My Journey with Jordan Peterson & the Intellectual Dark Web, Sensemaking Series
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 17 มิ.ย. 2020
- This film is part of Rebel Wisdom's ongoing Sensemaking Series.
Part 1, What the F*ck is Going On? is here: • What the F*ck is Going...
Rebel Wisdom published the first documentary on Jordan Peterson in January 2018. Just days later he shot to fame on a viral interview on Channel 4 News, where Rebel Wisdom's founder David Fuller worked for a decade.
This sparked a new film, 'Glitch in the Matrix, Jordan Peterson, the Mainstream Media and the Intellectual Dark Web' that has been viewed over five million times.
In this talk from the end of 2019, David Fuller explains the origin story, and what happened next as he continued to follow the trail of the Intellectual Dark Web.
Links:
Glitch in the Matrix I: • "A Glitch in the Matri...
Glitch in the Matrix II: • Glitch in the Matrix I...
Jay Shapiro on Rebel Wisdom: • Jay Shapiro, the state...
Timbah on Toast, Dave Rubin's Battle of Ideas: • Dave Rubin's Battle of... (Pt 1), • Dave Rubin's Battle of... (Pt 2), • Dave Rubin's Battle of... (Pt 3)
Cathy Young's Quillette piece on the IDW and tribalism: quillette.com/2019/05/24/how-...
Peter Limberg and Conor Barnes' Medium piece on memetic tribes: / memetic-tribes-and-cul...
"Follow the man who seeks the truth; run from the man who has found it."
i found truth : mass murder and force impregnate tousands cow in a small confined indoor jail.
then call it food, and ask respect for your "job"
Exactly...certainty repels curiosity.
Hi everyone! If you'd like to see the Q&A, here it is: th-cam.com/video/zm2CNnhtx9A/w-d-xo.html
David, I don't see the failure. The "changing of a mind" is actually a rare thing. It rarely happens quickly and it rarely is the result of a debate, however amicable. Usually, the greatest revelations are that you discover what you thought was someone's position was not accurate. The idea that the IDW is a protocol does encapsulate it best. As some members have pointed out, the real accomplishment is the conversation.
I think the suggestion that the IDW has not lived up to its own ideals may be coming more from your own hopes than the expectations of any of the members. The only real failure is when the protocols break down. That may have been the case with Dave Rubin and some of the others, but that doesn't seem to be definitive, unless I have totally missed something in the back story.
I never saw Dave Rubin as one of the deep thinkers of the group and I don't think he sees himself that way. He was more a facilitator, sometimes a master of ceremonies.
And this perspective goes to the criticisms of his style of interview. What I hear in that critique is simply a more nuanced and sophisticated expression of the de-platforming mindset so prevalent among the "woke" of this world.
"Why didn't you ask your guest the "tough" questions", to me is predicated on an ideological norm which decides what those "tough" questions are.
If you are someone who is perceived in the mainstream press and the social media inquisition as persona non grata for not adhering to prevailing orthodoxy, in what passes for journalism today, the odds are that there has already been a steady stream of lies, half-truths, innuendo and personal smears, the content of which makes up the requirement for the tough questions. It is a circle.
In having some of his guests on, including Tommy Robinson, for example, Rubin, by that act, is making the statement that he is stepping outside of that circle before any questions are asked.
The very fact of a conversation among such a disparate group as the IDW stands in stark contrast to what we have seen steadily building over years and escalating in the last few weeks. There is no conversation on the streets of American cities. None. And the express intent of those carrying on and/or instigating the destruction is not to have a conversation.
Jonathan Haidt traces that well in his examination of post-modernism and his description of its most virulent form being amplified by professors from college and university campuses on out into the broader world. There is nothing but power. Conversation is not possible. Negotiation is not possible. There is only power.
Once the American people understand this, if they ever do, they will have to decide if they want to give them the power, or deny them the power. That's all. Either way there is likely to be bloodshed. But this is clearly past conversation.
When it is all over there will be a conversation, but it will be a conversation among the victors only, whatever side wins. Game A. Sadly, I think integral thinking will be a footnote for a generation.
Nietzsche would agree that there's only power. And perhaps you're right, there's only one game. Game A players are actually IN that game whereas the Game B people are largely chatting on the sidelines. Jordan Peterson was a bonafide player...he got out there and stirred it up. I'm not sure how many of these 2nd gen IDW "talkers" have enough of an edge for that. (NOT that I always agreed with Peterson)
Having said this, I do appreciate everything David Fuller has done to set the stage for a possible spiritual-intellectual revolution and future Game B takeover. I'm just worried the momentum was lost with Peterson.
Excellent analysis, thanks.
I'm not sure i agree with your analysis of how the *tough* questions emerge from reputational smears, certainly not all of them. Even if they do, they may be legitimate. A parallel that comes to mind is London Reel's interview with David Icke. They brought on a controversial thinker who presents some pretty far out views that have the potential to cause people to die by fundamentally doubting the legitimacy of covid pandemic. But the interviewer Brian Rose doesn't push him at all on basically any claims he makes. This is a more extreme case but it's conceptually similar.
Now I haven't watched enough of Rubin's outside of the IDW episodes to say the questions he does ask aren't tough. But if the does fail to ask questions that challenge his guests, whether or not ideologically driven, then the criticism is fair. Conversations should be challenging as this is the mechanism through which we can decipher the truth and validity of claims being made or positions being argued. The argument that the watcher should make up their own mind, while reasonable, is not the whole story. I think there is a responsibility for interviewers to present their guests with the most viable criticisms to see how they respond. If the criticisms are flaky and false they should be convincingly discredited. This provides a service for both sides of an argument. If a criticism is weak it is shown to be so and be put to rest, if it's not then this is also shown. But not addressing these issues isn't helping.
Now I don't really know if the validity to criticisms against Rubin but my intuition is they're probably valid. Had he been a compelling interviewer I would have likely watched more of his content. The central claim seems to simply be that Rubin is providing "safe space" for people to propagate their ideas to a large audience, which is exactly what we don't want. Ideas need to go through the mill of rational discussion, they need to be challenged. If not simply so that better arguments can be formulated.
There is no conversation to be had with the rapacious oligarchy who run this country. And the intent of this rapacious oligarchy, which is carrying on and/or instigating the destruction of this country, is not to have a conversation.
For decades, by way of consolidation of media and politics into the hands of the corporations and wealthy, there has been ever-less, and finally NO, meaningful conversation. To them, there is nothing but power. Conversation is not possible. Negotiation is not possible. There is only power. They've got it, and they'll be damned if they're going to surrender any of it -- even if that means immiseration, feudalization, and even mass murder of the less-privileged.
Integral Thinking will not be a footnote for a generation, it'll be a footnote to humanity as the corporate global technocracy closes and locks it's death hold.
Jordan Peterson was an absolute blessing in my life. The world will be better off for it, even if it's only by a quarter-inch.
I very much enjoy his debates too 👍
check other exposing him tho, he has good stuff but a bit preechy xD
I like Dr. Peterson too, but didn't consider him a blessing. I actually find it really strange how people worship him. I didn't agree with him on everything, could see how he relied on some implicit assumptions that I had already challenged, but still found him to be a very pragmatic voice that improved my life. Then I started reading Eckart Tolle and at that point I left Peterson far behind.
@Anthony Avelar nice try
@@searchforserenity8058 I found Tolle before Peterson. Ebbs and flows.
Thank goodness for this channel, and its rational, intelligent, thought-provoking and grounded content, especially in these bizarre and unstable times. Please continue as you have been, it's needed now more than ever.
you bet, people eat billions mass murdered and force impregnated cow and chicken, then ask respect for their own species, color, race, language, familly... while eating kids of someone else without their concent. hypocrisy 2020 still going. people wake up but slowly
To say that Jordan Peterson (for example) never discusses topics with people who disagree with him, is to have not watched any Jordan Peterson interviews. Likewise in terms of him accepting critical comments - I think he is the most self-analytical and self-critical person I've ever seen.
True. I'm not sure if this vid is in good faith. Seems like pretty one-sided negativity toward EDW. I see that this channel was founded by the BBC and unfortunately it makes me question motives. It almost seems like they want people to stop thinking outside the box and get back in line
Psyop in a psyop in a psyop
He doesn't touch one single subject.
I didn't see anywhere he claimed Peterson doesn't engage in topics with people who disagree with him. He did make that clear about Rubin, which is true... but not with Peterson.
Peterson did dodge a debate with dr.richard Wolfe and then after the dodge still claimed a marxist wouldn't debate him.
Keep it up man, always enjoy your content. You keep it professional, logical and always thorough.
REBEL WISDOM - I am SO glad I found. you....or perhaps, you found me based on who/what I watch on TH-cam. Either way, it is so good to know that you exist and that you are willing to give all of these highly intelligent, logical AND compassionate individuals a platform. We really need to get these ideas into the mainstream, otherwise, I'm afraid, our society will be torn apart. We WILL go backwards.
