Joe Rogan - Intellectual Heavyweight

[Jimmy Higgins]

Downright hilarious. It's almost like he doesn't realize that everything he's ever done in his podcast was recorded.

Ultimately the new article title should be:

"Joe Rogan confused with people taking him seriously."

The trouble is Rogan's listeners took Rogan's guests seriously when it came to anti-Vaccine bullshit. And that kind of opened a Pandora's box for Rogan. Before that, no one that didn't listen to Rogan gave a darn what he said. But then he helped propel anti-vax propaganda (in most part because he is an idiot and has no idea what he is doign) and this was his sort of Manafort moment, where if he just didn't talk about Vaccinations, all would be well, much like if Manafort didn't join Trump's campaign, he wouldn't have been convicted of all sorts of crimes.

Now people are sifting through his podcasts and Twitter, hunting for anything controversial and the media always likes a good ole fashioned takedown. Rogan isn't important, his Podcast meant little... until he started the anti-vax crap... during a pandemic. And now he is under the microscope, times when he said all sorts of things that weren't meant for mass media consumption.

Is it fair? Yes and no. He help to propel misinformation (whether intentionally or because he is a fucking idiot) during a pandemic is reckless, and contributed in some small percentage to people not getting vaccinated, getting hospitalized, and dying. So there is definitely some ledger deficits that need to be made up.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Or:

Guy who gets high and talks about MMA and aliens, is influencing people on their medical decisions.

Joe Rogan isn't the problem. The anti-vaxxers he had spreading and more importantly, normalizing, lies were the problem.

New ideas and criticism in science often come from the fringe. That Covid has become so politicized may explain why any contrary viewpoint is hasty and forcefully attacked.

It is hilarious, in a completely not hilarious sort of way, regarding how the people that politicized Covid-19, are the ones complaining about how Covid-19 was politicized.

Yet, why would anyone assume that what we know, or “experts” say they know, is unquestionably correct?

This shit again? Look, it is simple.

Chance of Dying from Covid (any age) >>> Chance of Dying from Vaccine for Covid. There is no doubt.
Chance of being Hospitalized from Covid (any age) >>> Chance of being Hospitalized because of Vaccine for Covid. Again, there is no doubt. We have the statistics.

Risk mitigation says there is one and only one solution here.

Especially with Covid. What was conspiracy theory yesterday is establishment truth today. I don’t know if Rogan’s guests are wrong or not. But it is obvious that he, and not the MSM that hates him, is the one promoting science. To paraphrase Feynman, doubt is an important part of science. And experience is that those who seek to stifle doubt probably have ill motives.

Rogan is too fucking stupid to promote science. That isn't what he does. He is a Podcaster that just talks about stuff. He isn't remotely qualified to discuss fringe science. Also, I enjoy the politicized alt-right speech.
1) You can't live your life in fear.
2) Can't get vaccinated because vaccine could harm you.

 

[marc]

The great Rogan debate:

 

[repoman]

Only rare people like Freddie Sayers of Unherd are smart enough to have longer form discussions about Covid and even he is not fully up to the task. With the previous training he could have been knowledgeable about the field.

It is his even keel and preparation that makes him less entertaining than Rogan, but a better use of time.

Here he talks to Denmark's covid modeller



To go up to an even better level of covid information would be to calmly watch videos by Whiteboard Doctor who goes over journal or reputable articles and then maybe read some of that yourself.



There are also guys like Vincent Racaniello who I trust 95% of the time about most things, but I completely look askance at his automatic lab leak dismissal. Too much conflict of interest there.

To me there are two extremes that are bad:

One is people thinking they can solve or understand complex issues like covid vaccines by ah shucks "common sense" like Joe Rogan does- who admittedly has good life skills but is insanely lacking in knowledge about science.

The other is thinking that there is ZERO gaming of the system by the pharma companies and the FDA regarding these vaccines.

