What Happened to the Intellectual Dark Web? Bret Weinstein
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 30 ก.ค. 2024
- The Intellectual Dark Web was framed as a space to have the conversations that were being frozen out by the mainstream platforms.
Evolutionary biologist Bret Weinstein was one of the most high profile victims of extreme campus culture in Evergreen College in 2017.
What does he make of the trajectory of the Intellectual Dark Web project over the last two years?
This interview was conducted in late February 2020.
This film is part of Rebel Wisdom's Sensemaking Series, see part 1, 'What the F*ck is Going On?' here: • What the F*ck is Going...
Part 2 is: My Journey with Jordan Peterson & the Intellectual Dark Web: • My Journey with Jordan...
And Part 3: The Death of Journalism? Jesse Singal & Katie Herzog: • The Death of Journalis...
You can listen to podcast versions of our films on Spotify or Apple Podcasts by searching 'Rebel Wisdom' or download episodes from our Podbean page: rebelwisdom.podbean.com/
To support Rebel Wisdom, and get member benefits including regular Q&As with the interviewees from our films for our members, check out: www.rebelwisdom.co.uk/plans
How an open and honest public conversation amongst American citizens has become some form of novelty is a sad testament to the state of free speech.
It’s not the state of free speech. It’s the state of our political polarization. Free speech is and has always been the same. The way a good amount of people judge and excommunicate people with a different opinion is unbearable.
Youth have been brought up in an environment of 'anything goes'. They have been shown that there is no truth and no conversation. This will end in due course when millennials no longer feel powerless and lost within post modernism and this will be when they reach maturity (after 2030) and are coming into their own as 'czars' of the world.
Zoe Macfarlane Who knows where we’ll be by then. We can’t have them sowing chaos until then.
And I don’t think it’s just American, this is happening all over the west. But hasn’t taken hold in Asian countries, thankfully.
Free speech is gone, if anyone has a healthcare/education or anything in the public eye, the amount of things one can say is extremely limited by HR!
I think I'm just addicted to listening to careful, articulate, intelligent conversation at this point
You need help! -the media
😂
It's my late-night TV. There is a uniquely JBP-shaped hole on the internet and no IDW member can replace him. He bridged half of the gaps, and a combination of Rubin and Bret bridged the rest.
For real
Tony is my Dad
Don’t let your detractors wear you down Keep doing what you’re doing. Be resilient and carry on. Many of us greatly appreciate the conversations.
I am sick and tired of everyone saying "I secretly agree with you..." Get out of your bed, be your real self, and "boldly go". Conversations in the echo of the dark accomplishes nothing.
@buymebluepills look up the drama triangle if you`re feeling brave, then empowerment triangle. Google pix makes that possible in 3 minutes, lucky for us.
And breath my friend! BREATH
seriously
true heroes do baby steps anyway it seems to pan out to me
J. C. It also requires potentially ruining your life/losing job/losing friends unfortunately so I think it’s understandable if people opt out of the convo, especially if they don’t have a financial safety net.
@@Ruby_Spacek he who lives in fear hastes towards death
The way the world is going, they are currently going for your livelihood (doxxing) and if/when the Marxists take charge they will disappear you. So it's understandable that people don't what to be on the chopping block.
The best strategy at this point is to set up anonymous online person's and wait to be part of the resistance when the time comes.
@North Georgia could you elaborate and maybe even connect with the culture coming from lets say the "IDW"?
Peterson’s absence is what happened. Any intellectual pursuit worth pursuing needs an artist/poet kind of shaman to keep things balancing on edge, and Peterson was closest to that description among the pack. I’d have rather seen Peterson continuing his Biblical lectures in that small scale live setting and then uploaded to youtube. You can’t blame Peterson for striking the iron when it’s hot, but that whole world book tour is precisely part of the old paradigm, whereas his reach and message online would have been higher had he continued with the Biblical series. Peterson *will* rise back like a Phoenix.