Rubin’s show was great when it first started. The first two years or so were very refreshing from the MSM. Since then it’s just become an echo-chamber. Regarding the “controversial” people he’s had on in the past, I really can’t see the problem with it.
He used to have really controversial people on like Owen Benjamin, what happened to that? Owen didn’t die, he’s still out there doing his thing
Agree, sadly he has gone full on "anti-left" with no desire anymore to speak with the other side and trying to find solutions. It seems he just wants to "win" now.
@@TheDarkmining Rubins show is what it is. Fuller is not being journalistic on this...he's trying to pin something on Rubin that ends up being its own 'gotcha' bs. We all can see when Rubins show gets shallow....but I think his position is rooted firmly in giving those guests a platform in an environment that wants those voices dissapeared. IOW, even with its shallowness, Rubins show is valuable. Rogans show is somewhat similar in this regard: its not particularly deep, but it engages voices otherwise kept at bay. As far as getting Seder, Wynn, etc on...flip it around: would they have Harris, the Weinsteins, Peterson on? They would look foolish in a flash.
@ Agreed. I came to the comment section to write something similar. Rubin's style of interview is just one type of style. I feel Fuller's expectations are unrealistic. Not every interviewer needs to be lobbing hardball questions at their guests. Some guys just want their audience to get to know the subject better. Rubin's buddy buddy style hangout journalism accomplishes this. It's like expecting every filmmaker to be like Wener Herzog... there are plenty of people who will dig for a well rounded perspective, but not everyone needs to be like that. Rubin can leave the tough questions to other hosts and frankly I find his style of journalism refreshing. It's a breezy watch and I find plenty of value in it.
@@farrellrose4230 I feel like, because Fuller is such a seasoned journalist, he sees interviewing as a journalistic skill. Rubin, a comedian/schmoozy friendly type of person, definitely doesn't think of himself as a journalist, so he doesn't think he has an obligation to ask challenging questions. Fair enough, but I can't stand his show anymore.
Really interesting thankyou. A useful phrase to understanding Integral Theory is that at each stage you "transcend and include". Transcend and include. It was particularly helpful to hear criticism of Dave Rubin. Incidentally, he recently said he is no longer an atheist because of his conversations, so that's a significant change.
Great video! :D Really easy to understand and follow. Good job and thank you!
It’s admirable The Way you bring a nuanced healthy Critical perspective. Thanks for The Good work!
Great perspective, thanks for your efforts as always.
V interesting. Keep making these films please!
I really like your balance and truthfulness. Great job!
I only wish more people would watch your videos.
I can't point my finger exactly on what it is but it might have something to do with the way you name your videos.
Thank you for your work. It really makes me think. Thank you.
The James O'Keefe Portal podcast with Eric definitely is a good example of Eric struggling with his own bias and ideologies on journalism.
That was a disaster. Showed me that Eric has some issues he may not be aware of. Very hostile and bordering on bullying
Not the first time we’ve seen that side of Eric. Won’t be the last.. Take the bad with the good.
I think it also applied to O’Keefe
No doubt, everybody is primed for bias
The one aspect here that's important is the fact that, you can be biased AND be right. Just cause it's a bias doesn't mean it's wrong. Not saying Eric is right, but the possibility that you are can lead to an aggressive tendency that I agree, isn't very productive.
Can you elaborate on both? Can you describe their opposites and how you reached those, seemingly finitive, personal feelings?
I watch your channel because it exposes me to new and interesting people. Overall I'm a fan. Not really a fan of the critiques of people who are doing really good work. There are so many bigger problems in the world with sensemaking (MSM bias, big tech censorship, academic corruption, to name a few) than Dave Rubin not challenging guests much (a style I find valid), or Jordan Peterson cracking jokes at ridiculous ideas, which brings levity and cohesion. This video is like watching a firefighter criticize other firefighters technique rather than picking up a hose and helping. You have talent for critiques. If you are going to go that route, why not apply it to the real evils? They do exist. Look at what's happening in the world. It's not because of the IDW, it's in spite of the IDW.
I concur, and furthermore it's members of the IDW (particularly Murray, Heying and the Weinsteins currently) whose anticipation of the course of events and clear, rational, heterodox interpretative voices are providing many with an anchor of sanity amid the maelstrom.
Life is an evolution. Firefighters put out a fire, true, but what sort of people put out an evolution? Why would evolution be in spite of the IDW? The guy in the video has appropriated the term IDW.
Well put Brent. All I heard were shallow criticisms of a very deep group. Those on the IDW are, in my opinion, doing what no one else seems willing or able to do, and doing so in a way other than what most people have come to expect. Perhaps this "sensemaking" which I understand as "explanations of plausible understandings of a complex and shifting world" ,could be just that, and not a critique about how those attempting to do good in a unique manner have not fulfilled various personal interpretive expectations.
Nah... he's right. People like Dave Rubin do not move us closer to solving the problem. All of his views are expressed through his ideological lens... that is not the way forward!
C N Dave could be the way forward for many. Maybe just not you.
The scope of the IDW is to ingest the conversations separately and not exclusively with one central point of entry, but multiple layers of access from interview to public forums to podcast monologues...from Joe Rogan to classroom lectures by Peterson, the IDW creates immense value for those who want to grow understanding in key aspects of life and relating.
My impression is that Dave Rubin is intellectually honest and willing to discuss difficult ideas. Your criticism of Dave seems to be that he does not meet your expectations for balanced journalism, however I think there is a place for his interview style, which allows the guest’s ideas to breathe somewhat without incessant challenges. I’m completely fine with this, and I know to expect it when I click on a RR video. The exchange is non-combative, but I would not confuse this with placating and agreement (necessarily).
True, there is a place for it. Maybe he goes too far into creating a nice environment, like that's his priority, dunno. My biggest gripe with him after listening and enjoying his stuff for a while was he was not really thinking (especially not as effectively as he thinks he does). He's been stuck for a long while, professionally and intellectually, and if anyone rebutts him he struggles. Now you can say he's not a 'thinker', and that's fine but after literal years of talking to interesting people, you'd think there would be development. Is what I see :)
Dgkana I suppose these are all valid criticisms, however it seems like nitpicking in Dave’s case. He’s not, nor does he claim to be an intellectual giant. Put him beside Cathy Newman’s vitriolic straw manning, or the absurdity of TYT’s, and Dave’s honesty is starkly refreshing. None of us are without limitation, so despite everything, I still value Dave’s contribution. Perhaps he should fine tune his mission statement, or maybe experiment with taking the gloves off. Perhaps he is completely cognizant of the dissonance here, but he believes playing the agonist expands his potential guest list. I suppose there could be some cautious self preservation at work here. Who knows.
Dave avoids left wing people and constantly straw mans their arguments. Dave's show was only interesting when he had multiple guests on arguing with each other.
I'd recommend watching this breakdown of Dave's show and see if you still agree.th-cam.com/video/u3TPxQao3m0/w-d-xo.html
kkman40 Dave says that the lefties avoid him, but he invites them all the time. This is consistent with my understanding of how the far left is operating these days. Also, who is farther left than the Weinstein brothers? Also, you can’t talk about these ideas and issues without generalizing somewhat. I wouldn’t confuse a bit of generalization with straw manning. I don’t know that I’ve ever heard him say anything indefensible. I would be curious to know if you have a specific example in mind.
Really appreciate David's efforts to constantly adjust the course, this video funnily enough being one of the many synchronicities today pointing me to how the current prevailing narrative can trigger a knee-jerk reactionary response in many (including myself) that may cause us to equally shut down and simply assume the opposite, equally polarising position. I think it is important to keep mindful of this, as it just goes to show how this instinctive reaction amplified at a mass level can easily fuel a destructive backlash
I felt like I was part of the synchronicity between you, JP & Kathy Newman. Of course not in the same way, but it felt like a shared experience between people seeking truth. The Internet really is the nervous system of our species
Dave Rubin, Ben Shapiro don’t fulfil their side of the unspoken IDW bargain: taking out your own side’s trash.
how the hell do you figure shapiro doesn't take out his own side's trash? he calls people out all the time. and what side do you think centrist Dave Rubin is on?
@@garetclaborn he does but there's a lot not called out at the same time.
@@garetclaborn Dave Rubin the "centrist" 😂 gtfohwtbs
This isn't about them taking out their sides trash, they do, its what you perceiving as trash is in actuality your biases showing themselves.
A thoughtful critique of this meta-critique:
I don't think doing a meta-analysis is a bad idea, but I certainly think the hypothetical title "The IDW is Dead" would've been sensational, inaccurate and anti-useful. As others have pointed out, attributing the faults of a few or the rare missteps of others to the whole is not a good idea. However, I agree that all people should be interested in addressing their blind spots, and I think that the best of the so-called IDW - Peterson, Heying, the Weinsteins, Hall - actively engage with such a process. Those five are certainly not victim to "Orange-tier" thinking in generality, in fact I've never heard any of them elevate such values. If your argument, in reference to integral theory, is instead that nuances may be omitted from or ignored in conversations - quite a different proposal - that is sometimes true. However, it does not characterise the vast majority of high-profile discussions, and often nuance may be sacrificed for a time-saving shortcut, given both parties are on the same page in regards to a given subject. This is a frequent feature of conversations in general. One should be careful to resolve in their minds precisely what who-they-are-listening to is actually meaning, across a large sample of interactions - not just online but in life in general. By doing so, occasional lapses in nuance can be filtered out and substituted for a more holistic picture that has elsewhere been represented by the respective speaker. We should not hold everyone to an impossibly high standard in discussions, but I agree additionally that nuance can sometimes also be ignored in favour of persuasive simplicity - this is occasionally a problem that everyone should endeavour to avoid.
