I don’t necessarily disagree with the DtG’s pair on some of their opinions, and I also think there is definitely a place for a robust critique of the more prolific voices in the new-ish media space.
That said, it’s something of an irony when listening to these two - and yes, I’ve listened to their podcast - to realise that it’s their own brand of insufferable smugness that has given rise to the sort of people they profess to hate.
It’s quite an impressive example of creating work for themselves. Bravo, I suppose.
By all means, critique; but creating what is essentially a playground bitching session of a podcast and wrapping it in a cloak of faux intellectualism isn’t the way to go about it.
This is more or less what I came here to say after listening to this episode. I have listened to lots of DtG, and it just began to rub me the wrong way. I feel that it would be nice if they could be a little more self-critical and approach their subjects with a tad more humility. Otherwise, I find it hard to take them seriously.
For example: the way Chris just laughed off 'starmanning' as though it were obviously absurd really strikes that smugness chord.
It's weird to me that they seemed to have picked “no lab leak” as their most important hill to die on while neither of them is a biologist. They can't go a show without talking about it
The original lex pod, when it was called the AI pod and not the lex fridman pod was actually fantastic. First 70 eps or so were somewhat technical deep dives with subject area experts. I'm pretty sure lex embellishes his academic credentials, but he definitely knows enough to do those kinds of interviews well. That's how he grew his audience originally. Why anyone still listens is as vexing to me as it is to Josh, but how it grew initially actually isn't surprising.
Yeah, I think josh is unaware of the step up lex got in 2016/2017 because he 1. was an MIT lecturer, and 2. published his MIT course 6.S094 openly on youtube right as deep learning was starting. 7 years ago the AI pod was a congregation of incredible guests and knowledge.
I've been listening to Lex since the beginning and the clip Josh played was absolutely the worst piece of podcasting I've ever heard from him. Punishingly cringeworthy. Like you said - how he got massively popular I'm not sure, but how he managed to grow his channel at the start is very apparent from his early work.
Don’t. I gave up 15 minutes into some Lex Friedman bashing. Too much, “I just don’t get why he is so popular” coming from Josh and reflected by the guests. Lex lets his guests speak without interruption, I can see why that would be baffling to those who don’t.
A word about Helen Lewis/JP interview, I can’t believe the consensus is that Helen clearly got the better of Jordan! When I watched it a few years ago, I felt embarrassed for her. She was sneering and smug throughout as she put her ‘set pieces’ to him, which he then responded to knowledgeably. She didn’t want to talk with him about his ideas, it was an attempt to show the world how clever she is, a bit like when an average sized man picks a fight with a big man to demonstrate how strong he is. Helen is a different person when she speaks with Sam Harris this week on MS, she is affable, relaxed and open to suggestions and new ideas, no transparent seething dislike towards her talk partner at all.
I definitely agree. Not sure what circles that’s a consensus. I found her to be insufferable in the ‘interview’ with JP. It was hard to put aside the preconceived feelings of her from the JP interview when listening to her on the Sam Harris pod, but she was completely different.
I 100% agree. I posted this as a comment before reading other people’s views but it’s important background context to the interview. I feel like Josh and the Gurus here were simply backslapping the whole time.
“I think it’s a really silly argument to claim that Jordan Peterson was simply upset with the questions Helen Lewis asked. It’s obviously about more than that. Peterson has spoken repeatedly about how Helen behaved before the interview even began. When he arrived, she didn’t greet him, despite having invited him on, and instead stood in a corner, distracted by her team, ignoring him entirely until the cameras rolled. I think most of us would agree that’s extremely rude and would naturally influence how any guest would feel and respond during the interview. I can’t understand why Helen wouldn’t extend the basic courtesy of a greeting. It’s downright disrespectful. To ignore the reality of what it would feel like to walk into that room, picking up on the body language and the subtle but significant slights, seems disingenuous to me.”
I think it’s a really silly argument to claim that Jordan Peterson was simply upset with the questions Helen Lewis asked. It’s obviously about more than that. Peterson has spoken repeatedly about how Helen behaved before the interview even began. When he arrived, she didn’t greet him, despite having invited him on, and instead stood in a corner, distracted by her team, ignoring him entirely until the cameras rolled. I think most of us would agree that’s extremely rude and would naturally influence how any guest would feel and respond during the interview. I can’t understand why Helen wouldn’t extend the basic courtesy of a greeting. It’s downright disrespectful. To ignore the reality of what it would feel like to walk into that room, picking up on the body language and the subtle but significant slights, seems disingenuous to me.
Josh, with reference to your comments on your Candice Owens interview, and the benefits of a more sophisticated interview technique.
To my shame, I didn't know much about Ms Owens before listening to your interview. I knew of her, had heard some interview snippets, and had come away with a hasty impression that she was an intelligent, eloquent, right leaning campaigner against the excesses of woke ideology...
After listening to your honest non-confrontational interview, I was shocked to find that she was actually, completely barking mad...
Thankyou.
And yes, yours was a far better way to get this message through - not going in with all guns blazing and letting her fight a familiar battle.
I’m not surprised based on this episode. I don’t have any opinions on them as people or their podcast since I’ve never listened, but I’m wondering who they *don’t* think is a hack. I was surprised when they put Sam Harris in the same bucket as some of the others they were dunking on
I don’t necessarily disagree with the DtG’s pair on some of their opinions, and I also think there is definitely a place for a robust critique of the more prolific voices in the new-ish media space.
That said, it’s something of an irony when listening to these two - and yes, I’ve listened to their podcast - to realise that it’s their own brand of insufferable smugness that has given rise to the sort of people they profess to hate.
It’s quite an impressive example of creating work for themselves. Bravo, I suppose.