Let it be so
Peterson is an incredibly gifted communicator. Moreover he is intellectually grounded in scripture (maps.of.meaning) and dreams and magic (his abiding love for Jung). He therefore understands the power of stories; and narrantology is how we make sense of the world. Finally he has a high value of curiosity - this is another childlike quality which travels in his energized speech and tendency to the lean forward when engaging with anyone who's scratching his grey matter. It's an extraordinary combination of gifts.
I think you’re right. I’d love to see him work through exodus and stay off political sound bite shows.
He has pearls of wisdom, but frankly has a manic quality that always struck me as brittle. I wish him well and a more flexible constitution.
@sleepless He and his wife had serious medical complications. He might never fully recover... STFU
Man I miss Peterson!
Jordan Peterson could see the whole picture, and hang with anyone. Superman, where are you now?
We all do.
He’ll be back eventually.
Have you read his latest piece?
www.jordanbpeterson.com/political-correctness/the-missive/
Brett, Eric and Sam are doing well to fill the space left.
Having a platform where bright individuals can brain storm over issues facing society to me seems a worthy endeavor.
The platform is already here, you just need to know where to look.
Thinkspot is already out.
All we need are the bright individuals, right?
These conversations are gathering momentum, more of these channels please. A lot of people are starving for these conversations and where do we find them so yeah it’s getting there. We need some kind of where to find.
Those who resist the force of culture, in order to speak the truth are the heroes of our time. Bret is very much in that group and I thank him deeply for that. In the darkness of chaos we need those who are willing and able to shine the light. Shine on Bret Weinstein!
Mark, seemingly Bret (& Heather & befriended podcaster, Benjamin A Boyce) were great gifts Evergreen's "Maoist insurrection" gifted to the world. Bret's "lived experience" (presumably more than PTSD "projection") informs his foreboding of similar antics now on a national/ global scale. :-o
@Buttercup you know not what you speak of. It is better to hold your tongue and be thought a fool than to speak and be proved to be a fool
all true narratives must reconcile. -beautiful.
On the inside. On the outside. And finally between these two realms. Convergence from all sides. That's
B E A U T Y.
Obvious
Beautiful....and meaningless. Just like the pseudo-intellectual dark web.
A mantra for a new age...
@@squatch545 Its meaning is actually quite clear, even tautological. You jumped the gun friend.
Two of my absolute favorite peoples! Why so short? We could listen to you guys for hours...
Interviewer: Hi Bret do you see the situation like A or B?
Bret: I view the situation as XYZ
One way to perpetuate the phenomenon of the IDW, is to include the listeners in on the discussion, beyond the comment section. Eric is starting to do this with his “walk and talk” thing he does on instagram. Thank you for what you do.
More of this, totally. I comment in the comment sections now and then, but I generally just assume it never gets read and I'm kind of shouting at a wall.
@@Pengalen How would you handle 5,000 comments on your comment? 10,000?
Pengalen I would read it .. please don’t silence your voice especially if it is true
Brett describes the process of self-censorship very well.
I think the IDW created a space for the disillusioned left to gravitate towards and briefly a space that drew centre-left and centre-right emerged, but over time the individual members of the IDW inadvertently enabled its audience to sort into their political-leaning groups.
Personally, I quickly waned on JBP and I was never particularly fond of Shapiro, though I have respect for them both. I was a regular Rubin watcher in the beginning, but he's gone completely off the rails and shown he doesn't have the intellectual chops to hold his own - his audience in now mostly right-leaning. Rogan has the largest and probably most diverse audience but he's always been fairly neutral. And, within the original IDW cohort, I now almost exclusively follow the Weinstein's and to a lesser extent Harris.
I suspect I'm not the only one with a trajectory similar to this.
You ain't alone...
Very similar arc for me as well. Eric is the one I now appreciate the most, even though he was my least favorite in the beginning. Every one of his conversations is challenging, both in complexity but more importantly in introspection. Most of the IDWers tend to reinforce many of my already-held beliefs. While satisfying, its a pointless waste of time. But Eric tends to throw curve balls that give me a fresh perspective, without fail. His demand for the very best that humans can offer is the kind of standard that can reinvent the world.