I don't fundamentally disagree that reflection upon where the so-called IDW could do better is a good idea, however we should be more careful to avoid generalisation of the """"group"""" and of exaggerating the magnitude of particular short-comings. All in all, our key thinkers are self-reflective, self-critical and strive more to find common ground to solve problems on - take the Murray / Weinstein Dark Horse Podcast discussion for example - rather than engaging in overtly combative discussions. Again, I agree with your motivations here, and would love to see more good faith disagreements with the IDW circle from within, outside and across the border of it. But, we should also value the fact that we do in fact see so many such discussions. I think the perception of the IDW as some kind of movement is problematic, when it is really many distributed forums for discussion. As such, we should strive not to make the mistake of painting with a broad brush.
Aside from those thoughts, the title to this video was particularly misleading - it was certainly not framed as your journey, more as an attempt at objective criticism, which is a valid approach that should have been more honestly reflected in the title; additionally, apart from a few mentions of Peterson alongside the "IDW" generally, the talk was far more concerned with a case study of Rubin and a brief reference to integral theory.
Your channel is quite fantastic, though I cannot keep up with the absurd magnitude of uploads. Understand my meta-(critique)^2 is made in good faith and attempting to mitigate as many of my own biases as possible. Keep up the great work.
Keep’em comin’ beauty and pure!
I'm glad you know to take criticism. wish I had some for you but you gave me a lot
One thing I know for sure; when I critique the behavior of someone else it is always about me and my ego.
Funny how I’m getting London Real TV pre-role ads now to this video.
lol right? his self promotion is a bit intense... london real or we are enemy lol
I haven’t listened to much rebel wisdom stuff lately as I’d become a bit averse to anything IDW related- primarily due to some of the reasons mentioned here- eg- being seduced by some IDW thinkers and becoming blind to their limitations, which led me to feel a bit disconnected from the world I have been living in. Interesting to see you addressing this head on.
The ‘teal’ part of integral theory sounds a lot like the term ‘metamodernism’ - a term being used for new emerging art forms that recognize the values of modernism and post modernism and oscillates between them- with a focus on what is useful
We use logic to create environments that we use emotions to determine the worth of. In that regard modernism is knowledge of creating such environments, Postmodernism is the emotions being examined.
What's happening now seems to me to be the use of emotions to create environments. I suppose it's a matter of time.
It feels like, in discussing Dave Rubin in context of the IDW, sense-making, and integral theory, you're making an error. You seem to be assuming that each individual player in the IDW is responsible for acting out all expressions of integral theory and sense-making in general. This feels a bit like putting responsibility for all defense, offense, plays, quarterbacking, linebacking, and the playing of all other positions, as well as the outcome of every single game, on the shoulders of a single tight end.
I think you're confusing the cogs in the machine with the machine itself. Yeah, Rubin doesn't push back on the questionable ideas of his guests, and he doesn't have people on who he feels have attacked him personally. Yeah, he's not the deepest thinker in the IDW.
But that doesn't mean what he does isn't an important cog in the sense-making machine. When you say he allows his guests to show themselves in the most positive light possible, you seem to think that's a bad thing. But isn't that exactly what steel-manning an argument is? Putting its best foot forward so you can be sure you are thinking about it without your cognitive biases getting in the way, making sure you're not attacking a straw man when you criticize it?
Don't we need to allow the most dangerous ideas to express themselves out in the open in their best possible light so that we don't drive them underground where they become malignant, and so that we can address and critique them honestly, without accusations of deception or lack of understanding? And might that not be what Rubin's job is? To get people with big, and sometimes very, very wrong, ideas to put forward those ideas in their strongest way in the light of day on a big stage where they don't feel threatened, but feel free to really lay out their arguments in their strongest way?
Why does Rubin need to carry all the water for the whole chain of sense-making? Might it not be a good thing that he's giving controversial thinkers a safe place to air their ideas, so that we can see the best version of what those ideas are, so that we can inspect those ideas in the light, honestly, and openly, with good will, and see if they hold any water, or if their bucket is full of holes?
I think Rubin is one cog in the sense-making apparatus, and his role is to expose us all to the ideas that others won't allow out of the basement. It's the role of other people in the IDW to then critique those ideas, break them down, inspect their parts, and help us all make better sense of the world in which we live, so that we can embrace the best ideas, improve the promising ideas, and reject the harmful ideas, all in the bright light of day. That's as I see it anyway...
Well said, Gary.
agreed
Completely agree.
RW is the only source/outlet of journalism that I've ever heard reflect upon it's own biases. There are probably others, but I can't imagine say Fox News acknowledging/addressing it's own inherent biases in any serious way. Keep up the great work.
32:56 "I don't see them (the IDW) reaching out to people in other tribes".
I agree, it's time to have shows like Rubin Report but which bring on speakers, thinkers and topics that are critiquing the right--not just guests critiquing the left or pointing out their flawed views. It's reached a point where I'm really noticing this needs to happen.
The problem you are failing to see is that the left, in general, will not debate people of other viewpoints. There is no room for debate with them, they truly believe they are right and virtuously so, so by disagreeing with their outlook you are also morally wrong. Also, they identify with their political beliefs more so than anyone in the middle or on the right, so by disagreeing with their beliefs, you (from their perspective and in their mind) are invalidating them as a person.
He used to do that at the beginning then he built an echo chamber
@@greggcannon483 Let's just take one example: Slavoj Žižek (a self-described 'radical leftist'), was willing to have a discussion with Jordan Peterson. This is all I'm saying.
The right curator will make these meetings happen. And it needs to be said--a great deal of 'the left' are academic intellectuals yes? That means they routinely debate as their bread and butter. There are many out there, but also many commentators. They aren't ALL unwilling to discuss. This just doesn't jive with me as an empirical social scientist. I just have evidence to the contrary.
We need to move forward from the broad brush of "the left cannot do" X, just as we need to move away from the equally easy to say "the right cannot handle" Y. There are perfectly reasonable, capable-of-meeting-and-discussing, people on the left and right. And if we admit that there is such a thing as 'left wing authoritarianism' (which there surely is), trust me... right wing authoritarianism is so clearly well established that it's an entire paradigm in psychometrics.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant and never meeting up to really discuss things is causing things to fester, which Dave Rubin was always against.
I really enjoy your work but here are some critics of this episode:
1. Characterizing, criticizing and generalizing the IDW by focusing of the "attitude" of one "member" is a bit unfair. Just because a statement/critic is true for Dave Rubin, you can not extend your conclusions on the whole group. While you can say that Dave Rubin is not pushing any of his guests and he hardly ever puts himself in a position where he has to argue with someone who disagrees with him, eg. Jordan Peterson often argues with people holding very different views than his (eg. SVT/TV 2/Skavlan Swdish Tv interview; Vice interview; Cathy Newman interview; GQ interview, Anne McElvoy interview, the Political Correctness Debate with Stephen Fry, Michael Dyson, Michelle Goldberg....)
2. Contrary to Dave Rubin, for example Dougles Murray is really "confrontative" and he very often argues with the "woken left". His attitude in interviews is again really different than eg. Dave Rubin's.
3. Contrary to Dave Rubin, if you look at eg. the argument about God between Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson, while it stays always civil, it is as confrontative as it can be.
4.What Jordan Peterson said that "it is not self evident" that the IDW is a thing is very important. Yes, there are some characteristics they share, but the way they discuss issues is the most important, that is the defining characteristic of IDW itself.
It's not really a thing, it's a way of discussing things. Like the "Dogma" film movement: it's not about what films you can make, it is about how you make those films. So as a movement there will be contradictions because the only thing they agreed on is the tools they will use while discussing important issues, so criticizing their disagreements is pointless, agreeing is not even necessarily their aim. I guess often the fact that they disagree on some important issues (eg between Ben Shapiro and Dave Rubin about gay marriage) and still respect each other as a human being is the lesson that the rest of the society should learn.
5. If we accept that you can attach the "stigma" of an IDW membership to these people, I don't think you can say that they are only reactionary. When I read Jordan Peterson's Maps of Meaning around 2010 it was as eyeopening of a book as it can be. + Dougles Murray, Sam Harris...they are so not reactionary when it comes to their actual work. + How can we call Joe Rogan reactionary, basically his invention, his podcast changed the landscape of the media world.
