit tbh. Like, more people saw endgame instead of watching the inauguration of the president, does that make one more important than the other? I know that’s simplified and semi sarcastic but still an interesting question to ponder. I think this video is good but you do miss a few key points to his popularity. One in particular that you touched on but didn’t really expand on is that he isn’t married to any belief, at least in his image presented. I live in a purple state (MD), where outside of Annapolis, Baltimore, and areas around DC, there is a vast array of ideologies that contradict each other. Most people here at least are not a Fox News republican to a T or CNN/MSNBC liberal to a T. These sources and others like them have a very rigid belief system that even one step out of line is grounds for intense scrutiny. I know a lot of blood red republicans that think Medicare for all in some form would be something to look into and to end the war on drugs, or a lot of liberals who think there should be absolutely zero gun restrictions and are so far left, they come out right. By mainstream standards, these people shouldn’t exist. At least you wouldn’t think so with how networks, websites, and papers frame ideologies. Rogan is a bastion to that, to the fact that you don’t just have to focus on one set of beliefs without discrediting your personal belief system. Like you mentioned in the view, like it or not, rogan is very much how a group of friends would talk about an issue. Misstep, have ignorance, pontificate “forbidden” ideas, maybe come to no conclusion at all over the span of two hours at the bar. And with how streamlined modern media has become, where complex and intricate issues are distilled down to 2 minute sound bites of people yelling over each other until the ad break, completely overlooking all the nuance of modern society and behavior, frankly amazed people are surprised by his popularity. Not only that, but so much of the mainstream is based around ads and what will be “big” and get views, and while there’s an inclination for rogan to do some of that, frankly it doesn’t seem to be his concern. And that alone, people find interesting. You really think the dinosaur bones guy, one of the best episodes, was picked because they thought it would be explosive in the view department? Or Graham Hancock talking about ancient civilizations possibly being older than they are and a previously undiscussed mass extinction event being a bigger drawl than Kanye west? I find it more interesting but that’s the point, there really is, for better or worse, room for all.
I always liked his _”Wack Pack”_ in the early days like Joey Diaz, Brian Redban, Brendan Schaub, Theo Von, Bryan Callen, Eddie Bravo, etc. And that’s how I got into his show. Don’t care about his opinions on COVID or political issues. I find myself disagreeing with him a lot while still finding his show entertaining.
One of the big issues I think shows up in "intellectual" circles is an unwillingness to give credibility to the mistrust of educated classes. In the States, we see broad disparities in health, housing, wealth, opportunity, etc, and these disparities are largely resultant from policies handed down by intellectuals on both sides of the American political aisle. Take the Tuskeegee syphilis experiment, the War on Drugs, current day "Educational Reforms," NAFTA (which did astounding damage to American steel mill towns), Privatized Health Care / other forms of insurance, the American Tax code, the concept of 'Credit Score' (which is just redlining with new people). For decades, intellectualism, or at least individuals who credibly called themselves 'intellectuals' (being highly educated) have supported such systems and initiatives, very much to a tangible disadvantage of the common person. Americans (generally) have been less and less able to secure stable, self-owned housing, health care (affordable or otherwise), generational wealth, etc. as time has gone on, and if those who care to call themselves 'intellectual' are to regain a position of trust among a broader population, we *HAVE* to take tangible, salient responsibility for the failures of the systems we create. We love to talk, and often don't love to act, especially when we have to act in contrition. That's why anti-intellectuals hate us.
Just to be clear, Bill Burr wasn't complaining about wearing a mask, he was making fun of people who complain about wearing a mask
Yeah, but like he said "consistency is hard", so is actually listening to the full context and having your preconceived notions challenged
Its fun cuz they say he contradicts himself but play oppinions of guests. Wisecrack is usually better than this...
@@oscardemola1295 Joe's audience also used to say the same thing when his podcast was on UA-cam. His comment sections accused him of guest pandering & flip flopping for years
@@oscardemola1295 it`s pure BS for a few years at least now.
this whole video has misinformation. this whole thing is legit shitting on rogan to lower his viewers out of jealousy.
The Bill Burr clip was way off. Burr was there making fun of Rogan acting like he knew more than scientists.
Wisecrack is making our decisions for us
It just shows that they don’t listen to JRE regularly. Which is fine of course…..but then maybe don’t make a whole UA-cam video about it as if you knew dick about shit
"Oh god, you're so tough, with your f**king open nose and throat." - Bill Burr
Yeah this is a huge miss by wisecrack
Joe Rogan was mocking people wearing masks, so they weren't way off. It's just that Bill Burr was mocking Rogan.
The problem is that Joe’s show wasn’t built for what it has become. It was supposed to be a show where he can mess around with friends and talk to interesting people about varying ideas. He didn’t have to worry about “platforming idiots” or giving them level consideration with the experts because it wasn’t a big show and it clearly wasn’t meant to be taken seriously or spread a message.
But now that it’s the biggest podcast there is, he unintentionally finds himself in a position where having a whack job on (which was just good fun before) now actually risks denigrating the opinions of the actual experts he has on his show and making their opinions seem equally valid.
The solution to this can’t be to change his show’s format to that of a formal rigorous interview - then it wouldn’t be the JRE anymore. So the solution can only be to frequently make this caveat and make sure everyone is on the same page about what’s going on here, and highlight the difference between his fringe whack job guests that he’s having on for fun, and the more serious people that are actual experts in their fields
I think it's more about being open to ideas that challenge others and discerning them from there.
it's okay to have "crazy people" on bc that's an objective opinion, not a factual observation. JRE is probably the only place you'll find such diverse amounts of people which can help to actual logical discussions. Crazy people listen to other normal news channels like CNN,FOX, or The View.
OR... Rogan can take some responsibility for what his show has become and the harm it is doing, and think about how he can change things. A caveat or disclamer is not going to be sufficient for most people because the morons Rogan has on often make very convincing arguments on the surface, despite not being supported by evidence, reality, science, etc.
@@suttonszoke7566 Discussion happens when opposing viewpoints meet, not if you quietly nod along. I dunno if Rogan usually features several people in one episode who get to debate their opposing viewpoints but as far as I'm aware he usually has one guest and let's them say their piece largely unchallenged.
@Elim Garak Exactly, if I somehow found myself in charge of a nation I wouldn't excuse my ineptitude by saying "I really just wanted to run for the homeowner's association". I'd either take the responsibility that comes with the office or step off.
@bingly bingler He is part of the society, and his actions hurt it, hurt other people, and lead to a worse outcome for everyone. Who is responsible if not him? He is a public personality who is hurting other people through his action and inaction. E.g. by his idiotic COVID statements, Rogan has likely caused the deaths of thousands of people. Giving every wrong idea under the sun the same exposure without even pointing out that these ideas may be dumb, are unsupported by all the experts, and without encouraging a robust debate is guaranteeing the spread of the dumber and simpler ideas among the more gullible people.
The beauty of the JRE is the variability of ideas and opinions. Through his podcast i have listened to people i don't like or would give the time of day but when im at work and they are on his podcast, ill listen and gain some perspective. I find it refreshing to hear the ideas of a far leftist one day and a far rightwing person the next and hear Joe interject and even calmly argue with them while still allowing them to express their opinions and flesh out their ideas. I think people all to often surround themselves with like minded individuals with likewise world views so listening to outside perspectives and actually considering the weight of their words builds a more nuanced and considerate mind capable of considering where those people are coming from weather they are right or wrong. The challenge as a listener is you are offered a buffet of ideas that extends the opportunity for us to broaden our mental flavor palate, or you could just choose the same thing every time if you like, the point is you now have the option.
I think you gave the corporate media too much credit for their journalistic integrity.
The Spanish-American War and the War on Terror happened largely at the behest of the media industry and its owners.
Ah. So Rogan isn’t corporate? Was that 200$ paycheck just a one time gift? Bet those taxes sucked
He kinda hinted and even said that that doesn't always work when talking about mainstream media fact checking.
I also think they give the scientific community too much credit which makes joe an "outsider" folks these days are losing trust in universities and corporatized circles of science.
I almost close the video at that point, like really? Have they been living under a rock?
Speaking to Wisecrack, I'm excited to see epistemology actually being discussed, but I don't think you're applying it correctly here. Trying to understand somebody's opinions and perspectives, both expert and otherwise, without immediate or significant challenge is not the same thing as accepting it as true. I suspect you are arguing from a conclusion on Rogan rather than towards one (ironic given your evoking of epistemological vices). If Rogan is too credulous simply because he let's his guests present their opinion with little pushback, we shouldn't read opinion based books, because there's no way for the reader to challenge the author and editors' perspective, bias, or agenda. The way you describe credulity stands in opposition to curiosity and humility being epistemological virtues. We don't have to buy what someone is selling simply because we listened to the pitch.
That said, I think you're onto something with the concept of two mainstreams. By any useful definition, I agree you have to call Joe Rogan "mainstream" at this point, and even though you didn't outright say it, I think we could agree that he's the epicenter of that new mainstream. I know the purpose of this video wasn't to discuss why that's happening, but I don't think you can really explain the Joe Rogan phenomenon without it. You tacitly acknowledged that the gatekeeping process of the old mainstream doesn't always work that well, and I think that's the key reason this new mainstream is breaking out. Whether true or not, there's a growing perception that that gatekeeping is increasingly functioning contrary to its supposed purpose. Interestingly, Wisecrack explored something like that in the news media landscape a couple of years ago and more or less suggested it might be a good thing as long as we become a bit more incredulous of it (ua-cam.com/video/YRkkkxZZpAc/v-deo.html).
All of that aside, I would like to see Wisecrack explore more epistemology, because I do think it's a topic that isn't explored enough in our culture. A good topic that's somewhat relevant to this would be the evaluation of expertise. More specifically, how can a non-expert identify an expert? How do our biases cause us to misidentify experts? And why are we only not blind to it when we see other people make those mistakes?
Wonderfully said, bravo sir!