 

[bilby]

Only rare people like Freddie Sayers of Unherd are smart enough to have longer form discussions about Covid and even he is not fully up to the task. With the previous training he could have been knowledgeable about the field.

It is his even keel and preparation that makes him less entertaining than Rogan, but a better use of time.

Here he talks to Denmark's covid modeller



To go up to an even better level of covid information would be to calmly watch videos by Whiteboard Doctor who goes over journal or reputable articles and then maybe read some of that yourself.



There are also guys like Vincent Racaniello who I trust 95% of the time about most things, but I completely look askance at his automatic lab leak dismissal. Too much conflict of interest there.

To me there are two extremes that are bad:

One is people thinking they can solve or understand complex issues like covid vaccines by ah shucks "common sense" like Joe Rogan does- who admittedly has good life skills but is insanely lacking in knowledge about science.

The other is thinking that there is ZERO gaming of the system by the pharma companies and the FDA regarding these vaccines.

Nah, the real problem is people like you, who mask their total absence of education in virology and epidemiology with a folksy 'reasonableness' and a few jargon words from those fields, and who believe that that entitles them to a seat at the table when discussing what needs to be done.

It doesn't. Your poorly informed opinions remain shit, even if you have watched a few YouTube videos that have provided you with a vocabulary that most ignorami don't have.

You're a cargo cult expert. You are doing your best to mimic expertise, but it's entirely superficial; It's no more useful than a radar set made from coconuts and palm fronds. No matter how realistic you make it, it still isn't the real thing.

 

[cycomiko]

One of my favorite Spotify podcasts is called Science Vs. (https://gimletmedia.com/shows/science-vs) and they decided to not produce any more content until Spotify changes how it handles misinformation, EXCEPT for content that fact checks other bogus info on the platform. Their first episode of this year was about that Rogen/Malone interview. They're not judgey toward Rogan listeners and they do actually review the studies Malone cites with his silly claims as well as talking to the authors of the studies and other doctors.

 

[Trausti]

Only rare people like Freddie Sayers of Unherd are smart enough to have longer form discussions about Covid and even he is not fully up to the task. With the previous training he could have been knowledgeable about the field.

It is his even keel and preparation that makes him less entertaining than Rogan, but a better use of time.

Here he talks to Denmark's covid modeller



To go up to an even better level of covid information would be to calmly watch videos by Whiteboard Doctor who goes over journal or reputable articles and then maybe read some of that yourself.



There are also guys like Vincent Racaniello who I trust 95% of the time about most things, but I completely look askance at his automatic lab leak dismissal. Too much conflict of interest there.

To me there are two extremes that are bad:

One is people thinking they can solve or understand complex issues like covid vaccines by ah shucks "common sense" like Joe Rogan does- who admittedly has good life skills but is insanely lacking in knowledge about science.

The other is thinking that there is ZERO gaming of the system by the pharma companies and the FDA regarding these vaccines.

Nah, the real problem is people like you, who mask their total absence of education in virology and epidemiology with a folksy 'reasonableness' and a few jargon words from those fields, and who believe that that entitles them to a seat at the table when discussing what needs to be done.

It doesn't. Your poorly informed opinions remain shit, even if you have watched a few YouTube videos that have provided you with a vocabulary that most ignorami don't have.

You're a cargo cult expert. You are doing your best to mimic expertise, but it's entirely superficial; It's no more useful than a radar set made from coconuts and palm fronds. No matter how realistic you make it, it still isn't the real thing.

Didn’t you already admit you’re not an infectious disease expert? Yet here you are flogging repoman for being intellectually curious. Da fuq.

 

[Trausti]

 

[bilby]

Only rare people like Freddie Sayers of Unherd are smart enough to have longer form discussions about Covid and even he is not fully up to the task. With the previous training he could have been knowledgeable about the field.

It is his even keel and preparation that makes him less entertaining than Rogan, but a better use of time.