6. You criticize that they don't come up with solutions, they just sort of respectfully play with ideas between themselves. I disagree, they introduce exact suggestions for problems, here are a few examples:
Jordan Peterson - individual responsibility and the importance of a "higher moral value" + we need to deal with gender pay gap by first accepting that there are multiple complex reasons behind it, so we need to factor all those in ;
Douglas Murray - to deal with cultural/civilization differences first the west should accept his own right to control it's borders; Just a few days ago on Joe Rogan Bret Weinstein even suggested a solution for the Trump vs Biden disaster, he even named 2 candidates he would like to see. It couldn't be more exact than that.
7. If we agree that the most important thing is to detect and correct errors - and not to avoid errors at all cost - than I think Jordan Peterson, Bret Weinstein ....they accomplished it. I really like how self reflective some of these people are.
8. You said that when Jordan Peterson is "high resolution" than he is great but he can be low resolution and than it's wrong what he is doing/saying. I sort of agree but you did not mention the problem: If you want to present your ideas for a bigger audience you'll have to put yourself in situations where "high resolution" is just not possible (because of time limits of an interview/ because of the interviewers political agenda distorts the direction of a conversation/ because of the interviewer not having any interest in "truth seeking" they are just there to attack/because the interviewer is just not good - or not intelligent enough - to discuss complex issues in high resolution).
Anyway, thanks for the usually great content you provide, I really appreciate it.
I appreciated this
Enjoy Rebel Wisdom. However, be careful not to get too deep into your personal moralizing. When you insert yourself into the frame you push out the purpose of your videos, to introduce us to great thinkers.
Well said.
This to me sounds like an inverse of the debate on TH-cam, platform v publisher. He’s a content creator. I personally am interested in seeing how rebel wisdom’s personal opinions play out and interrelate granted he played an integral part in the overall exposure and we have seen him build himself as a content creator. You wouldn’t say, I wonder what TH-cam thinks about , fill in the blank. (Might be because we already can guess). Keep me coming man, don’t listen to uncritical lifeless analysis of your work
But how is he personally moralising in this video? This is a really good critique. Your caution here isn't really fair.
You're trying to impose your own rules on someone else's channel here.
curious if you know about Michael Brooks' book "Against the Web: A Cosmopolitan Answer to the New Right"
Heard of it, read some excerpts and there's even an interview with him on "The Rising". Absolute pile that book is.
ky1le challenges your hero’s so its shit? Lol ok mate
The IDW is just repackaging of right wing orthodoxies as “dangerous”.
@Jake Bullet those all are left wing ideas my friend.
@@malice21nall not at all, they are in fact central to American politics. not on any wing
@@malice21nall Individual rights are rooted in traditional liberalism as it developed in the Enlightenment period. There was nothing particularly 'left wing' about it, nor rightwing for that matter. Applying such labels to the 18th century just don't make much sense (which is ironic as 'left' and 'right' wing are 18th century (French) terms, but you get my point anyway).
Where is the Q & A , would like to see it in / continued as part of these videos ?
th-cam.com/video/zm2CNnhtx9A/w-d-xo.html
I appreciate your work and think it's great that you're having a close look at the "IDW". I must say, I've followed many of the individuals you're talking about and it isn't exactly clear to me that they're the same. This video seems intent on putting them in a group when in reality many of them having completely different view points on many, many topics. I think you touched on that at the start of the video and then resorted to placing them all in the same bucket. I say this from someone who watches them individually, sees them as individuals and use different ideas from many of these people and compare them to better develop my own viewpoints. I have a feeling that I'm actually part of the majority when I say that I do this with these people. I feel like you're pushing a little bit too hard to group them when I doubt they themselves really feel as close to each other as they're being made to be here. That doesn't mean I don't think it's great you're investigating them. As you should imo. But I just this is something to be aware of. :) Thanks again for your work mate.
Also, I think it's pretty evident that Rubin is a conservative. I wouldn't say that about the IDW. Interesting, though.
I miss Jordan Peterson.
he was really burning the candle at both ends for the last couple years, even without all the health issues I think he would have needed time off
I just downloaded the Audio book from ken Wilbert Theory of everything I am absolutely thrilled!!! with this mind changing piece of Great SCIENTIFIC Literature! Thank you 🙏 I cherish your brave criticism on the IDW however I feel that the Heard of Cat’s are at least trying to ask the right questions! But I also agree that the Statements put forward are....at best not well thought through! Which leads me to question their motives!
Very saddened by the realization that they seem to push their own agenda 🤯
Which doesn’t seem to take scientific measures and facts as basis for their claims. Boy you led me down a Rabbit hole!
The only way I will consider to re-engage with their theory’s is if they take up a constructive conversation to your VERY REASONABLE and (IMO) soft questions raised! Good on you mate! Great research and well done for not being instrumentalized by their shiny credentials and very intriguing claims!
They nearly had me there!
I love these videos and this journey. It's largely been my journey too so thank you.
A great video. When the IDW first formed, it was hard to identify where it was positioned (politically, socially or intellectually). It seemed any media analysis of it were struggling with this too, which seemed to irritate the mainstream actors who critiqued them. They were motivated to place them somewhere. I guess there was a belief that because it was independent of influence, that the thoughts were free of coercion and so this meant they were above the mainstream, conventional orthodoxy. Watching it lately, I've been feeling it has been going a bit stagnant. It's more clear, especially after watching this that the IDW were just a bubble among many. We seem to have unnecessarily created oracles out of intelligent but flawed thinkers. Surely, for the IDW to be loyal to its nature, there should constantly be new, more fresh participants in the IDW?
Thanks for making this video. It helped me order my thoughts a little on the issue.
They trend conservative and libertarian.
"I believe cave people were trying to tell us that they knew about DNA, they were drawing it on walls of caves on all continents"- Jordan Peterson before he became famous.
Snakes existed on all continents.
Well, I don't recall hearing him say that but, if genuine, it does match one of his postulates (which you apparently have either not understood or are deliberately trying to misrepresent) that as a species our phenomenal intelligence has allowed us to intuit mechanisms in the world around us long before we could define, understand or articulate them in any level of detail.
If by your post you are trying to paint JBP as dumb or duplicitous (before or after his profile changed dramatically - ironically due to the left trying to take him down) when there are hundreds of hours of him on TH-cam demonstrating exactly the opposite in transparent detail, then all I can say is good luck with that one!
@@adrianclarke6829 Snakes mating look very much like double helix. Occam's razor
says that those cave men saw two snakes mating rather than them having the knowledge of our DNA structure.
The so called "left" has gone insane, mate!
PS: I have enjoyed much of Rebel Wisdom's content. On the other hand, it can be so in the head, it becomes irrelevant to anything that is going to matter going forward...bruh we is in some for real shit and everybody be at sea...feels me?
The left is a very broad spectrum. Lots of what Jordan has to say about self reliance resonates with the anarchist and syndicalist.
The capitalist have failed. They are losing the argument and are having to control media and put controls on social media to control information.
The business as usual is coming to an end. I fear this will be played out in the US and there will be near civil war. Bizarrely the media are fostering the a war by being intellectually dishonest by not discussing the failures of capitalism to lift the poor.
This isn't about free stuff
It's about social mobility. The greed of the few, the failure to break up monopolies and the failure to make people corporations and the rich to pay their taxes have fed inequality and the death of community.
To be honest, I never go to Rubin expecting him to challenge his guests. I go there to hear out his guests point of view and idea's. I'm not going to get amazing detail on anything from the show but it's then down to me to explore deeper if I want to.
Not dialoguing with bad-faith actors is a problem?
who is and who isn't bad faith is highly subjective. Also if someone acts in bad faith does that mean they are forever damned and can't be communicated with?
@@jms6498 It means, don't feed the trolls.
The problem is weaponising the idea of not engaging with bad-faith actors to defend yourself and in so doing becoming a bad-faith actor. It's nuanced shit
Sam Sinha I’m assuming we aren’t dealing with bad-faith actors 😂 .
Right now in the culture war things are so lopsided re: gaslighting, strawmen, shills, etc... there really is an issue with almost all bad-faith actors being from one side. Truth>Optics
Literally everything can be weaponized.
I like how all your shirts never have collar.
Haha I think about that all the time
The spiral being referred to and described in this video is stretched to create the appearance of vertical changes that are actually entirely horizontal in nature.
Before one can perceive accurately the interconnectedness of everything, one must have broadened the perspective. If we struggle to believe we are achieving verticality through merely developing through a stage of development while remaining unable to consciously perceive (with completeness and with complete accuracy) any of the previous levels, then our growth is horizontal. And working toward a broad enough perceptual horizon that we can eventually achieve some verticality to our growth.
This occurs, however, as basically what I can best describe as a taller or thicker broadening of the ring of perceptual horizontality that immediately renders all levels INSIDE that outermost spiral horizontal spiral ring to be of the same tallness or thickness (as an indication that one has, indeed, achieved a level of authenticity of conscious awareness to have genuinely manifested a broader perceptual horizon). Otherwise, the new level will be perceived through a highly regressed perceptual lens, providing a more dissociated perception capability that is, and always will be, unable to actually integrate previous levels (which will remain fundamentally misperceived) precisely because previous levels are seen to be lower on the inaccurately-perceived spiral, and are therefore falsely perceived to be inferior. We humans can tend to believe we are entitled to expect more reward for successfully performing the actual hard work of life than mere enlightenment, as it is currently misperceived. (Broadening our perceptual horizons accurately sounds like a viable collective vision for what happens when we actually perform the actual work of life.)