I closely follow all those mentioned (sans Rubin), only recently discovered them (sans JRE). Subbed to this channel only yesterday. On the hunt for more podcasts similar to Bret/Eric/Sam, if anyone has recommendations I’ll take them, thanks.
Neil Kramer also...
... Rupert Sheldrake...
Really good stuff! Glad that Bret clearly explaind the issues raised by your research!
And maybe one remark on Peterson...
Openly speaking about his failure is a over-human task, especially if all your livelihood depends on it!
I hope 🤞🏼 he will overcome his demons and come back stronger to help even more people!
I just finished listening to 12 rules for life.. I wanted to give it back because it didn’t speak to me enough to keep...I decided to hang on to it so not to impact his sales!
You have become my favorite podcast critic on TH-cam!
I don’t agree on all but I really like your respectful way to communicate difficult questions and (seem to) give the other side the possibility to react to issues that you have raised!
Very good I am even considering donating 😂
For the first time!
Popularity of the IDW is the fulfillment of Ken Wilber's prophecy where he said that all it takes is 10% of people on integral level to significantly impact the cultural narrative.
IDW takes the role of what many of us believed integral community will have, but where integral institute failed drastically.
I really think that David should have introduced Bret or perhaps Peterson when he had him on to integral theory and works of Ken Wilber.
It's popular because it opened up space for a brand new political formation. The older left/right dynamic was becoming less important and new battle lines were being drawn around class and gender issues. In the past, many of those in the IDW would have been antagonistic toward one another because of different attitudes towards things like religion and economics. But, a certain point, they suddenly found themselves on the same side of the aisle because of their opinions on newer, now more pressing issues like feminism, gender theory and BLM. They were happy to disagree over something like the role of religion in society because they agreed so deeply over an newer, more touchy issue like gender pronouns.
This new formation didn't have a space within the legacy media, which was still divided along more traditional left/right lines. But TH-cam is fast moving and adaptable, and was able to provide them with the platform that the slower, more cumbersome legacy media couldn't.
Many in the IDW like to believe that they have transcended ideology and political tribalism but it's not that simple. The old battle lines have not beem erased completely but simply replaced with new ones. The IDW is a manifestation of this new political landscape.
@@rhysperegrine5100 you succintly expressed what's disingenuous(imo) about the idw.
I can't decide whether David's frequent (and correct) comments about Rubin and Pangburn are coming from journalistic interest, or a pettier sense of schadenfreude. Rebel Wisdom has the ability to do all the things to revive the IDW that you say Rubin and Pangburn failed at. So just do it already, if you feel it should happen, and do it better.
Maybe frustration. I was excited about the emergence of The Rubin Report and Pangburn Philosophy. It's disappointing to see the way Pangburn imploded and Rubin just turned into a libertarian pundit.
Yeah it’s almost like David feels personally aggrieved. He’s right though. I’ve been saying that the right leaning members of the IDW (Dave and Ben) are not fulfilling their side of the unspoken IDW bargain: take out your own side’s trash. They should trust that Bret, Eric and Sam are doing that on the left and do the same on the right
@Simon BIeeker Here's the rub as I see it: Center-right people are usually individualistic & want to advance their own interests before the interests of the group, whereas center-left people are usually more collective in their thinking. This poses a problem, because getting a group of staunch individualists to fall in line for a greater plan is very difficult unless you're uniting them under a higher structure (religion, nationalism, etc.). Left leaning people tend to be more idealistic & are willing to take risks in order to further their ideals. Just my two cents.
The constant harping on Rubin betrays a fact he's quick to point out, and he's absolutely right about - he talks to people who are willing to sit down in the chair and talk to him. I can't find the interview, but he was asked about people who said no and it was a pretty damning list. He was instrumental in giving the IDW it's first real coherent exposure, but beyond that it's kind of up to the diversity of thought folks to have the sack to show up. I've felt like Rubin is getting lambasted out of jealousy or contempt...because he's not an intellectual or a navel gazer?