Here he talks to Denmark's covid modeller



To go up to an even better level of covid information would be to calmly watch videos by Whiteboard Doctor who goes over journal or reputable articles and then maybe read some of that yourself.



There are also guys like Vincent Racaniello who I trust 95% of the time about most things, but I completely look askance at his automatic lab leak dismissal. Too much conflict of interest there.

To me there are two extremes that are bad:

One is people thinking they can solve or understand complex issues like covid vaccines by ah shucks "common sense" like Joe Rogan does- who admittedly has good life skills but is insanely lacking in knowledge about science.

The other is thinking that there is ZERO gaming of the system by the pharma companies and the FDA regarding these vaccines.

Nah, the real problem is people like you, who mask their total absence of education in virology and epidemiology with a folksy 'reasonableness' and a few jargon words from those fields, and who believe that that entitles them to a seat at the table when discussing what needs to be done.

It doesn't. Your poorly informed opinions remain shit, even if you have watched a few YouTube videos that have provided you with a vocabulary that most ignorami don't have.

You're a cargo cult expert. You are doing your best to mimic expertise, but it's entirely superficial; It's no more useful than a radar set made from coconuts and palm fronds. No matter how realistic you make it, it still isn't the real thing.

Didn’t you already admit

Nope. Because it's not a crime.

you’re not an infectious disease expert? Yet here you are flogging repoman for being intellectually curious. Da fuq.

Nope, I am flogging him for spreading disinformation under the guise of intellectual curiosity.

JAQing off isn't clever, and there's nothing hypocritical about calling it out, while simultaneously promoting listening to experts.

Learning - becoming an expert - requires asking questions of experts in a classroom. Not asking questions of idiots on an Internet forum.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Downright hilarious. It's almost like he doesn't realize that everything he's ever done in his podcast was recorded.

Well, of course a black brain is different! Normal brains contain white matter!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Only rare people like Freddie Sayers of Unherd are smart enough to have longer form discussions about Covid and even he is not fully up to the task. With the previous training he could have been knowledgeable about the field.

It is his even keel and preparation that makes him less entertaining than Rogan, but a better use of time.

Here he talks to Denmark's covid modeller

Note Denmark's high vaccination rate. While they have a ton of Covid cases it's not clobbering their hospitals.

 

[Metaphor]

View attachment 37081

Unfortunately, this is hard to verify because the letter was published but quickly deleted, and apparently only Rolling Stone ever saw it (other outlets quote Rolling Stone's quotes). I have searched for an archived version of the letter and can't find it.

 

[fromderinside]

Well, of course a black brain is different! Normal brains contain white matter!

... and Loren Pechtel sets the limbo bar at worm level.

I'm convinced. This is truly the Joe Rogan over the fence cow pattie throwing thread.

 

[TSwizzle]

New ideas and criticism in science often come from the fringe. That Covid has become so politicized may explain why any contrary viewpoint is hasty and forcefully attacked. Yet, why would anyone assume that what we know, or “experts” say they know, is unquestionably correct? Especially with Covid. What was conspiracy theory yesterday is establishment truth today. I don’t know if Rogan’s guests are wrong or not. But it is obvious that he, and not the MSM that hates him, is the one promoting science. To paraphrase Feynman, doubt is an important part of science. And experience is that those who seek to stifle doubt probably have ill motives.

The establishment hate it when ordinary people question the orthodoxy and "experts".

 

[Trausti]

New ideas and criticism in science often come from the fringe. That Covid has become so politicized may explain why any contrary viewpoint is hasty and forcefully attacked. Yet, why would anyone assume that what we know, or “experts” say they know, is unquestionably correct? Especially with Covid. What was conspiracy theory yesterday is establishment truth today. I don’t know if Rogan’s guests are wrong or not. But it is obvious that he, and not the MSM that hates him, is the one promoting science. To paraphrase Feynman, doubt is an important part of science. And experience is that those who seek to stifle doubt probably have ill motives.