The very concept of that which is enlightenment is misperceived if we can't seriously be expected to share the wisdom for FREE... HEAVEN'S no!!! (as if having more genuinely enlightened individuals isn't a worthy goal, and as if becoming genuinely enlightened doesn't cost a hell of a lot of what is actually valuable, all by its self.) When one considers what REAL cost is and REAL wealth is, instead of perceiving cost and wealth to be in alignment with the resulting processed-cognitive--products that emerge from the successful participation in our collective's favorite addiction, the pyramidal-shaped ponzi scheme. The only "way" a broader perceptual horizon becomes perceived to have provided the illusions that become misperceived to indicate the achievement of successful, authentic vertical growth IS through the utilization of a superposition of nihilism and narcissism. (An interesting superposition of these two devilishly self-deceiving instruments that, ironically, are presented in the video to be THE situation to be avoided during this amazing opportunity for authentic collective growth and true cognitive evolution.)
Flat is not necessarily inferior, and it may never be inferior considering the increased breadth of observations that can be made while observing from a perspective with wider perceptual horizons. A perspective that has genuinely grown to be capable of observing and perceiving those illusive interconnectednesses, that we tend to pretend we know are there even if we currently dream (especially collectively) about what they might genuinely be, and dream about what perceiving them might genuinely "look like". It takes more than the genuine growth of the capability to authentically observe and perceive, however. One must, after achieving the conscious capability, genuinely observe, and then genuinely perceive the observation accurately. When this level of growth of conscious accuracy happens, and then is genuinely utilized to observe the true nature of reality, I think we may notice that there is a HELL of a lot more baby than bathwater, and we needn't feel so superior as to believe we are capable of knowing precisely what needs to be thrown out. (And taking the time to grieve the tragedies that have befallen our species as a result of not having been able to see this before is part of the growing process. These remembered occurrences, that can and likely will become emotionally overwhelming at times if one chooses to reflect on one's memories, or even on our "sanitized" versions of history that we have been allowed the privilege to have been "taught". No cheating!)
When we learn how to genuinely observe in order to genuinely perceive accurately, the baby is perceived to be already perfectly clean enough in the metaphorical sense, and then the bathing can be safely perceived by the bather to be performed for the providing of health benefits that physical body hygeine provides for the baby. Not that we must devalue and discard the needs of the baby bather, which are inappropriate to attempt to re-perceive as it relates to the perceived duty to do what benefits the health of the baby while one is bathing the baby. You're trying to bathe the baby, not turn the baby into your psychotherapy in real-time. So, instead of bathing baby and throwing out bathwater for the avoidance of manifesting the experience of narcissistic injury (as evidenced by a need to perceive the self, as a bather of babies, as though bathing babies "makes" one "good person" or "better person"). This will help reduce the amount of neurotic bathing of the baby for one's own self-identity maintenance, and may even allow one to postpone a regularly scheduled bath without feeling as though one has failed to do what is needed in order for one to feel like a "good person". Like one who may believe one has thrown out some of the baby by allowing the water to drain from the bathtub. (Draining, or allowing to naturally fall away, as opposed to perceiving that one has "thrown out" the bathwater. Contemplate and consider the reality of the actions as they truly are, in alignment with the true nature of reality.
It is the misperceptions of the alleged adult (so grandiose as to believe they consciously and accurately perceive that and how they create the minds of their offspring) that would benefit from a bathing. The "adult" is in need of a good bathing in order to resolve misperceptions. Falsely perceiving the true nature of reality, once genuinely corrected by having genuinely resolved cognitive dissonance in alignment with at least a practical authenticity to Truth, can help us not feel so dirty that bathwater is devalued and perceived to best be discarded as a result of its perceived reduction in value, right after having allowed its self to behave in alignment with Authentic Truth, and just happened to have helped maintain the health of the baby without retaliating in narcissistic rage, even when it has been so unceremoniously devalued and discarded when its identity is externally perceived only as used bathwater. Water knows better, and it doesn't have even one single fuck to give about what it is perceived to be. (Which is categorically not the same as giving no fucks, which implies that one is in possession of prepackaged fucks, to be utilized in the only way they can: as the narcissistic rage that is utilized to defend an insecure conscious self-identity from one's self.
Narcissism is woefully misperceived, and I have more than a feeling this may be actually beginning to be legitimately examined and reassessed by the "professionals" who we have trusted to be more than on top of this shit than they have demonstrated via the results of their ability to "diagnose" and "treat" psychopathologies. (Always in the disordered others, and conveniently defined to be impossible to self-assess or self-treat. Sooooo, basically, they believe they "possess" a knowledge that is not gained from the first-hand experiences of that which they claim to accurately perceive and claim to do their best to treat in others, while using the same fundamental thinking errors that they claim to see in their patients, and wouldn't benefit from doing the work of addressing these errors in themselves. Because they're just so highly functional, and experience the delight of forseeing a prolonged period being able to "make a living" with job security, as a result of their ability to remain worshipped in their continued capacity to incompetently assess and treat psychological disorders and remain worshipped the whole time, which also happens to be highly profitable for more than just "their" "industry". (and profitable in more than a financial manner, if "high" self-esteem is to be seen as beneficial (I prefer ACCURATE self-esteem, myself, because not ever facing one's OWN psychological disorders because one perceives one's self to be both functional and worshipped within a psychosis-enveloped collective that would see you unable to "make a living" with sustainable job security if you were actually able to DO the job the collective believes you are trying your best to do.
Buuut, I digress. Having formerly worked in the capacity of a Registered Nurse, who graduated cum laude and worked in an interesting variety of positions, I feel I am a bit close to the God Complex that most healthcare professionals seem to develop with their degrees and paychecks and the worship of the public. With clever redirections of the systemic failure to correct even the easily identifiable and easier-to-correct-than-is-claimed shortcomings of the system onto the patients' noncompliance and the patients' ignorances, little to no genuine self-reflection is actually accomplished. Sure, we mull over the collection and interpretation of data, and do our fair share of self shit-talk and self-shaming in order to believe we're doing our best to ensure we're doing the best possible work that can be performed and documented such that we don't litigiously lose more of the God of all industry than our "competitors", monetary profit. (I could just fucking puke the more I think about it.) What we have is not healthcare, it is profit care and job security care and grandiosity care and dysfunctional hierarchy maintenance for the sake of hierarchy maintenance.
Idealize, Devalue, Discard
These are the core patterns that ubiquitously indicate the utilization of the narcissistic abuse cycle to maintain one's conscious sense of identity and conscious sense of reality.
What may be perceived as my own rage against the healthcare "industry" is only slightly narcissistic, the way I see it. None of what I have said about healthcare in western societies is new information, and it may be individuals such as myself that are helping the push for the development of an ACTUAL healthcare system. Even if it entails suggesting that the current system, in nearly it's entirety, may need to be rebuilt from below the ground up, if the "professionals" are incapable of conscious growth at least on par with what the lowly masses appear to be experiencing these days. Those lowly masses that none of us is actually, in our individual entireties, not a contributing part of. (Including even the "uncontacted" unknown peoples residing on some secluded island, somewhere where the grass is sure to be seen to be more greenly if it can be exploited for profit.)
This may be difficult to wrap one's head around due to the lingering effects of the grandiosity that has allowed us (and us, to the dear leaders of the nation in which I was born, refers to the USA. But also applies to any flying monkeys we have in the leadership of other nations.) to believe WE accurately define the true nature of reality, even if we have to bomb your collective until it completely dies, or until acquiescence to the "belief" in our defined truth is sufficiently demonstrated for us so that we continue to mistake our narcissistic injuries for legitimate "fears for our lives", but given the narcissistic supply of your demonstrated changed beliefs, we will possibly be capable of feeling emotionally existentially secure enough to stop extracting our narcissistic supply by watching our multi-modal destruction of what otherwise might "makes us" have to genuinely question the accuracy of our own beliefs.
Our contemporary "wisdom" compels our nation's leaders to extract narcissistic supply in the form of actively seeking flying monkeys in other nations, and destroying the populations of individual nations who would DARE to have been born in a country with leaders who refuse to don those flying monkey wings by believing that our leaders' beliefs are unquestionably true. Our "might makes right" demonstration that we define and know the truth does not actually render our thinking to be accurate, nor our beliefs proved true by using this absurd methodology, which is now also narcissistically and profitably defended by private military industry. Private corporations, recently redefined by our supreme law deciders and defenders, to truly exist as though they are citizens, thereby having been legally granted the authority to overthrow the powers of our government, even under Constitutional law. Even if we pretend nothing has fundamentally changed now that corporations are citizens, and the new "citizens" are now genuinely powerful enough to insist they are the newer and truer definers of reality for us.
What could possibly not go wrong with this situation?