So how would you interpret the epistemology regarding Joe Rogan? You don't explain an alternative viewpoint opposing that Rogan is credulous, just saying that you disagree. It would be interesting to hear your interpretation.
This should be the number 1 comment.
That was a fair comment sir.
Comparing a podcast to a book, ignoring the point of the video while focusing on a minor side detail, pretending to have an intellectual discussion with a youtube channel from the comment section. All in all, really great representation of a joe rogan viewer. You masterfully captured the attempt of intellectual facade, droning on and on with smart sounding adjectives. You even talked broadly so as to move the focus of discussion to be so vague that the discussion no longer holds any more importance than a couple of stoned losers talking in a garage.
Like, you realize you went off on a tangent all on your own right? That the video is going a different way? That the entire thesis of the video was about how joe rogan causes controversy? They gave several examples, then examined them to show how rogan's podcast mirrors a movement of proud ignorance.
The way wisecrack portrayed the bill burr clip is exactly why ppl trust Rogan more... Bill was making fun of Rogan, basically saying that he doesn't know more than doctors.
And he does not.
This is a great example of gut thinking and stopping there. That, and "tu quoque".
The clips with Burr and the doctor are to compare and contrast *Rogan's behavior*, not the quality of guests on the show. If Wisecrack really wanted to make a dig at Burr they would've omitted the part where he reacts harshly to Rogan's flippant tone about masks.
As for "tu quoque", you avoid the valid point of Rogan promoting anti-intellectualism and instead attack what you perceive to be a mischaracterization of Burr.
And another thing, this isn't about people trusting Rogan, this is about Rogan, at best, accidentally taking a chainsaw to an integral pillar of our complex, modern civilization.
@Blaergh it would seem, politically, I'm on your side in general, but you've got this wrong. Wisecrack is great, but they actually did a voice over that paints Burr as being anti-mask when the clip plays. Go back, listen to it - when the clips of the doctor and Bill Burr play, he'll contextualize Burr as being anti-mask.
Yes it is true that Rogan is pernicious for society for all the reasons outlined in this video and overall I like it as I do like all the Wisecrack stuff. I'm not however going to sit here and watch you try to gaslight this person over what they're correctly observing.
It's okay to admit a small mistake was made.
Like me for instance, I used to enjoy Rogans podcast exactly because of the "earnest goofball talks to smart people" vibe. Now I see I was reveling in the fall of western civilization. Oh wait. 😅
"Tu Quogue" jeez, I learned a new one today. I like this concept, but I don't think you used it right.
@@alanfox619 you should stop looking at everything from a political lense to learn more...
The idea that a single mistake, among an overall premise that is correct, could drive someone to a source that makes mistakes far more often, is odd. Very odd.
I haven’t listened to Joe much since the Spotify deal, but I do remember him saying that he trusts his listeners to not take what is said on the podcast at face value and to come to their own conclusions independently. Because of the constant ideological bombardment that makes up a large portion of how we spend our time (mainly social media), that’s an important skill to have but unfortunately it seems like fewer and fewer people actually have it. I don’t think anyone expected Joe to be as influential as he is now, especially Joe
Problem is that he mixes experts with big opinions and it's a stupidly extreme idea to think that in Democracy, freedom of speech means freedom from value. Quite the contrary, value is independent of the system you have and there will always be people whose voices we deserve to hear and who deserve to be shunned. He's elevating common morons and denigrating the experts
@@neo2419912 that's a bit of an overreaction. Do you honestly believe what you're saying? You don't have to reply to me, just try to suspend your biases
@@thesuperfluousman816 Yeah, everyone whos been critiquing him believes in the critique. Take a moment and ask yourself, why is a significant portion of the online population saying this. You dont have to respond, just look inside.
@@neo2419912 A lot of "experts" are morons ...
@@thesuperfluousman816 One doesn't need belief if one has the humility to admit one's ignorance and just listen to experts.
I will never forgive Joe Rogan for giving rise to Brendan Schaub’s comedy career.
Agree 100% 🤣
Brendan is no laughing matter man
This is actually a SOLID comment 😭😭😭😭😭
Now that's a good take :D
His only real crime
Man, that Nichols quote really expressed something I've been unable to put into words. There's this idea that every opinion has equal weight even if it's ridiculous.
Hearing both sides out used to be common decency and important to getting the full picture. Talking-point spewing propagandists exploit that expectation to put feelings on equal footing with facts, unproven nonsense with real problems.
If some delicious scandal plays to my bias i go "That's hillarious! How do they back up their claim?" and soon enough the writer will have shown what they suggest should convince me and based on what.
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge'.
- Isaac Asimov
@@wyntyrmute Asimov was wrong.
It isn't America.
It's humanity.
People also seem to forget that opinions aren't "whatever I personally believe about any given thing." They must be, by definition, personal, and most likely unverifiable in any meaningful sense.
"Vanilla ice cream is the best flavor." - Largely unfalsifiable as written, but research can be done into general popularity of different flavors, how much of each is sold, etc., to come to some sort of scientific conclusion.
"My favorite flavor of ice cream is vanilla." - You do you, boo. Live your truth.
I agree with you. However, on a related note, it's important to acknowledge that any opinion can be wrong. Our perception of reality itself is based on a philosophical leap of faith. Therefore any facts, opinions, laws, observations, or any other mental model we have can always be proven wrong. None of your opinions are universally true. Essentially, be humble. Alternatively, hate everyone and yourself (this is me unfortunately 😂)
"I'm not saying Joe Rogan is the Thomas Jefferson of our time; I'm saying Thomas Jefferson was the Joe Rogan of HIS time."
--"Ronald Raygun"
the best gun of all
Thomas Jefferson was a slave raping asshole who did his best to bury Alexander Hamilton's legacy
Jefferson was a a-hole.
@@kevinbeck8836 Lol tru did a couple good things too ig
God I hope Joe Rogan invites y’all onto his podcast after this lmao
They would refuse to go on, and then complain that he never has any leftists on his show.
30 seconds into this video you can already hear the usual strawman arguments
The circlejerk continues
What podcast-
@@AJX-2 Joe Rogan's little bitches cannot listen to reason anymore
I would point out one thing that seems to have been missed in all of this (with respect to intellectualism), and that's *RECENT* history. Faith in mainstream media, and the "experts" they often roll out, has been thoroughly eroded by at least two the same epistemological vices mentioned toward the end... namely, intellectual dishonesty and dogmatism (9/11, the 2008 crash, a general tendency toward hyping things up to make a larger story, blatant favoritism toward the wealthy & status-quo, etc.).
An unsurprising consequence of that is growing swathes of people looking for alternative sources for information & news. That is where you will run into issues of people's distrust of "experts:" they don't really know what would constitute a real expert, or how to discern the differences between them, thanks to years of negligence from our education system and the media. But a person acting as a source of information "feels" like the same kind of expert main stream media would tout as an "expert," then those looking for fresh sources of info will have a knee-jerk "nope" response.
Framing it like this, it makes the credulity issue you mentioned easier to understand. The atmosphere Joe Rogan creates makes it much easier for his audience to "accept" those on interview... regardless of whether they're a good source of information or not.
Great point.
adding onto this, it really is a matter of confidence and clarity
Experts who know their field inside and out and are intellectually honest can say very little about the cutting edge issues with certainty.
Those who claim to be experts but are peddling nonsense can speak with absolute confidence because they either dont know how silly it could look in retrospect once more information comes out, or they just have abandoned intellectual honesty in general and dont care if they're wrong as long as they rope in new followers now.
this difference makes it really easy for misinformation machines to get a foothold in many people's minds, as they will sound way more correct to people with little understanding because they talk confidently, as though they already have the answer, as opposed to actual experts who will put a lot of caveats in their speech to honestly express the nuance to their position.
In the first two minutes you could have predicted that he would paint everything in the worst light. Wisecrack is a political channel not a philosophical one.
@@laniefeleski7288 Exactly. I unsubscribed from them years ago. Just check to see if anything changes and it hasn't
@@laniefeleski7288 What you mean the bright t-shirt, the hat, the beard, the pale skin is all to make the Wisecrack font of wisdom appear appealing to a demographic of impressionable minds that are unable to separate out the subtext of the channel, it's semiotic influence, and the political messages they'll unwittingly absorb through subtle covert means?
No surely not! Not Wisecrack? They're philosophers, not a psuedo-marxist psyop pretending to care about humanist values, liberalism, and the elevation of human consciousness through an unbiased exploration of various ideas. Why they're clearly just nerdy, post-modernists with liberal arts degrees and a need to deconstruct everything into categories and power struggles, so that they can make sure that the proletariats know exactly what they should repeat and who precisely the bad people are... Where's the harm in that? 😁
Every time I think of Joe Rogan I'm reminded of an old quote from Herodotus, "I am bound to tell what I am told, but not in every case to believe it."
If I remember correctly, Herodotus said that in response to being called out for not reporting the truth but just retelling fantasy as if it was truth
You misrepresented Burr's comments, but like if someone takes Burr's advice over an epidemiologist then that's on them, not Rogan. Also there are many view that he holds emphatically, he isn't as much the chameleon you paint him out to be honestly.
That's not a minor mistake, not when talking about miss information
" [...] if someone takes Burr's advice over an epidemiologist then that's on them, not Rogan."
According to the video it is. Mainly because on the show he puts these two opinions at the same face value, side by side in the premisse that "all opinions are worth the same", but unfortunatley this is not the case.
If a listener can't tell that Bill's opinion on the matter isn't less important bcos rogan didn't clarify it, it's still in them ffs
I personally think he’s a bigger chameleon than what they paint him to be. One of the biggest red flags for rogan is he’s friends with Alex Jones. And even excused him for the sandy hook incident. Alex Jones also preys on his ignorant viewers to get them to buy bullshit products for 3-4 times regular prices. An honest good person couldn’t be friends with someone like that.
@@greaterthanharrowk1679 Well. At first glance I agree with this. I think this is "obvious" to us because we kind of live in a bubble where education is a thing and we can make better judgment for ourselves. But considering the millions of view he gets, I bet that a very significant portion of those won't have the "patience" to think through all the repercussions of their opinions.Considering the amount of influence he gets, I remembered that classic: with great power comes great responsability.
