8 ms·

Indeed. As I saw someone say a while back Joe Rogan is Gwenyth Paltrow for men and that is spot on. The biggest problem, for me, with Rogan’s podcast is he bri

by _l4jh 5y ago

Indeed. As I saw someone say a while back Joe Rogan is Gwenyth Paltrow for men and that is spot on. The biggest problem, for me, with Rogan’s podcast is he brings on people that know nothing about a subject but let’s them talk as if they are some kind of expert. They have long conversations where Rogan as little if anything of value and just let’s a lot of weirdos that will get views ramble on endlessly for 2 hours. Then things get cut and paste around social media and misinformation spreads like wild fire. A recent example is Dr Jordan Peterson talking about climate change. He lacks even a basic understanding but was sitting there talking about it with the confidence of a climate expert and as he is a Doctor people take him seriously about everything and it’s just god damn awful. The same problem exists on a lot of “news” shows/channels where they have a genuine expert that has studied a subject for 20+ years and is known and respected world wide and sit them next to someone that read something on Facebook then got very vocal about it as it matched their feelings on the subject. This whole “we need two sides” concept is bullshit when the two sides are not equals but are presented and treated as equals. It gives credibility to people that deserve none as they have done nothing to earn it. I think multiple points of view are extremely important but you need to ensure the people involved are as close to equal as possible with regards to their professional standing and experience. Not some random blogger.

busyant 5y ago
> A recent example is Dr Jordan Peterson talking about climate change. He lacks even a basic understanding but was sitting there talking about it with the confidence of a climate expert and as he is a Doctor people take him seriously about everything and it’s just god damn awful. Ironically, I see this on HN, too. Not always, but frequently enough. What I'm talking about is comment sections (often about economics, climate change, etc.) with commenters who post with iron-clad confidence, only to be contradicted by other commenters who take the opposite position with the same confidence. I read these dueling comments and think, "Everyone seems so sure of themselves. But I have no clue as to who is correct here." I find this jarring because: a) somebody has to be wrong in these wars of dueling facts and b) I'm surprised because I feel that HN is enriched with reasonably bright people who I'd expect would be more circumspect with their comments. I'm not surprised about the abject confusion that the general public has when discussing similar topics, especially since I am often confused reading HN comments. I know that's arrogant of me, but there's truth in there, too. tldr: If I can't get a handle on dueling "facts" when reading HN, how the hell can I expect Joe Rogan or his listeners to do the same?
- f6v 5y ago
  > I'm surprised because I feel that HN is enriched with reasonably bright people The biggest misconception is that an expert in some field(especially STEM) has “common sense” in other areas. My former classmate is doing a PhD in automation, but claimed vaccines are harmful and he’d rather get sick “naturally”. The same goes for politics, economics, and other fields. It’s like people can’t imagine they might be completely ignorant in the areas outside their field of work.
  - busyant 5y ago
    > biggest misconception is that an expert in some field(especially STEM) has “common sense” in other areas Agreed. My expertise is in molecular biology / genetics and when I see those topics discussed on HN, I can ferret out the BS reasonably well. But with other topics, I'm out of my depth.
- paulryanrogers 5y ago
  Can citing original sources break the stalemates?
  - karaterobot 5y ago
    I wouldn't say so. Original sources can be in disagreement with each other, and can be wrong. Without much effort, you can generally find some scholarly article to use as ammunition for whatever argument you want to make, and then find another one to make the opposite case. And of course, increasingly, such articles don't hold up to much scrutiny anyway.
  - busyant 5y ago
    Citing sources would be a nice plus, but I think it still suffers from the issue that primary research always has caveats and limitations. And you need a certain amount of domain knowledge to know how strong the conclusions are. I've come to believe that "critical thinking" is often a matter of knowing which expert to trust. And sometimes, knowing who to trust is difficult.
- 5y ago
gitfan86 5y ago
The idea that we have to silence these people because they are spreading incorrect information implies that no one has any personal responsibility to educate themselves. Personally, I thought that it was hilarious that Peterson criticized climate scientists for building models without the full information, because that is exactly what his field of clinical psychologists do. Your argument is that because some people choose to get their information about the vax and climate change from people that are not experts in those fields none of us should have access to that media. If that is how you feel you should also be in favor of shutting down fast food restaurants and liquor stores because some people don't take responsibility in those areas and become obese and alcoholics.
- paulryanrogers 5y ago
  I don't think the argument is that Rogan or such guests shouldn't have any way to express themselves. Rather that carelessly platforming any contrarían in a lazy attempt at balance is harmful.
  - satysin 5y ago
    Exactly this. These people are more than welcome to setup a blog and write up their views should they wish but there is an astronomical difference between them posting their views on whatever subject they wish and inviting them onto a podcast listened to by tens of millions as if they are some sort of respected expert in the subject. Also as I said in my original post this is not just aimed at Rogan's podcast but the media in general. Many times I have seen experts in a subject with decades of experience sat next to a random person from MumsNet or some other online community with anecdotes and nothing more. Yet they are sat side by side, given similar air time to communicate their views as if they are in some way 'equals' on the subject which is misrepresentation. In no way am I saying the non-expert random person should be silenced but they also should not be given such a wide reaching platform due to laziness of the "news" service to find an actual expert to argue the other side.
    - gitfan86 5y ago