We might want to do something genuinely rehabilitative about this, no? Wait and see is not necessarily an unwise option, but shall we perhaps take this unexpectedly lengthy and peaceful shit-is-currently-hitting-the-fan time to examine and sharpen our highly indoctrinated abilities to observe and perceive reality in order to not emulate the narcissistic methodologies that our indoctrinators have used and continue to be used on us? To perhaps allow us to NOT continue to self-exacerbate the present state of dysfunctional collective dissociative psychosis that WE HAVE ALL CONTRIBUTED TO THE MANIFESTATION OF precisely as it exists right now?
Mmmmmyes?
Viva la Evolution
Go with love
The transcendence diagram is fascinating
Can you realistically say Cathy Newman is a "good" person, if what she did in that interview with Jordan was to try to tie him up with so many sneaky distortions, lies and traps in order to destroy his credibility and try to cancel him completely, on behalf of the Feminist Sisterhood, watching over her shoulder? Such reprehensible tactics, failed as they did, does not entitle anyone to be called "good". Just because she is a "friend" of yours doesn't make someone "good", sorry!
Jesus. Get over Cathy Newman already. I know that's where Peterson peaked but still. If Peterson didn't actively look for softball targets like her and be so fucking nebulous with his views then it wouldn't have happened.
It's about the patterns and principles.
Michael-6 damn bro. Someone lose a lobster fight and still sore about it? 😘
It was an Epic moment for me. I saw my mother.
There's nothing "good" about Cathy Newman. She doesn't have a single redeeming quality. See you next Tuesday.
Thanks. First off - just to 'push' you a little bit on your ideas... Q: So, it sounds like your saying that the perfect interviewer would be somewhere in between Dave Reuben and Cathy Newman. Is that right? / Okay. That's my only little jibe (and there won't be any big ones!) ;) I've seen nowhere near all (nor even most) of these videos, but, I have watched more than a few (and have found them both enjoyable & stimulating.) There are some things that keep occurring to me while watching & thinking about them. [But also keep in mind that I've seen other videos; some by Adam Curtis, for instance. So, there's definitely some 'cross-pollenization going on in my mind.] Plus, many of the things discussed are either things I've been thinking about for some time, or things related to & intertwined with them. It seems to me that one of the main goals of any possible system that even *_might_* be forwarded to replace current ideology / institution is that it must - somehow - avoid the worst trappings of bureaucracy (a word I seldom, if ever, hear in these talks.) Suppression (or even expulsion) of nonconformists is one of the main functions of bureaucracy! [As no one mentioned.] I get it that there's a serious danger in relation to the 'monetization' of such as the IDW, but bureaucracy seems at least as bad - though connected - to me. Also, no possible system can be considered without taking into account that there will always be a tendency for someone somewhere to try to rig that system in their favor. You can't avoid human nature, after all. And you can't fool-proof a system against it, either! So... what do we do? Another problem is what I think of as "talk-show syndrome" (though it probably needs a better name!) You mentioned it, of course: it's the idea that people get together to have these wonderful, open discussions - yet nobody ever changes their mind about anything of import. Quite the opposite happens, in fact; each one tries to convince the others of their own point of view. The harder someone else tries to make points - even scathingly good points - the harder and louder the sound of minds closing up tight. Add to that the idea that in academia - where many of these people are from - you forward your own ideas and argue with others *_for money, prestige, & even your very career_***, and wow! Now, I will actually give a positive suggestion (as opposed to what shouldn't be done.) I truly believe we must concentrate on education. Real education, from K through college and beyond. We must find a way to subvert the system from the ground up, not from the top down. Have round-table discussions on this topic. Invite suggestions. Maybe do a call-in show. Move out into the mainstream & beat it at its own game! We must reverse the long-standing trend of anti-education, at least certainly here in the U.S. We must create a brand new kind of "woke." Otherwise, I think this whole enterprise will fail. However, if even a loosely affiliated group of thinkers cannot manage to escape the bonds of bureaucracy and/or monetization and/or talk-show syndrome, then I don't know who or what can. I can tell you that, since most of these talks revolve around negative examples, I'll add one of my own. It's a formalization, in fact, and it goes like this [I wrote it.]: ***_In the end, we must agree that the purpose of a thing be defined as nothing more and nothing less than that which it most consistently achieves. And we must plan, design, build, think, act, and feel accordingly._* Sometimes I fear that if humanity does not get to that point, it will not survive. But I also fear a kind of catch 22: that humans must get there to evolve, yet they may not be able to get there until they evolve! We are indeed at a nexus point in history. I honestly believe that the very near future will decide whether we can reach the next level, or whether we descend into the fascist corporate state. Or planet. 𝒕𝒂𝒗𝒊.
We are in this situation because we did not hold the bankers to account in the previous financial crisis. The 1% much prefer for this unrest to be all about race.
WOW ! really really good overview of lots of dimensions of the leading intellectual workshop's main products, secondary products and some waists....
The Second Tier thinking come from Spiral Dynamics, so it's not quite that 'Ken Wilber' says there are Second Tier people. It's coming from Spiral Dynamics research and formal writing. Integral Theory includes this as valid and solid thinking.
To be blunt, Dave Ruben is clearly not too bright. He has some great guests on his show but to include him in the IDW is a terrible mistake. He’s just a middlebrow chat show host really.
wasn't he a comedian in a former career ? hence to call him "a joke" could be the highest of praise ? ;-)
"Terrible mistake"...... I dunno about that. He can conduct interviews and facilitate conversations pretty well.
No, you're wrong.
Rubin holds a very similar position in the group to Rogan I think, they're both kinda dumb but the calibre of their guests and their decisions on who and when they have them on elevate them greatly.
The difference between them though, is that Rogan at least has some self awareness when it comes to how dumb he is, not to the point that he can stop it from disrupting the flow of his conversations (it's really shocking sometimes), but he clearly knows, Rubin on the other hand seems to actually think he's approaching the level of his guests, whenever he talks about himself it's just non-stop self-aggrandisement.
I also feel he's like how Peterson describes male-feminists, he's like a weasel, he keeps trying to make sure he's associated with them all in the hopes their notoriety will rub off on him. After he went on the book tour with Peterson he did a Rubin Report with two people, I think it might've been Sam Harris debating Ben Shapiro, I can't remember the details but after talking about how productive it had been, one of them said something like "maybe we should take these conversations on the road..." and without a second thought, Rubin leapt in with "and I'll be the moderator!", he seemed genuinely excited by the idea, and in that moment it was solidified in my mind that he really is just a humanoid leech. I rarely bother to watch his videos anymore.
@@rade-blunner7824 Rubin is the most willing to embrace the marketing aspects of IDW. It's gotten pretty cringey. Rogan has a natural disdain for the marketing aspects of pretty much everything. That's where his legitimacy lies.
Great video! One thing you might have misframed though is your assumption that good journalism is supposed to inform listeners as to what to believe and get the facts right. No reporter can do that job right, it's hopelessly in over your heads. An individual can't do the job of a collective of specialists. The very assumption that you could is deeply misguided.
Software needs to do that job of bundling collective intelligence into islands of meaining and information worth paying attention to. Software must show readers which statements are most problematic by pointing out to them all the contextually relevant counter-arguments and alternative views. This act is itself not a matter of intelligence but rather a matter of good book-keeping. And software is good at that.
But no individual can do that book-keeping of who made a good point when and how. And that's why the IDW got stuck. Not because the members are not smart enough. But because they are individuals and as individuals they fail as book-keepers. The IDW talked about distributed intelligence but what it ended up doing was the same old game, people getting together and talking for hours about their same old talking-points without getting anywhere, really, without learning anything new, really.
Only software can safe us, humans can't deal with this level of complexity. Not even Wilber could, who devoted his entire life to sensemaking. And that's why Dave Rubin is a red herring. He's not a good reporter. But it really doesn't matter. Even if he were and he was a super-prepared academic, this wouldn't change much, because the problem is that you assign a job to the upper left quadrant that is a job of the lower right quadrant.
Only the right systems of interactions can get us out of this mess. Not individuals. The time of the great leaders is passé, they can't solve the problems we face. Thankfully our problems don't require superior intelligence to be solved but just a little better filtering, sorting, accounting-mechanisms so that people can engage with the ideas that are right for them at the right time instead of wasting their lives with noise and repetition of the same.
The IDW is many things: a marketing idea, a kibbutz, a speakers network, a worldview, and more. But at its core are just people, mainly the 3 Weinsteins, Peterson, and Harris. Five people. To get mass and reach, they added two platformers (Rubin and Rogan) and a variety of others (notably Shapiro, who is both a platformer and a thinker). This all makes for entertaining repartee and some illumination. But mostly it generates views. Further, the IDW is already suffering from massive scalability issues. To thrive, it needs new high-level thinkers and challenging ideas. These are hard to produce and recruit.
Refer to Rorty, it's in conversation done in good faith, where we engage- socially- pursuing so called "truth". "While the world is out there, the truth is not."