But yeah, I also think he has the right to talk with anyone anyway he wants and post this online. There's nothingh inherently wrong with this aswell. Hence the debate.
Since when did wise crack get this passive aggressive?
Saying the root of the problem is that Joe does not want to engage in rigorous debate is missing the point of the podcast me thinks. The whole point is him just having conversations with people, he does not bring people on to get angry and have arguments. To be honest over the last few years I have found less and less of the guests interesting so I do not listen much but when a guest is on that I like I listen cause I appreciate the positive, constructive conversations not combative arguments.
You're assuming all arguments are inherently combative. Intellectual arguments, the ones he claims to have but, like in the video, someone like Socrates actually had, are when two people challenge a viewpoint or challenge one another's viewpoints to reach some sort of solution or compromise. And they do this all at a conversational level, no yelling. Rogan just let's his guests yammer on with whatever topic they want and he goads them along. In my opinion, as someone who also used to listen to his show years ago, any time he had someone on who really knew their shit or are experts in their field Rogan came off as a person who really wanted to ask the "big" questions but couldn't keep up with the answers the more involved the conversation would get. Then he started to have more controversial guests on and he would just let them spin their yarn and seemed much more comfortable letting them take him for a ride than pushing back in the slightest, even if he disagreed with them. The problem with Rogan isn't his approach to the platform, the fact that he is capable of bringing so many different guests is kind of amazing, but it's that he is an intellectually lazy dude with the biggest microphone on the planet.
@@0909shaggy He brings a new thought to the table, and then allows the viewers to have the argument themselves in their heads, that's what I like about the show. Joe Rogan is not a talented debater, and when he does debate it generally just derails into him calling the other person stupid and then saying agree to disagree, but what he is talented at is helping people talk through and strengthen their viewpoints in order to present them in the most intellectually honest way possible. The issue with this video is that it assumes that Joe Rogan's viewers follow him like a cult leader, when in reality we don't really care about what he thinks, and most Joe Rogan viewers that I know can list off plenty of things that they don't like about the guy. What we care about isn't what he has to say on a subject, it's his supernatural ability to bring out the best version of what others believe on a subject.
@@bevta WOW. I think you really nailed it with this one. Well done, Sir. (or Ma'am, whatever the case may be).
Joe Rogan had the CNN doctor for 3 hours, and the guy could not make a convincing argument about anything, and had to fold like a chair when pressed about the horse medicine. So maybe, just maybe, if your VIEWS and OPINIONS can't handle a simple critizims, maybe is time to recondider them.
Implying that the rules of journalism apply to mainstream media is kind of hilarious
Your last question, about rogan being a beacon on inquiry or anti intellectualism, that's a false dichotomy.. but it feels like you already know that.
“He paints himself as some average JOE” was right there. Sometimes low hanging fruit is just as nice.
Love the channel, thanks for all the hard work!
He sees himself as a cross between Stern and Larry King, but through a jar-headed mentality, i.e. he'll never go too heady.
I'm addicted to pigger nussy 🤠
Can I just say that the sound effects are really annoying if you try to listen to this in the background. Or do you possibly have audio-only publications of your work, because that being said, I really enjoy your content a lot :)
Yes seconded - the sound effects are overwhelming !
I personally share Joe's curiosity of other people's viewpoints regardless of factual backing. I see that there is an issue with how he presents this, but still I also like just listening to what other people think. I don't like to challenge people's arguments head on but will ask them to explain deeper, then I might later check on the factual accuracy of what either of us said. I just like to listen to other people and what they think, especially if I don't agree with them as it challenges me to examine my own beliefs and values. But again, I see the issue with an informal discussion like Rogan's podcast being spread and presented as a source of valid information rather than an intellectual exercise
The central thesis of this video is that it’s fine to “hear people out” but the the biggest difference between being curious and being gullible is the ability to discern the truth from the opinion; and discern the conspiracy theory or the lie.
What makes Rogan dangerous isn’t that he brings conspiracy theorists, professional liars, and fringe scientists on his show with similar frequency as actual experts and well-intentioned rational people. The reason Rogan is dangerous is that he never fully engages in the way that you describe that you do. Rogan may occasionally ask a smart follow-up question but he doesn’t (or doesn’t often enough) seek to find truth and expose falsities in the same way that a true scientist or journalist does. In presenting all viewpoints as equally gray in a world where black and white also exist, Rogan allows his listeners to cherry-pick which “truths” to believe in the same way that a demagogue does, this is dangerous.
@@jeffreycarman2185 Those who desire to cherry pick will cherry pick. To adopt or discard an idea is the responsibility of the viewer. Rogan doesn't have mind control.
@@jeffreycarman2185 You are acting like joe rogans listeners are little children. Its not joe rogans job do deciede what people believe its the individuals.
@@gaymer5697 what is his job though? Does Rogan even fully understand what his role is?
@Jeffrey Carman his role is to have conversations he finds interesting and explore other peoples ideas, imagine getting this big at what you do without knowing your role 🤦🏽♂️
I believe exactly how this video portrays the importance of professional expert knowledge but I disagree with so much of this video. I don't think Rogan is ever trying to be some sort of thought leader of common sense. They say it themselves he let's people speak their mind in a divided political climate where people don't listen to eachother and he makes mistakes because he's just a person a comedian at that not a specialist. Im not even a fan of the podcast or listen much but I can respect how much we need this sort of thing right now. I think I understand where they are coming from but I also see why people gravitate towards a platform where both sides are heard somewhat equally when we're in a place where that's seemingly impossible. He admits he's wrong and makes silly mistakes because of the reasons yall describe but I mean should he shut everything down bc of this I don't really think so.
Of all the comments this I agree with the most. The podcast gives a platform to a lot of questionable people, but so can a box in the corner of the street. The responsibility is on the listener to choose which people to listen to. From what I have heard on the show, Rogan is genuinely well-meaning meathead and I respect that.
@@jesrauma except when it comes to covid he has pushed his own anti vax narrative so hard that it’s not just “having a conversation”
Accepting an expert's opinion at face value requires credulity. Challenging an expert to explain their opinion helps us wrap our minds around why they might be trustworthy, even when a detailed explanation might be above our heads.
i couldnt like this enough
I don't think anyone should be challenging an expert unless they have a strong fundamental understanding of that topic or an expert themselves. How do you know what question to ask? How do you know if these "experts" know what they're talking about? If you don't have a fundamental understanding of the topic, how do you critique a person's explanation of their work?
@@Dave_of_Mordor Keep in mind that challenging doesn't necessarily mean critiquing. It might simply mean asking for an explanation that will provide that fundamental understanding, seeing if the explanation sounds plausible, looking to see if there's any information contrary to that explanation, seeing if that contrary information is plausible, etc.
The challenge might also be based understanding factors that might bias an expert. An expert working for an oil company decades ago might say that leaded gasoline is safe for the environment. An expert working for the tobacco industry years ago might say something similar about tobacco. An "expert" writing for "Answers in Genesis" might say the theory of evolution is fundamentally flawed. Some mostly-well-meaning experts may be biased against admitting mistakes, because they're human, and humans have a tendency to want to cover their asses. Experts might also give the truth if they think people might not handle the truth. Sometimes, it's simply being wrong - even the smartest and most well meaning among us make mistakes.
There's a variety of reasons why someone regarded as an expert may be wrong, regardless of their actual expertise and biases. We need to avoid cases were those declared experts are simply unchallenged because they are called experts. We can't be familiar with every field, and we do have to some degree rely on experts in various fields, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be afraid to challenge them. When we do, trying to gain knowledge about their areas of expertise certainly helps, but challenging them for explanations can be a starting point. If they truly are experts and what they're saying isn't bent by bias, they should welcome the challenge, at least if they have the bandwidth to do so. And if they make an honest mistake, they should welcome any correction.
@@Dave_of_Mordor Listening and believing what you hear are two different things right? Since i cannot trust my common sense and personal judgement all the time as I am no expert, is it wrong to check alternative opinions apart from experts? Now I am confused. :(
@@rowdyriemer This is late and I didn’t see your comment in my notification, but how do you know if something is plausible or biased, especially if it comes to something that require fundamental understanding like climate change and the covid virus? You gave a lot of examples below and they all require the questioners to understand the basic understanding first. I’m sorry but I completely disagree with you on this
I find this assessment lacking. Primarily, the critique on the basis of credulity. The argument made being that Rogan presents a litany of guests with a variety of viewpoints that are given equal weighting. We live in an era with the greatest access to the widest number of perspectives, which are generally not equally informed. For example, this channel shares the platform UA-cam with any number of flat-earth or YEC channels. UA-cam offers equal access to any of this content which places the content on equal footing. This isn’t particularly new either, the same applies to all books in a library. The argument implies that there is a responsibility upon the curator of content on behalf of the individual (whom is too ignorant and inept to responsibly consume content with discernment).
This is counterproductive, as eschewing the role of the individual in epistemological discernment in favor of placing greater onus on content curators to filter information attacks the wrong end of the problem. Put more simply, by placing more emphasis on the role of “experts” and less emphasis on the role of “laypersons,” we achieve no impact on the new media landscape as it is innately a bottom up structure that puts all sorts of content on equal footing. As long as this variety of content is accessible on every device in the modern home, the problem will be whether individuals are educated to navigate this new landscape with skepticism. Listening isn’t the same as believing, but arguing on a basis of credulity implies the argument that people are sheep that are easily led to narratives, which only lends further credence to skepticism of popular narratives and generates things like the aforementioned flat-earth narrative. Better than arguing that people are sheeps who need good shepherds, better we should effort that individuals need the tools to lead themselves by identifying nonsense that isn’t worth further consideration for lack of epistemological merit.
Which brings the focus imo to pedagogy in the “Information Age”. How do we as a society train our offspring to deal with this unprecedented situation we are in?
Do we upheld the institutions of learning we build way before the internet was even thinkable?