I suspect Rebel Wisdom's mission is sufficiently to the side of Pangburn and Rubin so that they likely don't have the bandwidth to step in and fill this gap. RW is already putting out a ton of content with a pretty broad variety of voices. RW very much wants the non-Christian, not-new atheist space with more openness to their men's work and their emergent spirituality. Pangburn wanted the more classic celebrity atheist take-down stuff. Rubin I think has mostly descended into American partisan politicking. He's on Fox news a lot and I think if he could get his own regular there he'd close down his channel. With billions of people who identify as theists that gap partially filled by Pangburn (JBP and SH) remains open and I don't think RW really wants to go there. The mass of Christianity in the West and its history makes that pretty complicated space indeed.
The thing that makes Bret and others in the IDW extraordinary, is the fact that they know the truth does not need us. It lives on even when no one believes. We however desperately need the truth, and they want to do their best to discover, explore, and share that truth even if no one is willing to listen
This is so mysterious. Love it when modular conversations resonate into highly successful prototypes but better cause bootstrapping to ultimate wads shot.
David Fuller has moved away from being the guide on the side to being the sage on the stage. I now get the impression that he is moving towards a position where he will be telling us what his interviewees should be thinking instead of permitting them to answer his questions.
that is the furthest thing from true journalism.. if he starts telling people what to think and doesnt permit them to answer his questions then he would be no better then any mainstream journalist.
We need Jordan Peterson back man he was Paul revier
that's Paul Revere btw... and it was more like Dr. Peterson & Mr. Hyde, with a bit too much Mr. Hyde later on... in part literally even. ;-)
Peterson was finally exposed as someone who really didn't know what he was talking about.
No, he won't be the same after he f***ked his brain with his drug spree.
@@anonymoususer6037 This is a ridiculous comment.
You are beyond sad.
Like everyone says here, we appreciate your conversations -they are edifying. I think we would appreciate a platform for the development of your ideas. Without concrete actionable value items, the discussions will never take hold.
David, you always do such a good job.
What a fascinating conversation, exactly the subject matters I've wanted to hear an adult voice on. Thank you to all involved
Make you feel clever and part of a novel arcane wisdom? Well you are being duped. This is soma for the dissafected. Nothing more. More zionists doing that "by deception we do war" thing.
@@CandideSchmyles Duped into what exactly? Honest conversation?
@@e1ementZero its not honest conversation. Its convoluted navel gazing, superfluous words wrapped round an ego the size of a galactic supercluster. There are no real truths explored, no analysis of root causation. Its a ruse, a whimsy to make people like you think they have gnosis.
Candide Schmyles I don’t buy that. They analyze root causes all the time in various discussions. Eric and Bret alone have done this many times.
One group of people is never going to solve the world’s problems, but many see it has hopeful to just see honest discourse. I don’t see them as egotistical at all, but I don’t come at it from a bias against Jews, either. I listen to everything from every angle and try to be as objective as I can from the discussions alone, and don’t see much ego here. It’s an ad hominem argument anyhow.
I do feel that seriously in-depth, intellectual discussions have fallen away to such a level that even moderately intellectual discourse IS novel and welcomed. A lot of this may be arcane wisdom, but it’s forgotten in today’s culture and it’s no less useful.
The only angle I can see that would indicate this is superfluous navel gazing is if I assumed it was stemming from some Zionist conspiracy, and I do not. It’s dangerous to assume any discussion involving Jews is automatically a product of powerful interests leading people astray, as it throws away valuable voices that succeed in bringing silenced voices together at a critical time.
Your analysis seems overly cynical. I don’t dismiss the toxic behavior of those with power in this world, but the fact that they exist does not mean honest, good-faith people don’t also exist. It’s not as if those in power can silence _everybody_ seeking to disagree with what’s happening in society.