I like the fact that Rubin gets 'controversial' guests on his show, and his interviews may be softballs but that is better than no interview at all. If I need to do further research on his guests, I can do that on my own, so I don't expect him to ask ALL the questions.
Having said that, I would like to see him get more critical guests. But someone like Sam Seder really is a bad actor. If you try to listen to his 'criticisms' all you will hear is ridicule and mocking. So I don't blame Dave for not entertaining him. As soon as the criticisms get personal, it isn't a debate of ideas, and therefore non-productive. I'd be all for an expansion of the IDW or whatever group discusses ideas, but there has to be a framework that all agree to, and one tenet would be something like as soon as you make it personal, bye bye. I believe Dave would be all for that, so in my mind he is a better actor than someone like Sam Seder.
Lol at first sam wasnt personal but through time went overboard and he admits it good luck havind dave admit he was wrong.
Sorry, disagree. Rubin likes to play the White Knight but he creates distortion via omission. One can't help but think that he has an agenda.
@@paulzambrano7887 an agenda or a $career$ ?
Dave Rubin is a straight moron, intellect of a child.
Most Seders criticism rings true.
@@solarnaut You're right, I tend to forget $ when involved in the IDW
Every video in this series has mentioned game theory. Most of the problems are about the opposing forces of human emotions (empathy) and game theory. The system as they are have evolved to try to stabilise in the context of individuals trying to cheat the system to their own gain. When a new cheat is found new laws are written to disincentivize it (laws aren't absolute and prohibition is just the strongest disincentive). We can't talk about wokeness and the goals of progressives without discussing how they affect the game theory of the systems but that is what the left ignores and refuses to answer in the same way that Marxism did leading to cheaters gaining power. It should be possible to have that conversation. The subjects could be at the level of incentives and varying virtues in a world of heterogeneous individuals.
Great comment! I don't know if there is a solution to the human condition, but building a government/society that exploits game theory would be an awesome next thing to try since capitalism collapses under the cheater problem too (there is an incentive toward using violence and externalizing costs to lower prices and those that can ignore human suffering have an advantage, so cheaters gain power). Fixing the cheater problem would mean living in a better world.
Wilber's Integral Theory [50:00] builds on Yeat's philosophy of the Gyre:
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
...And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
[Yeats - The Second Coming]
A good question to ask is if the IDW members actually feel a strong sense of responsibility for society, or do they just like thinking and broadcasting it. Why isn't there more collaboration between them? Why does it feel like nothing has been solidified in their wake? Is that for lower-downs to figure out?
The best thing about having an intellectual hierarchy is that it simplifies at the top, with fewer players...tracking development becomes possible. If they could converge, it would be a very powerful example. Convergence bellow these public figures is much slower and much less powerful. I don't understand why this is not a top priority for them.
I like the approach and the idea of critic of the critical. But there is a point missing. The example on Dave R - that the exploring of ideas would benefit from debate - also could lead backwards into the method of mainstream media. With a kind of pseudo diversity of ideas. DR has he's own narrative. That I think is the point. And JBP opened up the possibility to criticise the crazy woke culture. Without joining some other crazy movement.
I discovered those Timbah on Toast videos last year, and they perfectly dissected something I had been intuitively aware of with Rubin but unable to quite articulate.
Ad hominem attacks like 'rape appologist' for Cassie Jay dont need to be dealt with by Dave Rubin. Dave doesn't ask hard questions. He sees himself like a referee. Whether thats true or not is open for debate but he tries to give a forum for ideas and stays away from ad hominem attacks that shut conversation down.
'rape apologist' is low resolution critique. I cant beleive that was your example of a hard question.
Yeah, I think that doing ad hominem attacks on your guests would be intellectually dishonest. I didn't see the value in DR doing the things this guy is appearing to suggest. This is a tactic on modern media which is the root of gatekeeper failings. You analyze an idea based on the merits of the idea. Attacking the person presenting it is no different that engaging in the -ism game.
To see how he definitely doesn't stay away from ad hominem attacks, see 90% of his tweets about AOC.
Everyone in IDW is dependent on outside forces for their source of income, their reputation and their position in society. All give their opinions but at the same time have one eye on money and fame (including, I might say, David Fuller of Rebel Wisdom). If they can lose this necessity one day then they'll be able to think and express themselves freely.
I sold my business a few years ago and rely on no one financially. I'm a nobody and have no reputation to lose. I have small talk with lots of people but have two or three friends with whom I can express any opinion I wish - we have the most amazing conversations :-)
I get and support your critical editorial approach. Here is the what I see that you have in common with Rubin and others who are facilitating and telling the story of the IDW athletes, let's say. The folks telling the story (you) and facilitating (Rubin) have a different medium in the Barfield not the Macluhan sense than those devoted to and engaged in the dialogue. You are valuable. Rubin is ok. The real subject matter is as Peterson points out - the thinking in process.
26:00 I'm family with most of the IDW, but somehow I only stumbled on Rebel Wisdom recently. At first I was on the fence a bit about where David Fuller stands within this community, but his commentary here about the paradox of creating a tribe around anti-tribal ideology rings true.
I'd suggest for the mediation to be seen as diegetic (narratival), rather than the mimetic memes. It's easy to conjure an illusory pluralism with a seeming diversity of ideas, that ultimately still corrals people to single narratives. The real challenge is diegetic pluralism that unifies: not just a plurality of narratives, but a plurality that allows for positively generative co-existence of narratives.
I feel as though there is no answer only questions. Actively seeking a solution can be dangerous if your goal is a singular concept or purpose. Once one has the ability to consciously question their reality, their need to watch these videos dwindles. This isn't an insult to the nature of these videos but rather a personal message I'm trying to relate to others with. The question is the answer
Thank you for this. It was truly nice to watch how you feedback yourself. It showed integrity and openness. I must say that I agree with the criticism on Rubin. It's becoming almost a road trip show, where we are the witness of Dave his own personal search for a political understanding and side. Although I must say that because in a kind of way he feels close to the way that msm brings their content, I consider him as a catalyst for the deeper layer of idm.
How is Dennis Prager not mentioned? He has been speaking on these subjects for the last 30years. PragerU is one of the most successful TH-cam channels for ideas.
I think this “low-resolution critique” bias should be taken more seriously because of how often we tend to overlook it. For example, here David Fuller makes the case of Jordan Peterson and Dave Rubin having this bias against the left, which I agree, but when he talks about Steven Pinker, I think he couldn’t notice how his point of view about Pinker seems to fall in this same category. This allowed him to make a point that needed this low-resolution critique, which I don’t think is a big deal, but it’s a good example of how often we can’t notice it in ourselves. Paraphrasing Daniel Kahneman, it’s easier to point to other people's bias than to our own.
These guys are all fascinating, and certainly intellectual. One man once said 'blessed are the poor in spirit' and something about 'inheriting the kingdom of heaven'. Jordan gets pretty close to talking about his psychological poverty. Nothingness of the ego, and yet a force that can only divide self - and everything else. A neccesssity, yes, but not to be the master. But the function of the intellect - wonderful, absorbing, compelling - and necessary though it is, on its own takes us a long way from anything real,. But who wants to see that? And how could an intellectual big wig receive such a simple (though not easy) idea.
I believe the missing puzzle piece with all the Intellectuel Dark Webers and particularly with Peterson and Eric Weinstein , is David Bohm. They all need to go back and study him. I see it specifically in how Eric struggles to tackle quantum theory and how Jordan can’t seem to come up with a more comprehensive and "wholistic" psychological and philosophical approach.
Bohm in his time was ignored and marginalized as well same as the IDW's claim to be and he was coming from "a first principles" perspective like they are, making him radical and heretical same as they profess to be.
So it's a no-brainer for me that they should be drawing upon his deep rebel wisdom.
For instance Eric Weinstein says "it's important to not invite anyone to the table who intends to scuttle the conversation".
He calls them intellectual "suicide bombers" and they really are.
That's one of the chief principles that David Bohm focuses upon in his book "On Dialogue".
Intellectual deliberated works
Can someone tell me what point Jay Shapiro is making at 24:00, TIA
If someone has their philosophy or ideas or logic right, that doesn't mean they aren't vulnerable to primitive drives (sex, power, status, etc.).
YW
The Dark Enlightenment essay by Nick Land and Curtis Yarvin / Mencius Moldbug shed some light on the rise of Intellectual Dark Web and why big corporations jump on board with the flavor of the month. He uses the term the “Cathedral,” (Blue Church) describe the academics and mainstream journalists who preach the official “faith” of political correctness, Left academics therefore find themselves united with corporate capital around “enthusiasm for diversity, multiplicity, and the agency of consumers”
I have a feeling that this comment will not get monetized
So, the complaint about dave's interview style comes down to it being different from yours, and what you think an interview should be. How very open minded of you....
Its more that he's created a echo chamber that doesn't serve the market place of ideas that he loves to go on about
Yes, sadly that seems the case.
I mean his former coworker Cathy Newman knows how to dig, but to what end?
Both styles of interviewing have their dangers. I think the world has seen more than enough "tough" interviewers whose interviews seem to be more about themselves than about any of the guests.