@@tillwarzecha7230 that’s not an easy question to answer, as it is easier to identify things that are not solutions than things that are. Bad ideas are more interesting and more convincing when one has never heard of them before than when one has seen them properly rebutted. If you want to decrease the number of flat earthers and young earth creationists, deplatforming discussion on the topic *might* be effective, but it also leaves people un-inoculated to the idea and places the onus to debunk the idea on them since avenues for fair discussion on the topic are not available. Moreover, the effort of removing such misinformation affords it credence by validating the idea of conspiracy because “they don’t want you to know this” becomes true. Good light alone doesn’t get rid of roaches, but it makes it harder for them to breed in the dark.
I’m concerned with the school system primarily. How do teachers react to the fact that their role is severely undermined in this new situation. That they still have to present “official knowledge” to kids who can access endless spectacle anytime, anywhere.
@@tillwarzecha7230 directly address opposition with best rationale against it.
Joe Rogan's views are pretty apparent, imo:
1) Legalize weed.
2) Don't let ego prevent you from changing your mind when you're proven wrong.
And he often throws number 2 out the window. Like when he was proven wrong by a primatologist and then he got mad and made some sexist comments.
For more:
ua-cam.com/video/LQCbT49VTTE/v-deo.html
So, just to make sure I'm understanding this correctly: Hearing someone out and allowing the viewer to make up their own mind in a sea of conflicting voices is a bad thing?
Wisecrack = dumb and on crack
Depending on who the guest is and what they are saying. Think of it like if he had Hitler on and let him spout all his disgusting ideologies to the masses while Joe sits there and goes "hmm yeah...right uhh sure" not stopping or opposing him. Extreme example and what the video is saying Joe essentially allows everyone to always say whatever unopposed equally so the audience can misconstrue what is good and what's harmful ultimately
@@Ekim2F94 The Hitler argument. I'm guessing you picked that name not for what he actually said, but of what he's done along with what he said. Hitler was spewing government propoganda and killed millions. Just focus on the actions of all the people Rogan has had on, and tell me what the worst actions were committed by the guests
@@Mike-sp7zv it was an extreme example to help illustrate the point nobody's committed what he did but the core idea of spreading bad unchallenged information is what iwas trying to draw out the videos musings
@@Ekim2F94 The internet today isn't the radio of the 1940's. There's options
If you have to explore Rogan through a philosophical lens IMO the most relevant one would be the liberal democratic tradition of valuing open discourse and dialectic discussion in good faith.
How about a meat head who is way out his depth?
@@DavidHeffron78 you're subscribed to Bernie Sanders, Trevor Noah, "beta boys," and more. You didn't or choose not to comprehend the comment you originally replied to.
Edit: also Stephen colbert, vausch, Thom Hartmann. You live in an echo chamber of ideas and entertainment escapism
That's too easy and doesn't have a narrative though. David heffron who replied to you is more of wisecrack's audience
@@Mike-sp7zv LOL. I am a wisecrack. Well spotted.
@@DavidHeffron78 I see my other comment not directed towards you got your attention
“Regularly asks people their opinion on topics they are not experts” description of the main stream media
Charles: On the contrary, most mainstream media (Fox News-the most mainstream of all-excepted) interview the most vetted and well-known experts. You can choose to see Fauci in whatever way you please, but you cannot deny his stellar experience and credentials. He is the epitome of an expert. Many of the people Rogan has on his show are just confident charismatics with poor or non-existent credentials and experience in the relevant subject matter.
@@BruceHurley Appeal to authority for the sake of authority is dangerous and wrong. For example smoking companies in the 1950s lobbied and had top American scientists create bullshit studies saying cigarettes did not harm lungs. Just because someone has credentials does not mean jack shit because they are still humans who can make mistakes or can be corrupted. I don't have a hard on hatred of Fauci but the man is clearly more of government bureaucrat who will say what is the politically correct opinion on the pandemic at the current moment in time and radically flip-flop on core basic facts rather than telling people the cold truth that nobody had a fucking clue what was going on. Just now are virologists starting to get a grasp of this virus(spreads airborne not just respiratory droplets so cloth/surgical masks do not work) or how the current covid vaccines actually work(effective at disease severity poor at stopping transmission).
It is a fallacy…but many people believe what they believe because they hear it from Joe Rogan and co without diving into the actual body of study that has an evidentiary basis. That’s also a fallacy. Unfortunately, scientific communication simply cannot be perfectly argumentatively sound. Why? Because unfortunately, that’s just not how people absorb information.
Experts in a specialized field or people speaking on behalf of them with greater communication skills have a greater chance of leading into better bodies of study than a podcaster citing an video essayist citing a news article citing an untrained interpretation or sometimes completely erroneous and biased interpretation of a study. It isn’t perfect, but it’s better than other alternatives.
@@hailbane9633: Those are some good points. I don't think it's an appeal to authority for the sake of authority, but rather an appeal to the source most likely to have the best information. You can dismiss Fauci by calling him a bureaucrat, but he is probably the most qualified epidemiologist in the country. I hear all the theories about why we shouldn't listen to him, but none of them make sense. What is his incentive for encouraging people to wear masks if he didn't think that was a good idea? The truth is that their information was changing all the time and therefore their recommendations were changing. That's the definition of good science. Now, if he had held a hard line on everything and refused to change despite the evidence, that would be a valid reason to criticize him. It's not that experts are always right but that they are far more likely to be right than non-experts. Joe Rogan has described himself as a non-expert, and in fact it's his M.O. to be just a regular guy asking questions, but yet he specifically said in one episode that if a healthy 21 year old came up to him and asked if he should get a vaccine, that Joe would tell him no. He has no business sharing those kinds of opinions when he knows how much his audience trusts and believes him. It's dangerous and irresponsible. Ditto for trotting out fringe theorists and assigning them the same credibility as true experts. I think it's a good thing that he provides a venue for out of the box perspectives, but he has to frame them correctly so that the average person isn't conflating those perspectives with real science. Thanks for your comment!
Didn’t know the inventor of the mRNA vaccine was considered “sus”
Absolutely right! Thank you for pointing that one out. Wisecrack saying this in the first minute of the video made me question the quality of their research and what kind of bias they have.
I think Rogan is hard to pin down bc his biggest strength is his biggest issue. Which is he talks to pretty much anyone as if this is a private and casual conversation between friends. So it connects to people in a personal way, but at the same time means he generally isnt confrontational on subjects. Generally when you talk to your friends you are not verbally attacking them if you disagree. So if he is feeling the guest in a positive way he generally is not confrontational and humors them. If he isnt jiving with them he then gets a bit more combative. So it it really tough to really know where he stands. My one complaint is his whole “I am just a guy talking shit”. Naw… you are self aware enough to understand you took a crazy amount of money and have a vast base of ppl. Lets not act like you are just some dude in a basement. The level of influence and money you have means you will get criticism. Cant have it both ways
Yeah on face value JRE is a cool idea, just get a bunch of people and have them talk. Rogan just doesn't take responsibility for the things said on the podcast. Maybe something like a fact checker or someone more confrontational to play off Rogan could help
Here's the thing, that all works well an good "in theory", but in practice, how far do you extend it? If Joe Rogan suddenly decides to have a nice fire side chat with Nazis calling for the extermination of a portion of the population and does his "haha, yeah I see your point" routine, is it still worth listening to now that we are long past knowing that this isn't a point worth listening to? Heck, we don't even have to mention Nazis. Let's talk flat earthers. Do we really need to hear a flat earthers talk a bunch of flat earth talking points anymore and have a platform where they can do so with a host going "haha, yeah I see your point"?
@@Lunch_Meatagree with you. He isn't respecting the impact of his platform to dumb down the national discourse when he has the power and ability to do the exact opposite.
the podcast has always been just a dude talkin' shit. occasionally it gets serious, but it's an informal podcast. it doesn't matter how many people are listening. it all started as a couple friends in a basement and not much has changed.
people take JRE way too seriously these days, it's just a conversation.
@@asdf52708 Got to disagree some. Things change. As time has gone on Joe likes to speak out of both sides of his mouth. When he wants to shield himself his is just a guy not claiming to be an expert. When he wants to be aggressive he points out that he has more views than places like CNN and they are the joke. At one point he even bragged that he is basically the mainstream media now. You cant have it both ways. You cant take a 200 million dollar deal, brag about your reach being larger than traditional media and then when critiqued act like you are just a mom and pop show barely making in on public radio.
Socrates being forced to drink hemlock for being a heretic tells me you would likely have made this exact same video in his time since it would have been the most profitable perspective in Greek ethos at the time. Humans have such a hard time allowing other humans to use judgment for some reason.
Socrates wasn't being forced to drink hemlock, he could easily escape if he wanted to.
@@w_o_n_d_e_r_w_o_m_a_n Great job missing the point. Also Socrates wasn’t forced he had a choice to choose philosophy or death.
Let's face it, society either burns witches or poisons philosophers. That's the extremes. Any nuance, any attempt to look at things from a macro perspective is not allowed. The zeitgeist and "the message" is all that's permitted.
did you just compare the trial of motherfucking Socrates to Wisecrack's take on Joe "Spotify paid me 200 MIL" Rogan?
I like that you pointed out the fact that he gives people that the corporate media not only ignore but sometimes vilify a platform to speak, for example edward snowden who is a fugitive for letting the american people know about the unconstitutional personal data collecting by government agencies such as the nsa. I have enjoyed and been enlightened by so many of his podcast and the fact he has such varied guest and lets them speak so freely is exactly why i enjoy them so much.
It also goes both way hence the sus people
@@JayV98 And that's the point. Joe doesn't tell you what to think. He has people on tje show, gets them comfy, let's their mask fall off, and what you see is the genuine person and whether their words hold truth, or whether like Mark Zuckerberg you're just a lying corporate shill.
Joe doesn't have a philosophy, he just talks, tries to understand the person in front of him. It's on the viewer to decide what to make of who he interviews.