Sadly, I doubt anything I said will mean anything to you. I have to say that your idea that Jews control everything is likely misinformed. Yes, clearly Jews hold disproportionate amounts of power in certain circles relative to their population size, but they aren’t some uniform, singular entity. They are individuals who go about living their own lives. They have a culture that has indeed shown to create effective leaders, intellectuals, scientists and creatives. There is a lot of discussion as to why that is that _doesn’t_ presume some dark plot. The fact that one group is highly successful doesn’t mean they are evil or should be ignored. It means we should look towards their culture to glean ideas that may prove useful for others. Their cohesiveness and fondness for tradition are clearly advantageous, and they challenge each other intellectually to a much higher degree than most cultures do.
One problem we have in the West is the dissolution of the family unit and loss of old-world traditions. What has replaced those things are clearly inferior, as evidenced by where we are. Large advantages are seen where children are brought up by both parents, where family is cohesive, and where they hold each other to account. Being more mindful of when and how to have children, ensuring that a family unit is whole _before_ bringing new lives into existence on its own would go a long way to healing our society.
I say any useful voice is worth listening to, when we have so many toxic, useless voices whose only interest is outrage and appeals to emotion. These guys, for better or worse, don’t do this. I don’t agree with a lot of things they do, but I think their insights are valuable nonetheless. We need more dispassionate, analytical discourse, not less.
@@CandideSchmyles There may be some truth to some of what you are saying. But the ego thing doesn't strike me as true. Are you speaking mainly of Rebel Wisdom in these remarks, or of Bret Weinstein, or the IDW? If there's truth in what you say, I'd like to grok it, but I just don't see/feel the way you do at all. Bret knows his shit and has acted with integrity in all that I've seen. "Ego" can mean so many things. But just because someone uses words you don't understand doesn't mean they are egotistical. And redundancy in speech can serve a purpose - it makes it easier on the listener to grok what's being said. And "no real truths are explored"? Can you say more about that? In this very conversation Bret is saying that he wants to use the IDW to explore Linear theory vs Group theory (I think I got that right) because the resolution would have very real and meaningful ramifications for the whole world. I'm not at all against critiques of RW, IDW, Bret and anything... but I just don't follow yours at all right now.
The community around Paul VanderKlay is still alive and well.
PVK is excellent too. And Vervaeke as a sort of counterweight. But I suspect not many of us would have stumbled upon them the way we did if it wasn’t for Peterson.
@@phiswe but what's the point of that comment? I'm not saying you don't have a valid point, I just don't see what the point is that you're trying to make
Eric name the IDW, and I would argue Peterson started it. While Paul and Vervaeke have kept the narrative around meaning. The current craziness we are seeing is the symptoms of the lack of meaning. If “He who has a why to live can bear almost any how.” is true then what we are seeing is people grasping for meaning with what ever their presuppositions are right now.
The beauty of Peterson is he can and could get people to question their presuppositions. Which help them to start looking for meaning.
Have you heard about this new guy on the scene, Art Vandelay?
J P The import/export guy?
This conversation needs to be heard by more people, and listened to VERY carefully, twice. This is a start to understanding.
Ken Wilber has been onto the different truth perspectives lining up for decades. I'm still grateful and surprised that you got him on your channel. I want to see him collaborate with the IDW members.
He can integrate the various narratives more than anyone else I've seen so far...and, you're right, he's been doing that long before these cats came up with the catch-phrase, "IDW"
@@DiegoLinde it's basically the underlying goal of all of his life's work. He pretty much made a framework and his own language up to represent it, as if it's a new field of study-out of necessity. It's hard to keep up with his interviews, or even read his deeper work, because you need to have so much stored in your mind to mentally reference. I love his work though and I wish he had more modern exposure. I think he had health problems, if I remember correctly, and then I saw him on Rebel Wisdom a while ago and got really excited. But then nothing followed from the realm his online relevance.