by _l4jh 5y ago

busyant 5y ago

> A recent example is Dr Jordan Peterson talking about climate change. He lacks even a basic understanding but was sitting there talking about it with the confidence of a climate expert and as he is a Doctor people take him seriously about everything and it’s just god damn awful. Ironically, I see this on HN, too. Not always, but frequently enough. What I'm talking about is comment sections (often about economics, climate change, etc.) with commenters who post with iron-clad confidence, only to be contradicted by other commenters who take the opposite position with the same confidence. I read these dueling comments and think, "Everyone seems so sure of themselves. But I have no clue as to who is correct here." I find this jarring because: a) somebody has to be wrong in these wars of dueling facts and b) I'm surprised because I feel that HN is enriched with reasonably bright people who I'd expect would be more circumspect with their comments. I'm not surprised about the abject confusion that the general public has when discussing similar topics, especially since I am often confused reading HN comments. I know that's arrogant of me, but there's truth in there, too. tldr: If I can't get a handle on dueling "facts" when reading HN, how the hell can I expect Joe Rogan or his listeners to do the same?

f6v 5y ago
> I'm surprised because I feel that HN is enriched with reasonably bright people The biggest misconception is that an expert in some field(especially STEM) has “common sense” in other areas. My former classmate is doing a PhD in automation, but claimed vaccines are harmful and he’d rather get sick “naturally”. The same goes for politics, economics, and other fields. It’s like people can’t imagine they might be completely ignorant in the areas outside their field of work.
- busyant 5y ago
  > biggest misconception is that an expert in some field(especially STEM) has “common sense” in other areas Agreed. My expertise is in molecular biology / genetics and when I see those topics discussed on HN, I can ferret out the BS reasonably well. But with other topics, I'm out of my depth.
paulryanrogers 5y ago
Can citing original sources break the stalemates?
- karaterobot 5y ago
  I wouldn't say so. Original sources can be in disagreement with each other, and can be wrong. Without much effort, you can generally find some scholarly article to use as ammunition for whatever argument you want to make, and then find another one to make the opposite case. And of course, increasingly, such articles don't hold up to much scrutiny anyway.
- busyant 5y ago
  Citing sources would be a nice plus, but I think it still suffers from the issue that primary research always has caveats and limitations. And you need a certain amount of domain knowledge to know how strong the conclusions are. I've come to believe that "critical thinking" is often a matter of knowing which expert to trust. And sometimes, knowing who to trust is difficult.
5y ago

gitfan86 5y ago

The idea that we have to silence these people because they are spreading incorrect information implies that no one has any personal responsibility to educate themselves. Personally, I thought that it was hilarious that Peterson criticized climate scientists for building models without the full information, because that is exactly what his field of clinical psychologists do. Your argument is that because some people choose to get their information about the vax and climate change from people that are not experts in those fields none of us should have access to that media. If that is how you feel you should also be in favor of shutting down fast food restaurants and liquor stores because some people don't take responsibility in those areas and become obese and alcoholics.

paulryanrogers 5y ago
I don't think the argument is that Rogan or such guests shouldn't have any way to express themselves. Rather that carelessly platforming any contrarían in a lazy attempt at balance is harmful.
- satysin 5y ago
  Exactly this. These people are more than welcome to setup a blog and write up their views should they wish but there is an astronomical difference between them posting their views on whatever subject they wish and inviting them onto a podcast listened to by tens of millions as if they are some sort of respected expert in the subject. Also as I said in my original post this is not just aimed at Rogan's podcast but the media in general. Many times I have seen experts in a subject with decades of experience sat next to a random person from MumsNet or some other online community with anecdotes and nothing more. Yet they are sat side by side, given similar air time to communicate their views as if they are in some way 'equals' on the subject which is misrepresentation. In no way am I saying the non-expert random person should be silenced but they also should not be given such a wide reaching platform due to laziness of the "news" service to find an actual expert to argue the other side.
  - gitfan86 5y ago