@@angryherbalgerbil but he does. He obviously isn't a neutral party offering a public forum to everyone equally, he is a person with his biases and ultimately financial interests at heart. He obviously took a non-neutral position on vaccines.
Alternatively the philosophy he tries to emmulate is radical centrism where he will try to pick the middleground on every issue. They pretty much nail it when they say Joe Rogan's show pursues the mantra of we believe all truths to be self evident.
@@angryherbalgerbil If you can't identify Rogan's painfully obvious philosophical biases, it might be time to take a break from listening to Rogan
@@georgigeorgiev891 so what. A politicians has his own interest and still tell truth. If ı montly have million dollar of wage, i still think capitalism sucks.
So does anyone think that Joe Rogan's masculinity, will allow him to ignore the fact that his show got compared to The View?
I suspect he would be cool with that comparison.
Joe Rogan won’t see thisb
He is literally the male Oprah for dudes
He seems pretty secure in his masculinity so yeah, I stopped listening to most episodes because I hate spotify. But what kind of macho insecure "I'm a MAAIIIN!!!" man would allow countless videos of himself crying be up online?
@@dcworld4349 Naw based on how he responded for be called out for “bubble gut “ saying “I had a big meal” kind of shows the opposite.
I'm taken aback by the intro. I think it's a categorical example in the hubris of this channel. I find it curious that we can lay superficial observations of arc-atypical human behavior (fluidity of personal convictions and beliefs) and then assert that the inherent fluidity in one's persona should be the basis in which we are to judge an individual's trustworthiness.
I'm also chuckling at the irony in critiquing lengthy podcasts. If you haven't noticed, there's a hunger for a long-form dialogue in society, otherwise Rogan's podcasts and others' of comparable length wouldn't be so popular. Additionally, the long-form dialogue allows for people to fully articulate their point, opening up themselves to the opportunity of criticism. The long-form also allows for the hosts/guests and listeners to get into the nitty-gritty details that actually matter. And in this painstaking process the wheat is separated from the chaff, so we can let threadbare ideas wither in their own light... It would serve the chaff at Wisecrack better to actually articulate their nitty-gritty points as oppose to allude at morally/ethically damning characteristics of things - like a postmodernist-twitter-pantomime. If I wanted topical evaluations of mainstream personalities, I'd rather do it myself.
This felt like a scummy hit piece guised under a hodgepodge of various philosophical beliefs
I disagree with the video's take on why people have trouble trusting experts. It's not as simple as just preferring intuition over fact, or not being comfortable admitting our own ignorance. It's because some experts have hidden agendas, and they know how to pass off their claims convincingly.
A car mechanic is an expert on repairing cars. Car mechanics are also notorious for lying to customers about what's wrong with their car in order to get a bigger payment out of them. We depend on mechanics in our society, but we have good reason not to trust mechanics.
The same can be said for journalists, public health officials, and policy experts. They're qualified for their jobs, but we have good reason to doubt many things they say.
Exactly!
I don’t think what is said in the video is necessarily wrong. It IS a bit of a stretch to say that “trust your gut, not a book” is the foundation on which the mistrust is born out of, but i think that’s just oversimplification for the sake of getting the point across. Then again, I can’t really add much to the conversation except for my two cents.
I do 100% agree with the point you made though, and they just barely touch upon the subject of hidden agendas when they talk about the whole communism scare, but I wanna say they could’ve just overlooked this facet of the issue while doing their research, because it is a valid point.
The problem is that Rogan's nonchalant view on issues gives validity to ignorant and outright scary people.
I’m not so sure that is the issue. People that tune in and hear these problematic views/disinformation would just hear it somewhere else. If someone is stupid enough to believe blatantly ignorant spew then that’s on them. This is one of those things that it actually is the responsibility of an individual to think about what they hear. We all should hear what others have to say but we equally should think for ourselves.
14:46 "In situations like this we understand that someone who's been certified and trained and worked at this for years is probably the person we want"
Half of America: "let's vote for Trump!"
The othwe half "lets vote for Joe Biden"
@@profjorgepenna and?
Well, I'm sure this subject isn't going to ruffle up some feathers.
I think that allowing multiple opinions to freely express themselves is a good thing that the world needs most right now.
@@chase-warwick One man on one show cannot represent all intellectual positions equally. It's technically impossible. There are plenty of outlets for corporate-mainstream point of view (which happens to favor the products of giant corporations as the solution, probably coincidence). Joe is not bound by corporate interests, or at least he didn't used to be before the spotify deal (plenty of episodes removed since he moved to spotify).
@@chase-warwick When you look at all media combined, you'll have a good representative proportion. Why does one podcast on his own need to have all perspectives when other outlets like CNN/Fox/etc don't have that either?
It's far easier to simply let people say what they want than to engineer some sort of outcome. By the way, how would you measure which outcome you want beforehand anyway? Joe would need to do a study on expert's opinion every time before he can decide which person to invite in order to get the right quota. What nonsense.
@@chase-warwick retarded take, and copy pasting in this many threads is just sad
Especially when it's such a retarded take
Joe Rogan and Philosophy aren't things I thought I'd see together 🤣
There is a philosophy book on bullshit, so this fits right in to today's pop philosophy
That’s a bit pretentious of you
Don't forget that virtually all of our society's gatekeepers expect to be paid before letting you pass. If it were truly a public service, we'd call that "corruption", but since it's privatized we just call it being a "client"/"patient"/etc. Please don't pretend that a sufficient amount of money can't buy your desired result in a scientific study, court proceeding, or trip to the doctor.
Knowledge is actually free however, nobody is gatekeeping it.
Personally I like how many different people handle informal conversation. Some hold up better than others when they have to talk to non curated people.
Non curated? What does that mean. They don't censor themselves or let themselves be censored by the sensibilities of others?
He’s saying he doesn’t trust smart people when they talk.
@@ludlowaloysius to be fair I'm hard pressed to believe any human. No matter their intelligence.
Personally I don't like how people react to being wrong like when Joe Rogan made sexist comments about a woman primatologist because he was wrong about the bondo ape (it being fake news)
For more:
ua-cam.com/video/LQCbT49VTTE/v-deo.html
I hate the human propensity for trying to tell others how they should live and what they should think, believe and say.
Everything outside of physics and other stem fields is just assinine human bullshittery to try and assert or gain influence.
The Joe Cointelprogan philosophy is to think for yourself mildly for 6 weeks then have an "ex" CIA officer come along and tell you what to think.
He is clearly an expert on fighting.
.... at fighting an urge to toss other dude's salad all day. Rogan's gayer than aids.
This man just compared JRE with The View
To the statement in this video criticizing Rogan for not providing rigorous debate to all his guests; that is why he is able to get some of those guests on. Giving an opportunity for the guests to share their opinions and go deeper in their points without feeling like they have to form an argument, necessarily, is a catalyst for a better flow in his interviews. It is a talk show, not a debate show.
For all the intellectual rigor you put into this video you missed the point. It is up to the viewer to decide what is true and what is not. Simply present the viewpoints and opinions.
This clearly characterizes you as a member of the intelligencia actively condescending to the common people, implying them inadequate to differentiate the truth.
I agree
You are correct sir
Clearly
But you’re also proving their point that despite having done research, field work, training etc. a lot of people in American society do not take intellectuals seriously because personal experience and intuition trump expertise. This guy put together a whole presentation with credible sources and examples and you’re still can’t find value in what he’s saying.
It's important to be open and curious and "try on" different ideas to see if they fit, to discuss concepts as if they were true or real, and then put them down and reformulate your own beliefs. In podcast form, however, this smorgasbord of ideas provides any viewpoint a listener might want to cherry pick as seemingly legitimized by Rogan's open style of inquiry. JRE is like if you took the internet and put it on a podcast.
Once upon a time that would have been considered a good thing. We used to have these institutions which provided education to the public which were capable of teaching the difference between fiction and reality. They didn't always work perfectly, but they used to be good enough that you could say something, and the world wouldn't end.
Apparently now everyone has become so brainwashed by... something... that they can't be trusted with free access to media. That's why we must obviously restrict media further and wonder why someone like Rogan seems so popular.
It's kind of fun to have entertainment where there is no agenda. Rogan is there to get people to talk, and the guests have agendas, but in my opinion having both sides talk freely cancel each other and the JRE amounts to almost nothing but entertainment. Remember when entertainment for entertainment sake was not a bad thing? Now everything have to have a message and try to improve society in some way... It's exhausting. Joe Rogan is jackass but for another part of the brain.
@@Puerco-Potter Everything always had a message. The American public was able to convince itself it wasn't being bombarded by propaganda during one of the biggest propaganda ages in history.
If you think the things you loved as a kid didn't have hidden political messages, go back. You missed a lot.
@@theignorantninja I believe I have bit of an issue fundamentally with your premise, the desimination of knowledge freely is quite consequential to my worldview in regards of science, mathematics, medicine, and the culmination of those three. Open debate and experimentation is necessary. Imagine a world where Dr Robert Liston was censored for going against the grain or Louis Pastuer, would science be at the state it is? They questioned the status quo and proved their theories true, their discoveries save untold lives. This idea of such knowledge being rejected because it outside the accepted community whilst being hidden amongst them is the general gist of the premise I interpreted from your post, you are not only entitled but invited by myself to correct any glaring inaccuracies in my estimation there of.
@@mrnobody6447 You seem to have gotten lost on the way to a different comment.
Corporate media is way more subversive imo, because it presents its significant biases under the guise of journalistic integrity and those "rules" you talk about, while omitting things that challenge it.
Always said it JRE is Oprah for men. That being said his guest choices arent always endorsements to that guest. ‘He’s ‘giving them a platform’ but he wants to learn about the person he’s talking to and you’re open to make of what that person says as you will most of the time. There’s no pandering there.
While he's had a guest here and there i was able to actually learn something from, i've never thought the show to be anything other than pure entertainment at a decently high level.
For sure, I don't think that the show has ever tried to assert opinions as fact or take a hard stance on political shit, it just brings new things to the table in a fun manner so that your average person can get to see more viewpoints.