@@DiegoLinde I'm glad somebody is familiar. I never talk to anybody that knows him. I know he was most popular and had a large following years ago but that was before my time of chasing these kinds of topics.
"It's the mismatch between the apparent objective and the stated objective..." I sometimes feel that is what the interviewer is trying to do with his questions. Stated objective = provide wisdom. Apparent objective = I'm right
This is a weird path for Fuller to keep treading. Theres obv some personal beef w/Rubin, but beyond that immaturity, it seems stuck in some sort of ideological web or something. The whole RW endeavor is about exploring new, or at least better, sensemaking...but then often gets stuck in the old standby of 'right vs left', and that 'the left' has inherently more validity due to moral high ground. It doesnt. Both are necessary for a healthy environment...and both are capable of extremes which threaten that health. Fuller knows this. I assume.
Jordan in many ways was unofficial defacto leader. He had the greatest cultural impact of all members of the idw. He often spearheaded a lot of the IDW debate. Jordan hopefully will return soon. Because we need him now more than ever.
Please upload latest podcasts to Spotify! Thank you for the work you are doing.
Critical thinking, return to logic, namely studying fallacies. Egos, logic, truth... this is undergrad 101. Intellectual courtesy. Premise, conclusion, rebuttal. This is philosophical methodology. Pick up a freshman intro to logic text, you'll learn all the intellectual tools needed to navigate amongst truth and lie in an extra moral sense.
I took an intro logic class for an elective last year as a finance major. As much as I ironically didn't like the class (I love logic and logical arguments,) the value of the knowledge, even the mathematics behind arguments, and the more nuanced fallacies that I never would have thought of if I hadn't taken the class were well worth it.
OMG, thank you!!! I taught PHIL101 "Critical Thinking" for 3.5 yrs in the oughts. Since then, along with CBT, I practice what I was teaching in the course in ALL situations, even ones that I think I'm in passionate agreement with, as the liberals are acting lately.
@Bradley Scott I accomplished that with my friends by bringing up topics they cared about, taking a position they wouldn't agree with and proceed to verbally bitch slap them. Key to it isn't just spotting fallacies, it's dismantling and using them against your opponent. I taught them the basics, offered some reading suggestions and their own competitive nature did the rest.
Eh. Philosophy is arrogant in its exclusive prizing of logic and leaves the world at the door of the classroom. Rhetoric is the discipline one should study if they want to understand persuasion, identification, sense-making, politics, and so on as they occur in the real world. Attending to rhetoric rather than philosophy helps one to understand, for instance, how 'logical fallacies' aren't actually really predicated on some dispute in logos, but in ethos (though these Aristotelian terms are of limited utility). In other words, there is no objective list of logical fallacies-the fallacies themselves are often social constructions. Occasionally this notion of pointing out fallacies can be useful, as in Rogerian rhetoric, where we presume that both parties are actually working in good faith together. However, often disagreements about 'fallacies' are really arguments about the ethical underpinnings of knowledge (ontology and epistemology). If that sounds ridiculous, just try and forming a theory of fallacies that spans all societies. You can't because no one can, has, or presumably ever will.
David, this is absolutely fantastic. Keep it coming, this work is vital.
Interesting discussion.
I would suggest that the IDW moved into smaller more personal spaces.
There are great meaningful discussions still going on.
Paul Vander Klay has carried on quiet personal philosophical conversations with questioning individuals, or strong thinking unknown individuals...who want to discuss meaningful content.
The conversation content often stems out of known personalities or discussion platforms, like Jordan Peterson, Brett / Eric Wienstien, Sam Harris etc...
For example people like:
John Vervaeke...
Jonathan Pageau,
Glenn Beck
Douglas Murray
Roger Scruton
Jon Anderson
People like myself subscribe to these conversations and continue to follow the lower case “idw”.
Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! For your amazing channel!
Thank you both for your this!