The establishment hate it when ordinary people question the orthodoxy and "experts".

 

[Trausti]

LOL

 

[ZiprHead]

LOL

Take Joe Rogan. By now, you’re not only familiar with the podcast host but probably with his general type, the guy who expounds with enormous confidence in himself, if not always the subjects of his exposition. One of the better casual descriptions of Rogan was a Twitter user’s 2018 summation: “Back when I was a kid you didn’t need Joe Rogan. Your best friend had a 27-year-old brother who … would smoke pot in a room with black light posters and tell you that the Mayans invented cell phones.” Chill, kind of fun, happy to embrace the wilder explanations for how things work.

Rogan also does his own research live on his show. He interviews random people, often contrarians, who offer up their own assessments of whatever subject. The point is often specifically to elevate some outsider perspective, with Rogan often agreeing either in broad strokes or the specifics. This embrace of misleading nonsense and purveyors of the same triggered his current crisis.

The Internet amplifies the problem in another clear way: There’s no way to offer a counterweight to those occasions on which Trump or Rogan serves up incorrect information. For one thing, the scale of the audience of each generally outstrips critics. But more importantly, those who listen are not listening to consider one viewpoint that they then test against other sources. They’re listening because they’re fans. Because they trust the sources of information in the first place. This, ironically, is an appeal to expertise in a different way: Trump, Rogan and others have earned confidence through an entirely different set of credentials, including mechanisms like choir-preaching and ego-stroking. So they are granted trust.


Two decades ago, a pair of researchers named David Dunning and Justin Kruger described a psychological effect in which people who don’t know a lot about a subject are necessarily unable to know how little they know about it. They described a pattern in which people learning about a new subject have a quick surge in confidence in their familiarity with it before discovering that the subject is far more expansive than they originally understood. So, as they learn more, their confidence fades — because now they know how little they know.
Dunning and Kruger’s original formulation overlapped with a young Internet, one without blogs and without social media. It would have been hard to predict how easy it would be for people to learn just enough about a subject to reach that first peak of poorly informed confidence — and then to just stand there, enjoying the view. Standing there with thousands of other people, all congratulating each other on their expertise. To have a person climb dozens of peaks at once, on a range of different subjects. Just standing there, confident.

And they got there all by themselves.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/02/07/anti-elitism-internet-are-problematic-combination/

Strike a little too close to home for you, Trausti?

 

[Trausti]

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[bilby]

New ideas and criticism in science often come from the fringe. That Covid has become so politicized may explain why any contrary viewpoint is hasty and forcefully attacked. Yet, why would anyone assume that what we know, or “experts” say they know, is unquestionably correct? Especially with Covid. What was conspiracy theory yesterday is establishment truth today. I don’t know if Rogan’s guests are wrong or not. But it is obvious that he, and not the MSM that hates him, is the one promoting science. To paraphrase Feynman, doubt is an important part of science. And experience is that those who seek to stifle doubt probably have ill motives.

The establishment hate it when ordinary people question the orthodoxy and "experts".

Probably.

But that's completely irrelevant to this case, wherein people who know what they are talking about are being told by idiots that the idiots should be allowed an equal voice on the setting of public policy.

"The establishment" isn't a part of this, and nor is orthodoxy - otner than the perfectly reasonable orthodoxy of recognising genuine expertise.

Reality exists. It's complex. If you want your opinion to be treated like that of the experts, you must become an expert. That may well result in your opinion changing, though.

If you refuse to become an expert, then you should expect your opinions to be derided and belittled - that's the appropriate response to people who are flat out wrong about things.

Democracy is a last resort, to be used to answer questions with no clear and obvious factual response.

Politics and Economics are rife with such non-factual questions. Epidemiology and Virology are not.

People who are used to arguing about politics might be expected to want to gather a wide sample of opinions weighted by popularity. But when the questions at hand are scientific, that's a very bad idea. So they must be told to fuck off.