@@bevta except for the vaccine and covid as a whole. his stance on that hasn’t just been playful and joking. he’s really pushing his own narrative on that stuff
@@drewforbes8980 I don't blame him, he's being attacked by a mob of idiots spreading constant misinformation and harassing any big creator that has a differing opinion to him, he's been slandered by the news, and targeted by tons of internet activists. It's not hard to think that you're universally right when the only opposition to your opinion is as comically stupid as the people attacking him on twitter are.
@@bevta so if you get attacked by most people for ur opinion that means ur right? this is what society has come to?
@@drewforbes8980 In your mind, if you are being attacked by the other tribe, yes, it does. When you take the intellectual conversation out of an argument and instead go after the person then it is no longer about the opinions, it's about me versus you. Don't pretend that humans are above tribalism, it is built into us genetically, it's not like this is what society has "come to", this is what society is, society reflects humanity and humans are inherently tribalistic.
I can tell by some of the comments that the presenter of this video is clearly biased to the left, which kind of goes against what Joe is against. He wants to talk to anyone and everyone, but the detractors always have a condescending undertone whenever he speaks with people with whom they don't like. The reason we like him has nothing to do with where he lays on a political spectrum. We like him because we also refuse to be told who we can or cannot have discourse with. It really is simple.
Having discourse for what purpose? Providing legitimacy to factually incorrect claims that pertain to public health is irresponsible. Entertaining ideas that are novel is fine, but to what end? Believing something simply to be contrarian seems to throw out the truth in order to rebel against experts in order to claim nonexistent superiority.
I miss Jared. His videos were so much more thought provoking. These recent videos just feel so lazy
most of them weren't his videos per se. While he authored some of them, he was, most of the time, a host. You miss the personality, not the thoughts.
any case, you should check out his youtube channel. He has some pretty good takes. You don't have to miss him.
@@azzor4134 what's the name of the channel, please.
i disagree and im the Jarded twitch streams all day, i think you just miss him
I like the pod because he lets people talk until you can see who they really are, good or bad.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without accepting it."
I'll just say I appreciate the take not being focused on politics. I'm not a Joe Rogan fan but I've listened to some of his interviews and I don't get the impression that he has an agenda and I think that's what people who listen to him appreciate about the show. However, everyone should be able to be critical of the way he tries to accomplish what he's trying to accomplish and the people he interviews. That means, even if Rogan is giving a platform to people who you don't agree with, people should understand it doesn't mean Rogan is saying they're right and people should just believe what everyone says. But also, just because Rogan has interviewed some controversial people, it doesn't mean he's a conspiracy theorist and a crazy right-winger. Furthermore, the attempts to smear Rogan are more likely to backfire with his audience because people trying to smear him do have an agenda so it ends up being more dangerous.
his agenda is simple: mindshare and money. "it's just a business, bro!"
His Agenda is making money no matter who it hurts.
You can literally say that from everyone...
@@Antifadiva Oh my god that's so horrible.
How much did you ride your bike today to offset your carbon foot print? I hope you only bought fair trade coffee this morning. You aren't wearing cotton which came from India, right? You know where they stand on nuclear disarmament. So anyways I was taking these opioids for my back injury while playing college football for that university that used to be named after a genocidal war criminal and my Israeli friend mentioned that the 3 richest people in the US just earned another 100 billion dollars during the global pandemic which was handled just.... just great by everybody let me tell you.
@@Antifadiva no one's getting hurt.
I dont think Rogan gives all opinions equal weight, he just doesn’t believe in censorship and instead advocates for open public discourse where the best ideas win. The problem with deplatforming or banning is that it creates the opposite effect of what is intended.
The problem is that it doesn't always work. Some ideas don't belong in the public discourse because it legitimizes them and makes it harder to stamp them out. It's why colleges don't let white supremacists speak.
@@Darkloid21 And how will the public decide what belongs in public discourse? The only way is to let all ideas duel it out in the public.
@@AtomicVoid95 Wrong. Some ideas are flat out useless and don’t deserve a public forum. Some ideas don’t deserve that sense of legitimacy. White supremacy for one doesn’t need a platform and must be shouted down.
This guy took 20 minutes to come to the conclusion that Joe Rogan has unscripted conversations with people on his podcast.
The thing is, Rogan is also generally a really good interviewer. Unlike many interviews on corporate media, he interviews without an agenda or trying to trap the interviewee, no matter who he’s interviewing. And I’m not even a fan of him and thing a lot of his personal opinions are pretty dumb
Yes, a billionaire, right wing, reactionary ape is totally different than a corporate media run by a billionaire reactionary. Use your brain.
Without an agenda?
Viral video right here calling it!
Here before it goes viral
Less goooo
LETS GOOOO WOHOOO YAAAAA BBAAAABBBYYY
Sorry guys, these videos are so safe and unable to commit to a viewpoint that I rarely even learn anything from them anymore.
Its not about consistency it's about hearing the other side out. This video is another hit piece and it's sad it's coming from your platform.
Not surprising honestly since they’re owned by a large Canadian media company.
Why is it a “hit piece?”
Cause it criticized Joe Rogan?
Really, explain the difference
@@Nverdis look at all the comments explaining why it's a bad video
@@Mike-sp7zv But this video is pretty accurate as to why JRE is so appealing to people who bristle at the idea of "experts" and "authority." The show is presented as having no bias, which ends up lending most ideas a pedigree of fairness and accuracy, even when they're blatantly false.
@@lilstevechan8427 the show is presented as having no bias, or this video?
Y'all totally misrepresented the Bill Burr conversation! Bill Burr was not being anti-mask, he made fun of the anti-mask people. He was just making fun of the self-righteousness of people who are evangelical about masking
He just exposed who he's really making this video for by saying that actually, who's actually paying him to say all of this.
So basically, you’re saying we’re too stupid to form our own opinions, so Rogan shouldn’t offer these guests that are banned by the media an alternative platform to speak… because the media has been proven to always be so reliable
Got it 👍🏿
I think the biggest problem with public discourse is the general audience being unable to push past confirmation bias, most people aren't looking for truth, they just want validation that what they believe is the truth. Rogan has said "I'm a dumb guy people shouldn't listen to me" and yet the reality is millions of people listen to him every week, and he wouldn't be successful if his audience viewed him as "just some dumb guy." I don't think the problem is Rogan's format or the guests he brings on, it's the individual's natural urge to believe whatever affirms what they already think is true. The basis of manipulation is affirmation and likability, he brings on guests that say what his audience wants to hear and humanizes his guests with an extended conversation, as long as the guest doesn't do something to offend the audience, they're practically guaranteed to believe whatever they say. The solution to that isn't to change a format that works remarkably well or to limit who he brings on, Rogan needs to model behavior that acknowledges and pushes back against confirmation bias. He's good at interviewing people, and the way he pushes back against things he disagrees with is great, all he needs to do is apply that same skepticism to things he agrees with, when he and his guest agree on something it's an opportunity to play devil's advocate and try to find fault in what he already believes. Telling his audience to do that will have little effect if any, but if Rogan's the one doing it they'll start imitating him and pick up some basic media literacy skills. Just saying "I trust my viewers to not take what is said on face value" is just a denial of reality, listening for validation is exactly what his audience does and it's irresponsible to just ignore that with baseless optimism, it's not trust it's an abdication of responsibility.
The lack of likes for this comment says it all!
I guess the Wisecrack audience found your words to hit home so much that they had to ignore them... Anything to protect the bubble.
@@angryherbalgerbil no, years ago, I regularly saw right-leaning people post "Joe is a sell out" Now it seems more often left leaning listeners do the same. It's not "not offending" its only offending enough to participate, watch the video, and watch the YT ads. Because this is monetized as much as sympathetic views and people posting agreement. It's the inverse of what the OP suggests. Its disagreeing just enough to still participate. The mainstream media is polarizing, while Joe doesn't. I think the media should be doing more of this(with different shows with different hosts)and not have Joe the only one. PBS used to have William F Buckley regularly, after all.
I don't think people mistrust "expertise" so much as they mistrust the organizations that employ those experts.
Most businesses, media organizations, and governments have demonstrated that they are much more interested in selling their product or ideology than they are in actually helping the public, and as a result they have destroyed not just their own credibility, but the credibility of their experts as well.
If we had public-owned research organizations that were compensated based on the well-being of the population as a whole, we wouldn't have this problem.
that public-owned research organization would be corrupted in day 2
I can only partly agree with you. I live in Australia though and have a post graduate degree so I guess I am personally biased. Clearly, the corporatisation of media is a threat to a good faith enquiry into the truth, however that doesn't mean you should listen to the likes of snake oil salesmen either.
I mean public-owned as in the citizens would be shareholders with voting power over how the organization conducts itself. Corruption is a constant threat, but it is much harder to pull off if power is distributed rather than concentrated.
Of course you're right that people shouldn't trust snake-oil salesmen, just saying that when institutions' interests don't align with the interests of the rest of society people naturally tend to distrust them, even when their experts are correct.
So he should just have on people who agree with the mainstream media only
I loved every bit of this, but it's missing a big part of the story: Experts lose credibility when they (1) get things wrong, and especially when they (2) refuse to admit it. Most recently, we can look at the COVID public policy missteps regarding excessive school closures, draconian restrictions on outdoor activities, retconning on mask policy, general lingering "COVID theater," etc. I personally think most of those can be explained as good-faith overcorrections during a novel emergency, but they definitely discredit "experts" in the eyes of those who are already dubious of self-proclaimed intellectuals.
I think an example of this is wall Street banks, the Fed, and mainstream economists, and the Great Recession of '08. They failed to see it coming.
@@Efesus67 Absolutely. And even more recently, all the economists and politicians telling us that inflation concerns were just fear-trolling. It's OK to get things wrong, but it's not surprising that the experts' cocky certainty followed by quiet revisionism gets under a skeptic's skin
@@nathand6232 what's worst is that there is evidence that all these experts contributed, if not created, the financial crisis of '08 and the inflation situation were in.