It seems that the IDW was more of a subnet than a web, speaking in networking terms. There was/is very a select group knowledgeable individuals who've spent their entire lifetime cultivating knowledge, and that's just hard to propagate like an actual Network would. Networks are resilient, whereas we see with the IDW - one node gets taken out and the entire thing fizzles.
It's almost like the "leaders" were TOO good, and those who tried to continue the trend weren't as knowledgeable or committed. They came off as imposters - because i see alot of people PRETENDING to be EXPERTS instead of approaching topics with humility. And that leaves lay people like myself somewhat disillusioned because even though I'm not anywhere near an expert - i know what an expert looks and sounds like, and i also know what BS looks and sounds like. The IDW encouraged too many to act like experts. Edit: The grifter point was spot on here
None of this is a knock on the "true" IDW - but rather it's speaking to the difficulty of the issues they were addressing and the need for better educated individuals to contribute. But it feels like they are all locked away either in the corporate world, too biased to be of use in this arena, or simply not enough of them.
I really wish there was an actual IDW school or discipleship program. Edit: I guess there is, and it's called education / not succumbing to the desire to chase the dollar (looking at myself here)
The subnet analogy is perfect.
Some of us are older. Please do not ignore different age groups.
The only model which can carry this is this very channel and the function it says it wants to provide; namely, reporting on the market place of original ideas and perspectives. There will be ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ in that market and there will be different sectors and so on. But, the backbone of the IDW will need to be this: the journalism and the reporting of it!
Eric, You had my support for the IDW from Day 1 of the fabulous creation and yes maybe it's out there somehow, someway
I'll Tell you what happened.
JP got sick and had to step back. He's the reason we were all here.
Hope he comes back soon when his new book comes out.
Has Rebel Wisdom split into two directions - the IDW vs the Sensemakers? The IDW feels more like a dead-end, whereas the Sensemakers feel more exploratory and interesting. However, both camps have unclear assumptions and motivations, IMO. It's like watching extremely intelligent people acting in the TV series Lost. They are trying to understand their situation, which is good, but they are starting from some unexamined assumptions and not truly feeling their essential motivations. They are great when they get moving, except they are not getting the first step right.
Who are Sensemakers?
@@shannonm.townsend1232 I'd say Jamie Wheal, Daniel Schmachtenberger, Jordan Greenhall. They seem to be more like systems thinkers. In Spiral Dynamics terms, they seem to be hovering around the Yellow level. But I think they need a clearer break with Tier One to be truly Yellow.
You are the best at interviewing Bret (and many others), so much better than even Rogan. Keep up the good work
Excellent questions!
But seriously- any guy that can intuitively centre a coffee cup on a place mat that often - is a man that probably hits the target everywhere else also...😁
Brilliant! :)
you sent me back to the vid. i now return with verification! centered.
What is this blabber about? I am definitely missing something here. Could it be that this thread makes no sense at all?
@@ltrzepalko I am still in the middle with this but what you are missing, if you are still interested:
Intuition comes from the female/mammal brain hemisphere. male instinct is in the reptile brain, those are only connected in the walnut/ape/social brain (real names of that thing). What many never learn is that in stress we never get out of the singular hemispheres (male/female, the unconnected ones mind you). Prefrontal cortex, the brain in the forehead, (the I, dreams, habbits, ego,..) organizes the corpus callosum which connects the upper two hemispheres (walnut) to one. Only there can we rationalize us deep enough into the brain to become satisfied with our results, as they get reconciled like narratives if you will, and we can be again. Without tension, rebell much less if at all, be much less rigid and instead be more open and undistracted, and just breath again to regain healthy biochemistry and prioretize much better (hamsterwheel,pathologic sciences,..) etc.
Rationally you can tame instincts with intuition, this is shown greatly when he loves the cup in its designated centre. It is a huge investment that requires so much work that it is a bit ironic to talk about love here, I guess it is doing love as a sport?
@@hammse2 You lost me with loving the cup. So colloquialy speaking: he is not loosing his cool and ratio while interacting with somebody who is definitely testing that ability? His social interaction is not hindering his intellectual ability? Thank you for your time!