Dave Rubin gives no pushback. It's ridiculous.
@@octopusonfire100 that is the ppint precisely. Understanding who someone is, and how they came to their conclusions has a different value. Even if you disagree, an understanding of how their arguments are structured, ans what led them down that path of reasoning is informative.
Bringing the IDW into the light means that we need practical, actionable policy recommendations from these brilliant minds. We can’t keep rehashing how our institutions have failed. We’ve got that point clearly. What we need to DO now is the question and it is what we expect from the IDW. This hasn’t happened yet and why there are feelings of disappointment. But it’s not too late. Not nearly so. In fact now is the time to jump into the light with some well thought out policies, even if they are not complete, acknowledging in fact that there is no final answer, but here are the best policies we can implement now. The institutions will pickup the ball from there because it’s obvious they don’t have any good answers either. Create the light and growth will happen organically.
Why isnt Daniel Schmachtenberger considered a part of the IDW? I dont believe Ive heard him mentioned along side it. And he would be one of best characters imo.
It seems that Rubin isn't a part of the group, but provides a friendly platform for the IDW
You mention it's the idw talking to itself but I would think they would welcome a highly intellectual conversation from another tribe. Can you give any names who are up for it to take on Douglas murray
Eric objected to people who have certainty. Firstly, as David pointed out, it is quite telling (and amusing) that the IDW members have never actually changed their minds even though they claim that as a core tenet. Secondly, a distinction needs to be drawn between those who are certain within the matrix and those who are certain outside the matrix. Certainty within the matrix is likely to be counterproductive because the ideas might be based on the distorted data of the matrix. However, certainty and thinking outside of the matrix might be exactly what is needed to end the matrix and therefore to end all our troubles. FWIW, I would define the matrix as being the belief that human beings are lacking and flawed, plus all the consequences of that belief. That belief has been inculcated into us 24/7 since birth.
Interesting talk.
How many of us are truly open minded?
Am I open minded?
I would like to be. But I also value the unchangeable core beliefs that I have. Can any of us be totally open minded in every way? Probably not.
For example, many people quote, “judge not less you be judged” to imply that judgement is bad. But of course we have to judge in order to live our lives. When we judge we look at the facts and make a verdict as to what is right and wrong for ourselves. When we are parents we have to decide/judge what we tell our children as to how to live. And then someday they judge for themselves.
Judges in courtrooms have to weigh the facts and pronounce judgement. Juries have to weigh the facts and give a verdict.
But we still strive to be open minded. It is hard to do this. If we are too open minded we might become wishy washy, or unprincipled and even weak.
Look at Tevye in Fiddler on the Roof. He made a decision about matching up his oldest daughter based on what he thought was best for her. But then she challenged his decision and he rethought it. “On the other hand,” he said, and changed his mind. For his second daughter he did the same. But for the third daughter, when he tried to say “on the other hand”, he just couldn’t do it. Because he had a line that he would not cross over. That line was his faith, his beliefs.
Now in the story, at the end, we do see him starting to relent because of his love for his daughter after she had made her choice of a non-Jewish mate.
I think Tevye is like most of us.
He may not be an official IDW guy but Pinker is great and should definitely have a seat at this table. Michael Shermer is a kindred spirit as well. Also Jonathan Haidt.
Don't put your heroes on pedestals.
33:00 I'm not really thrilled by this comment. There's a theory of group or team formation that goes by the slogan: forming, storming, norming, and performing.
¶
Forming - everyone is polite/anxious/excited and sizing up available roles
Storming - people begin to push back against boundaries and the authority of others; to negotiate the work style and work load
Norming - differences begin to resolve; appreciation deepens for other people's strengths and weaknesses; more scope for constructive feedback
Performing - getting the work done takes center stage; leadership now focuses on delegation and development of new members
¶
The storming/norming divide is porous and dependent upon the present circumstances and specific stresses inherent in those circumstances. Backsliding is commonplace in a fluid, rapidly changing environment. (Similarly, the stage-model of grief is not nearly so linear as commonly conceived.)
¶
The conceptual of the IDW is to form around the deepest expression of heterodoxy concerning some of the most divisive issues in greater society. These are high performing, independent minds.
¶
Peter Thiel has a concept of the U-shaped entrepreneur (as expounded in his book _Zero to One)_ where the founder often turns out to simultaneously be the world's best person in some novel skill domain (e.g. Zuckerberg) and the world's worst person within the same skill domain (surprise! Zuckerberg again, who is _very_ lucky his early career didn't land him in permanent cancel-culture purgatory; the prototype for Facebook was basically T&A book, designed to appeal to the worst male instincts, and only noticed by women when they began to hear rumours of their names appearing on some dirty bathroom wall, in some dirty locker room, at some dirty Trump rally, packed like dirty sardines, where far too many dirty congregants are refusing to cinch up their chin socks).
¶
Can there be any team-building challenge that seating a bunch of heterodox, feisty, U-shaped people around a U-shaped table, on some species-inclusive U-shaped bridge of some futuristic U-shaped U.S.S. Enterprise?
¶
Your five-year-mission to seek out and embrace new worlds, should you choose to accept it, shall be preceded by a five-year-mission, should you choose to accept it, to coalesce around any viable conceptual center of common culture.
¶
The true surprise about the Flutefeet Institute von Space Cadet Academy is not that the IDW has been slower to pull out of space dock en route to embrace the external cosmos than _Star Trek: The Motion Picture_ (for $8 the cheapest year of my entire life)-it's that there's _any_ present sign that they'll someday pull out of space dock as any cohesive wayfinder, shapeshifter, or formulon whatsoever.
Find this to be very important perspective on modern thought.
Encourage you to seek out Daniela Sieff for a perspective on human experience not considered by any of the IDW thinkers.
Thought provoking stuff which forces me to try and use more of my admittedly limited intellect.
Rebel Wisdom you re the reason why I have come to see a lot of speakers differently now , sply conservative intellectuals ,and now i really understand the other side to the picture. Thank you for your valuable work.
Pinker and the catastrophizers of the IDW can both be right: Things can be the best they've ever been, and yet, still be on the verge of coming apart. I believe Jordan Peterson has spoken in depth on precisely that. The two viewpoints are not mutually exclusive.
idw is ignoring the rope hypothesis or never heard of it ... i wonder why
How come Daniel Schmachtenberger is not mentioned in this group?
He emerged just recently
A drawback of the forum which these thinkers use, the independently- produced podcast, is that it lacks oversight. Joe Rogan loves to talk about the fact that he answers to no one, not realizing what a problem that is. Many podcasters would benefit from an editor or a producer who is more than a tech guy. We're in an era where we've lost all hierarchy, except in useless main stream media. Hierarchy used properly, with the right people, can be very effective. Also, I wonder why we don't see new, high- quality, high- integrity media companies arising. Everyone is thrown into the mix on TH-cam and they rely on social media for publicity. I keep hearing about these flame wars and endless amounts of drama on Twitter and I can't believe more people don't just walk away. Isn't it time for society to grow up?
seems like alot of post it notes inside idw. just another hat one puts on when online. is this still about the epistomolgy in idw for future gens? the children are so far forward thinking than adults. hope we have something solid soon.
I feel like the IDW was just a flash in the pan, and have soured on many of the members since. I have three kids and my oldest is always curious about why adults are acting like this.
I liked the film, but I did have the impression that part of its root was the discovery that these brilliant thinkers have feet if clay. Yeah, they are only human. As for the criticism of Dave, his interview style is straightforward. Let your guest it their best foot forward and explain what they think. I don’t really have an objection to that, as he is at least consistent. You know what you get when you watch, and if you don’t think it has value, don’t watch. Unlike the mainstream media I have yet to hear anyone accuse Rubin of doing a hit piece.
42:00 That is so wrong. If you ask the wrong kind of hardball questions (loaded, unfair, Newmanesque), pretty soon your _prospective_ guests cease to respond to your invitations to have them on in the _first_ place, and all you've got left are pabulum guests without any pressing need for hardball protective equipment.
¶
There's no harder skill in all of journalism than to gain a sufficiently solid reputation for asking hardball questions in a _fair_ way until even those who fear you seek you out, for your legitimizing power.
¶
At the same time, as already stated in another comment, Rubin's show only managed to retain its grip on my A-list for a few weeks, before I realized that there were core problems of this nature. I only watch Rubin now after once I've already done my own work concerning the guest involved. And now here I am watching this video instead-an attentional allocation out of the same mental time budget-because my preference is _not_ to have to do so much work in advance myself, because Dave refuses to do it for me.
What about IDW spiritualists? the spiritual experience is one of seeking Truth also. Does the reason lead minds of this IDW have members from the spiritual community? I am thinking about Sri Aurobindo's heritage and the problem and experience of the supramental transformation and the next suprarational tools man is about to develop.
You say that the IDW does not embrace critiquing their own but at 45:28 Clair Lehmann(part of the IDW) is pretty much doing that. Does that count for you? Otherwise good piece
“My journey on DMT during an epidemic.”