If we’re willing to hold our gut to the same high standard of various institutional and individual experts, i would agree with you. We also may show a bias to dismiss incorrect takes by experts we like/trust over those that we don’t. We may also over use the term expert, if that person is an outlier who we agree with.
Wisecrack intentionally ignored that because their colors are showing
controversial does not mean wrong ..... accepted does not mean correct. and people are too stuck in their "in group" these days.
Like Joe he only cuestion the people that don't support him never cuestions the people that lick is big titts
Biggest point right here.^^^ I enjoy how Joe points out that CNN misrepresented his ivermectin gambit of treatment. Or how Jordan Peterson is considered a right wing nut bag because the govt passed a law that tried to force the words that come out of our mouths by fines or jail time. Or dammit I had another one that he's been on about. Forgot it. He's a "regular joe" asking and talking about things I wanna ask. Not some curated bs. Like how we're just supposed to accept the political right or left as THE truth. He is getting better about pushing back on some issues. Like how Ali siddiq is a homophobe on this latest pod. But I feel he used some of what the guy who converting kkk members technique. He listened to him and then pushed back a bit by saying that he's been around gays his whole life. Oh or what about the trans athletes winning from pen state. We are at a point in society where issues are not simple in any way and some factions of politics and academia are presenting their views as the only right way and that if you don't chose you are the problem. As though, in some scientific and societal issues, talking heads like this video say that there is consensus, thats not how the soft sciences work. I mean it like physics. In some cases I agree. On others I do not. At the very least what about masks? While I have no problem wearing a surgical one, believing that something is better than nothing. Anything below an n95 fitted does not completely prevent transmission. While people were shamed and legally harassed. They are essentially a token gesture.
I also like how he has Hancock on. But ive found out that Hancock is referencing people in his books that are presented as scientists but are actually teachers. It's helpful to find new stuff. I enjoy it cause it's long. It's layman friendly when it's experts and I can fact check them myself and make up my own mind. Not be shamed and talked down to by the heads on cnn, fox or w.e. mainstream media. All them yelling and saying that "this is the right way to think and that is wrong think"...oh apparently trans athletes have no advantage in sports...all I know is that I know nothing.
Edit all I know is that I know nothing, but I still have to form an opinion while being misled and lied too by media and world leaders who can't or won't put in the time to say "hey this is a complicated issue but we're going to go with this cause it suits our narrative or fits our ideology." And ya know what, I gotta do the same. I'm trying to be a better person but as far as I can tell, for example, the trans athletes issues being an example, I want them to be safe and accepted and to grow with the rest of us, but if they go into a competition with an unfair advantage, it doesn't hurt me and it's not my problem but I still want them to be safe happy and healthy AS WELL AS female athletes. It's not easy problems we have these days. Discussions are good. Tactics like screaming down people you have labeled to dismiss and berate while calling bigots because you don't want to let them speak... that's not free speech. That's harassment and verbal assault. Ideas sold be judged on their merit. Some "expert" people don't get to tell me what to think on complicated nuanced topics.
Wisecrack's philosophy: BLuE piLL, take the bLUe PilL, folks!!!
5:23 "belies comparison" should be "defies comparison". You can belie criticism, but you defy comparison.
Wisecrack is very lucky the dislike stats are hidden
God damn I was about to make this comment haha
Its been downhill since 2021...
@@profjorgepenna yeah, I feel like they are getting out of their depth with some of these topics and also doing it for clickbait more than anything.
But a bunch of right wing dude bros downvoting everything they consider "woke" isn't as impressive as they think.
@@lukethenomnom found the Joe Rogen fan lol
Ok... but Noam Chomsky said that mainstream media will always be biased and always be pro-corporate because of financial sponsorship, and even NPR and PBS have huge corporate donors and sponsors. So maybe we need a Joe Rogan? And Noam Chomsky is just about as intelligentsia as you can get.
The idea that legacy media has standards and practices that it adheres to is up there with Santa and the easter bunny as far as credibility is concerned
You need to go on his podcast and confront him on all this, Michael!
🤣🤣🤣🤣
That's how the illuminati wins
He is too coward or irrelevant to do so
@@monteraid No, it is more like don't give people like JR the added attention.
I don't interpret this piece as a criticism of Rogan, so much as an explanation of his format. The Rogan experience is one of polite conversation, and does not necessarily require "confrontation". Just like Rogan uses the popularity of his guests to promote his podcast, WC uses Rogan's popularity to boost their channel. It;s that simple, why hate?
"gave a platform to x horrible person" is such a dumb thing to say. "controversial" people with controversial views should be interviewed. different ideas need to be freely explored.
Since you mentioned debate, I'd love a video on the recent debate bros vs. essayists topic. Does internet debate have value or is it just spectacle? How could both be improved?
I liked the analysis done here by Wisecrack. I wish they had included this in the context of how scientific facts and ideas have become politicized and now carry more social implications. I'm a long time JRE listener but listen critically, as I do with everything. I didn't get vaccinated because Dr. Fauci said to. I did it because I pay my doctor for that information and she recommended it.
The thing is that some doctors are also anti vaxxers because even if they have knowledge about human body and madicine they don't have expertise in specific part of body, that's why your regular doctor will never do surgery (especialy on heart or brain).
Science and Facts have only become political because the Right Wing violently refuses to accept the Science and Truth.
That's why they drank bleach.
@@lococomrade3488 you shouldn’t be here
@@lococomrade3488 Said by people who can't differentiate male and female in sports 😭
@@TheChrismasCow Why's that?
I feel like Joe Rogan is a great example of the difference between "smart" and "educated." He's clearly a very intelligent man (smart) but can't build that knowledge into something cohesive, via critical thinking or whatever (educated.) People complain all the time that schools don't teach -insert whatever skill here- (auto maintenance, taxes, cooking, whatever) and that just shows that they have NO IDEA how education works. Education is about laying a basic foundation to build from. Beyond the absolute fundamentals (reading, basic math, whatever) education is about teaching you how to learn, how to come to an informed conclusion, how to reason. No matter how smart you are, if you don't learn to use that information appropriately, it's worthless, incongruous nonsense. See: Joe Rogan.
The opposite, someone who is very educated, but dumb as a box of rocks, are the people who are really good at memorization and following directions. They can follow really complicated processes, but they can't adapt any of those processes to foreign situations.
In short, education without intelligence or intelligence without formal education are both absolutely worthless.
The biggest problem I have is the questions = smart pipeline. Goes like this:
1. Being skeptical of mainline narratives is a good thing, because you don't want to be tricked.
Therefore
2. Asking questions is the sensible thing to do when presented with information
Therefore
3. Questioning things makes you smart
Therefore
4. Disbelief makes you smart
And thus
5. Kneejerk contrarianism makes you smart
It's that thinking that kills me. By Joe doing nothing but "asking questions" and treating all opinions as equal, and then contradicting himself, he allows his listeners to basically find at least one instance in which he bluntly states their opinion (or disagrees with an opinion they disagree with), and assume that their opinion thus has reasonable merit and intellectual rigor.
This isn't just hypothetical. I worked with a young man ten years my junior, who was very anti vax and very conspiracy theory oriented, and he said "I honestly think Joe Rogan is probably the smartest guy I've ever listened to." Exact words.
Joe Rogan dosnt basically say all views are equally valid, as you claim in this video.
He simply gives all views a chance to be heard, weather they are valid or not, is for the listener to decide.
This is why he is so popular. Viewers are not being told what to think, like the mainstream media does, instead, viewers are told what others think. His show is about exploration, not obedience.
☝️ this!
I just like the wide variety of opinions and people on the show. Joe initiated me to look outside of my own bubble and is a big inspiration to be open-minded to other people until this day.
According to this video, that's a problem
A variety of opinions?
Tell the Queen! Off with his head! Roses must be red!
I think its tough in the States these days bcs media is so set in 2 distinct groups - liberals vs conservatives - so its uncomfortable to see some1 who shifts all over the place
@@lm_b5080 i haven't watched since spotify, but i used to be amazed how often right/libertarian "bros" would comment "Joe is a sell-out", when it seemed clear UA-cam counted this as, and monetized this, as interaction. I knew Joe was laughing his way to the bank with this, but I think everyone underestimated just how lucrative it was. To get views and comments from people who totally disagreed with both Joe and the guests.
It's almost as if people don't like being talked down to and told what to believe 🤔 Pretty hard to come by in the modern media landscape also known as the Buzzfeed era. In this era, the more extreme and partisan the view, the more traction it will get. It need not be factual. It just has to be catchy and have a stick it to your rival kind of quality. And CNN WaPo, BBC, CBC and NYT got sucked into this vortex as well. Joe Rogan is the loveable everyman who can be surprisingly knowledgeable and stupid depending on the situation. He's been dragged far too much in the last couple years. I can't think of a platform that has had a more positive influence on thinking for oneself.
When you say "intellectuals" you aren't referring to plumbers and electricians. You're referring to those who have college degrees in fields which have very very little real use or demand in our society. That's the biggest flaw with your ridiculous "Americans hate intellectuals" argument.
In the 21st century one doesn't need to go to a university to become educated on political science, history, literature, philosophy, and so on. Universities are an obsolete concept, and I say that as someone with a masters.
$175k on a philosophy degree with no applicability doesn't seem too intellectual to me, no matter how many A's they have
I think you missed their point about “jack of all trades, master of none.” If you need an opinion on how to get a toilet fixed, you go to an expert on toilets. If you need an opinion on how a virus spreads, you do not also go to an expert on toilets.
He clearly depicts plumbers as possessing expertise.
Universities are not obsolete, they are structured institutions for learning.
@@masteroogway7624 I didn't say they didn't possess expertise. Don't twist my comment into something I never said in order to support your own prejudices and bias. He clearly grouped "plumbers and electricians" in the same category as the sort of "intellectuals" who go to college for the aforementioned majors. Universities are businesses which sell you a degree. Learning is up to you. You do not need to pay someone $100,000 to learn. The fact that you clearly have internet access right now means you can do it on your very own initiative. Everything I learned in six years at university I could have learned for free under my own initiative. As a matter of fact, I've learned much more unbiased information _outside_ of university than inside.