By all means, critique; but creating what is essentially a playground bitching session of a podcast and wrapping it in a cloak of faux intellectualism isn’t the way to go about it.
Just my two cents, at any rate.
This is more or less what I came here to say after listening to this episode. I have listened to lots of DtG, and it just began to rub me the wrong way. I feel that it would be nice if they could be a little more self-critical and approach their subjects with a tad more humility. Otherwise, I find it hard to take them seriously.
For example: the way Chris just laughed off 'starmanning' as though it were obviously absurd really strikes that smugness chord.
It's weird to me that they seemed to have picked “no lab leak” as their most important hill to die on while neither of them is a biologist. They can't go a show without talking about it
The original lex pod, when it was called the AI pod and not the lex fridman pod was actually fantastic. First 70 eps or so were somewhat technical deep dives with subject area experts. I'm pretty sure lex embellishes his academic credentials, but he definitely knows enough to do those kinds of interviews well. That's how he grew his audience originally. Why anyone still listens is as vexing to me as it is to Josh, but how it grew initially actually isn't surprising.
Yeah, I think josh is unaware of the step up lex got in 2016/2017 because he 1. was an MIT lecturer, and 2. published his MIT course 6.S094 openly on youtube right as deep learning was starting. 7 years ago the AI pod was a congregation of incredible guests and knowledge.
I've been listening to Lex since the beginning and the clip Josh played was absolutely the worst piece of podcasting I've ever heard from him. Punishingly cringeworthy. Like you said - how he got massively popular I'm not sure, but how he managed to grow his channel at the start is very apparent from his early work.
Hmm….trying to decide whether or not to listen. I think a podcast such as their’s definitely needs to exist…..but they bug the hell out of me.
Don’t. I gave up 15 minutes into some Lex Friedman bashing. Too much, “I just don’t get why he is so popular” coming from Josh and reflected by the guests. Lex lets his guests speak without interruption, I can see why that would be baffling to those who don’t.
I have a bit of a love/hate relationship with these guys but that's all on me because i’m a little b***h that can't take their abrasive style.
I know they make good arguments however I often find it hard to make it through their episodes.
They would probably say i’m one of those people who overvalues being gracious and kind when sometimes you just have to call people morons! 😂
Good episode though Josh.
A word about Helen Lewis/JP interview, I can’t believe the consensus is that Helen clearly got the better of Jordan! When I watched it a few years ago, I felt embarrassed for her. She was sneering and smug throughout as she put her ‘set pieces’ to him, which he then responded to knowledgeably. She didn’t want to talk with him about his ideas, it was an attempt to show the world how clever she is, a bit like when an average sized man picks a fight with a big man to demonstrate how strong he is. Helen is a different person when she speaks with Sam Harris this week on MS, she is affable, relaxed and open to suggestions and new ideas, no transparent seething dislike towards her talk partner at all.
I definitely agree. Not sure what circles that’s a consensus. I found her to be insufferable in the ‘interview’ with JP. It was hard to put aside the preconceived feelings of her from the JP interview when listening to her on the Sam Harris pod, but she was completely different.
I 100% agree. I posted this as a comment before reading other people’s views but it’s important background context to the interview. I feel like Josh and the Gurus here were simply backslapping the whole time.
“I think it’s a really silly argument to claim that Jordan Peterson was simply upset with the questions Helen Lewis asked. It’s obviously about more than that. Peterson has spoken repeatedly about how Helen behaved before the interview even began. When he arrived, she didn’t greet him, despite having invited him on, and instead stood in a corner, distracted by her team, ignoring him entirely until the cameras rolled. I think most of us would agree that’s extremely rude and would naturally influence how any guest would feel and respond during the interview. I can’t understand why Helen wouldn’t extend the basic courtesy of a greeting. It’s downright disrespectful. To ignore the reality of what it would feel like to walk into that room, picking up on the body language and the subtle but significant slights, seems disingenuous to me.”
These guys attack some well-deserved targets ..but why do they have to be so insufferable?
You know, you know, you know, you know.
Hellen Lewis and Peterson interview. One of the all time great conversations and no one ‘lost’ that exchange, or so I thought
I think it’s a really silly argument to claim that Jordan Peterson was simply upset with the questions Helen Lewis asked. It’s obviously about more than that. Peterson has spoken repeatedly about how Helen behaved before the interview even began. When he arrived, she didn’t greet him, despite having invited him on, and instead stood in a corner, distracted by her team, ignoring him entirely until the cameras rolled. I think most of us would agree that’s extremely rude and would naturally influence how any guest would feel and respond during the interview. I can’t understand why Helen wouldn’t extend the basic courtesy of a greeting. It’s downright disrespectful. To ignore the reality of what it would feel like to walk into that room, picking up on the body language and the subtle but significant slights, seems disingenuous to me.
Bundaberg may not be a big destination, but every Australian has heard of it as one of the most popular beverage companies is there.
Josh, with reference to your comments on your Candice Owens interview, and the benefits of a more sophisticated interview technique.
To my shame, I didn't know much about Ms Owens before listening to your interview. I knew of her, had heard some interview snippets, and had come away with a hasty impression that she was an intelligent, eloquent, right leaning campaigner against the excesses of woke ideology...
After listening to your honest non-confrontational interview, I was shocked to find that she was actually, completely barking mad...
Thankyou.
And yes, yours was a far better way to get this message through - not going in with all guns blazing and letting her fight a familiar battle.
Listening now. I like these guys, but they have IMPOSSIBLY high standards for The Fifth Column lads.
I’m not surprised based on this episode. I don’t have any opinions on them as people or their podcast since I’ve never listened, but I’m wondering who they *don’t* think is a hack. I was surprised when they put Sam Harris in the same bucket as some of the others they were dunking on