Americans don't "hate intellectuals". They despise universities which scam people out of _billions_ of dollars of what usually originates as tax money.
@@Mrnotpib Apples and oranges.
A lot of the controversy around Rogan is somewhat self-perpetuating. Whether it be a criticism or a defense of him, either way its an algorithm friendly subject that guarantees a high click rate.
Listening is important. Almost no ones does it. Supply and Demand is why Joe Rogan will live forever and copy cats will follow when he retires. No one wants to listen. We have communication majors, public speaking, improv, and so so so many books on how to speak. But there's almost no one who teaches people how to listen [7 habits of highly effective people maybe]. All these talk shows and people on TV won't take time to listen and just have shouting matches. We know Joe Rogan listens and it has almost never turned into a shouting match. He has thousands of episodes where we can hear what people truly think uninterrupted. People get to speak for themselves and we can make up our own mind.
Even if someone is speaking absolute non sense, let them speak. Then slowly break down and dissect what they say. Slowly [and dare I say lovingly *GASP*] show them a better way of looking at things. People are starved for that type of dialogue. And for whatever reason the mainstream media will NOT give us that. And people want it. We desperately want it.
It took you 2 weeks to replace a toilet? I’m a college dropout drummer and I can replace a toilet in about an hour and a half. You really blew this one. People don’t watch Joe Rogan because they want to know what he thinks. They watch because they want to know what the guest thinks, and Rogan knows how to get to the nitty-gritty in an interview.
I swear, sometimes formal education can make people dumber they naturally are.
Where’s Sparky Sweets when we need him?
“than they naturally are.” Sorry. I hate this iPad.
Sparky Sweets is not only the man we want but, also, the man we need right now. 😎
Spoken like a typical uneducated guy.
They never claimed people listen to hear Joe's opinion. People are interested in Joe's method of acquiring knowledge. Joe gives the people a buffet of all opinion and ideas through varied guests, many contradictory or even demonstratively false, and he encourages us to pick 'what feels right'.
That being said, the dude has a ton of sycophants who DO listen to him for advice. It's a small minority of the total group, but considering how big the listening base is, that's a huge amount of people. This is the 'Rogan is the new mainstream' point they brought up.
@@aritramazumdar240 Some of us are autodidacts. But of course you wouldn't have learned that in college. Those tuition fees and endowments have to keep rolling.
I scored in the 100th percentile on the SATs, got the highest ACT score in my graduating class, and attended Loyola University for a year and a half on the Presidential Scholarship. So save your ad hominems and never underestimate your opponent.
Now, run along, you effete snob.
Why do i feel like that the next video is going to be about Jordan Peterson....
Because the slippery slope has begun. They've picked a side and now we just watch the fall with disappointment.
@@nateauld which side do you mean exactly? Jordan happens to be on the left.
@@paganlecter6819 respectfully disagree. Jordan Peterson is by his own account a traditionalist, and very often aligns himself with America's political right-wing.
@@paganlecter6819 I mean neither right nor left. I mean people who can discuss disagreements and those who can't.
Too much complaining about 'platforming questionable figures'; not enough engaging kind critiques. We don't need to protect people from wrongthink, just need to grow up, listen, and be discerning.
@@kevinbeck8836 partly because the entirety of the political compass has shifted to the left. Jordan has actually posted his own results on twitter some time in the past and indeed, he falls under the left.
Much of his work, however is the introduction to the idea that there are corners of society to be preserved and the fundamental assumption that the West has gotten some ideas right, which are to be preserved. He described this notion, both on the individual level and its logical political extension, as an island where you should be standing on the beach, not in the chaos and novelty of the sea, and not in the tyranny of the explored territory of the islands center. In a sense, that is analogous to the symbolic representation of the world within the yin and yang
id also like to add that there's an issue with the political compass, or rather its execution. Many issues of political nature are reduced to yes or no questions, which is partly the reason why today we speak about "the wide political gap in the USA".
This does not allow for traditional centrist beliefs which in my estimation are the only ones that allow for proper discourse to flourish, as it rids itself of ideological obsession. Jordan himself is very close to the center, and id say thats why so many people like him.
The “philosophy” of Joe Rogan is pretty simple: “Joe like money. Give Joe money.”
To me Joe Rogan is what a true neutral platform is like. You let people from all sides come up and talk their stuff. You don't interrupt them and judge them on what they said. You let the audience decide what to take home from what is being said, and exercise thinking on whether you agree or disagree with the person coming onboard the platform. The reason why I enjoy it is I'm not told who to believe on every episode, I'm just there sitting like an audience in a hall where people from many different places are asked to come pitch their stuff. I don't have to agree with everyone, but I can get to see different people's perspective on what drives them.
The issue is the culture now is all about picking a side and rejecting the other side. Best example is what happened at the Oscars with the iconic slap.
What if someone is lying?
Is Joe equipped to handle the most skillful liars? Are you? There's a major risk involved with his format and the risk normally comes packages *as something that feels good*.
This video outright assumes joe rogan fans lack critical thinking to discern opinion from fact
....and basically implies that MSM consumers are the real critical thinkers. Lmao If you trust MSM (right or left) after the blatant partisanship, and sex scandals, and outright lies....yeah I can see you believing that.
...where are you getting that conclusion from? Did we watch the same video?
The thing I find funny is how people say Joe is so open minded, he invites everyone, he lets both laymen and experts speak...yet I don't see any of his listeners walking away with the experts opinions, it's always the conspiracy theorists and similar nutters who's ideas stick around in their mind. Wonder why...
I feel Joe Rogan may the the perfect balancing point for people who like, or dislike the way our society is headed. People who like where our society is going hate Joe Rogan, and people who don't like the direction of our society love him. He just hit that perfect counterculture/mainstream balancing point.
One of the biggest sticking points for him, is that Joe Rogan wants to listen to all sides of the argument, while mainstream want to "Follow the Science" and get rid of "Misinformation" which while at face value can sound noble, ultimately means just listening to one side only.
That balancing point keeps shifting as society shifts. People will watch and listen to what they want to hear from the ease of their phone whenever someone in person challenges their opinions and stances, creating mobile echo chambers. I left this channel because it became an echo chamber, but I returned to see if anything had changed. It hasn't. This channel does not strike that balance you speak of. It only pretends to
Not all viewpoints are equally valid, champ
Long time on and off rogan listener here since 2015. I frankly think people give him too much credit tbh. Like, more people saw endgame instead of watching the inauguration of the president, does that make one more important than the other? I know that’s simplified and semi sarcastic but still an interesting question to ponder.
I think this video is good but you do miss a few key points to his popularity.
One in particular that you touched on but didn’t really expand on is that he isn’t married to any belief, at least in his image presented.
I live in a purple state (MD), where outside of Annapolis, Baltimore, and areas around DC, there is a vast array of ideologies that contradict each other.
Most people here at least are not a Fox News republican to a T or CNN/MSNBC liberal to a T. These sources and others like them have a very rigid belief system that even one step out of line is grounds for intense scrutiny.
I know a lot of blood red republicans that think Medicare for all in some form would be something to look into and to end the war on drugs, or a lot of liberals who think there should be absolutely zero gun restrictions and are so far left, they come out right. By mainstream standards, these people shouldn’t exist. At least you wouldn’t think so with how networks, websites, and papers frame ideologies.
Rogan is a bastion to that, to the fact that you don’t just have to focus on one set of beliefs without discrediting your personal belief system. Like you mentioned in the view, like it or not, rogan is very much how a group of friends would talk about an issue. Misstep, have ignorance, pontificate “forbidden” ideas, maybe come to no conclusion at all over the span of two hours at the bar.
And with how streamlined modern media has become, where complex and intricate issues are distilled down to 2 minute sound bites of people yelling over each other until the ad break, completely overlooking all the nuance of modern society and behavior, frankly amazed people are surprised by his popularity.
Not only that, but so much of the mainstream is based around ads and what will be “big” and get views, and while there’s an inclination for rogan to do some of that, frankly it doesn’t seem to be his concern. And that alone, people find interesting.
You really think the dinosaur bones guy, one of the best episodes, was picked because they thought it would be explosive in the view department? Or Graham Hancock talking about ancient civilizations possibly being older than they are and a previously undiscussed mass extinction event being a bigger drawl than Kanye west? I find it more interesting but that’s the point, there really is, for better or worse, room for all.
I always liked his _”Wack Pack”_ in the early days like Joey Diaz, Brian Redban, Brendan Schaub, Theo Von, Bryan Callen, Eddie Bravo, etc.
And that’s how I got into his show.
Don’t care about his opinions on COVID or political issues. I find myself disagreeing with him a lot while still finding his show entertaining.
So I take it you always argue with your friends while drunk and high?
Synopsis: the problem with Rogan is he doesn’t know how to push back against phoney bologna
One of the big issues I think shows up in "intellectual" circles is an unwillingness to give credibility to the mistrust of educated classes.
In the States, we see broad disparities in health, housing, wealth, opportunity, etc, and these disparities are largely resultant from policies handed down by intellectuals on both sides of the American political aisle. Take the Tuskeegee syphilis experiment, the War on Drugs, current day "Educational Reforms," NAFTA (which did astounding damage to American steel mill towns), Privatized Health Care / other forms of insurance, the American Tax code, the concept of 'Credit Score' (which is just redlining with new people). For decades, intellectualism, or at least individuals who credibly called themselves 'intellectuals' (being highly educated) have supported such systems and initiatives, very much to a tangible disadvantage of the common person.
Americans (generally) have been less and less able to secure stable, self-owned housing, health care (affordable or otherwise), generational wealth, etc. as time has gone on, and if those who care to call themselves 'intellectual' are to regain a position of trust among a broader population, we *HAVE* to take tangible, salient responsibility for the failures of the systems we create. We love to talk, and often don't love to act, especially when we have to act in contrition. That's why anti-intellectuals hate us.
Great examination. Thank you.