I realize that the IDW had to be a diagnostician in its infancy. But I really wish it had been far more generative in developing specific tools for engagement and combating the various pernicious ideologies that now permeate society. I wanted far more concrete examples of how we could actually move forward, or at the very least, suggestions how we could do so so that whatever was pushed out into the world, was at least being hard tested and either discarded wholesale if ineffective or refined if effective.
You don't want much...
"All true narratives must reconcile"
... But only can reconcile when considering all relevant observations.
How can we tell the difference between a lack of relevant observations, and a false rejection of irreconcilable narratives?
Thank goodness! Real dialogue. Thank you.
Don't put the word "dark" in your branding. Especially when your main job is to convince people that science and conservatism is not evil.
They will be slandered by the media as heretics regardless of what they call themselves. Best to embrace that label to make people curious about what you are actually saying.
It kinda is, that's the case - everything is. Bret repeated multiple times that biology is inheretely racist, because it doesn't recognize our values, it just does it's own thing. I guess that's the case, you can't melt your tools just to prove your ideology, it will leave your tools broken.
The goal was never to convince anyone that Science and Conservatism is not evil... who would waste any time doing something so obviously irrelevant?
Gordon Freeman and now science doesn’t fit with the liberal view or narrative and so it’s principles, basis and constructs are somehow wrong, biased or discriminatory
Bret Weinstein is far from conservative, what you on about?
IMO, the IDW lost steam because you can only take hearing the diagnosis from every angle for so long before you start asking what the remedy is. One of the unique things that Jordan Peterson brings to the table is his emphasis on breaking apart large problems into smaller ones and taking action on those. I love listening to all of these guys but it's really grievous to always hear them on the defensive and not producing anything of action. They perhaps are doing it in secret and I hope they are but their public discourse generally doesn't bring and novel, actionable ideas to the table.
This is what turns me off mostly by the idea of Peterson and IDW in general. Its just seems to be descriptive statements made, but no prescriptive ideas to put forth. And when it’s challenged that they don’t put forth ideas to solving problems, people would say that “he’s just stating the problem.” Well if you state the problem and the intricacies, why aren’t you also providing ideas for solutions? Otherwise, whats the point of listening?
@@themanmrbijok7364 I agree totally.
@Toldyou So the old Jordan is a poopy-pants argument. I’m not sure I have a useful response.
Great interview 👍
Thoughts I have @ the beginning: if you look at the whole global situation from a transcending viewpoint (“a”) it seems to me one point of observation could be the coming together of primal instincts (the outcry for equality and support for an individual from where it stands to the next landmark, defined by skill (not privilege)) and the mind and higher mind, seeing through the charade of immobile established authorities that have lost the dedication to truth, trying to find a unifying force of understanding and wisdom. I again ask the question of leader (“savior”) and if it ought to be “a person”. Bret’s suggestion of co-governance in one of his recent podcasts rings true somehow - but in a state of mind where collectively we all desire to move to balanced power we definitively will also have to ask ourselves about the controlling agencies or councils of co-governance to navigate temptation. Or analyze - in an inclusive state of consciousness without ignoring evil (life gone awry) - how and why we are at this point. Is the western world in synch with the rest of the world and its peculiar present pressing demands? This indeed is a global question and quest. And one that bridges so many academic disciplines. Could global trans-generational, collective trauma play into this? The need for emotion - filled, decoupled from reality irrationality? History repeating itself ? I am just rambling. We need Jordan back. Thanks for bringing Bret on. Been following you all since 17,18. Grateful for the exchange.
I've been including IDW toolkits in my permaculture lessons since the Sam Harris/Jordan Peterson event. It has helped ALOT on the ground. Wanted you to know that.
Tell me how!
Good interview.
That's true - only in the sense that even a poor interviewer with no capability of phrasing meaningful questions is still going to get a thorough and thoughtful reply from Bret Weinstein.
Are there any integral conversations that belong in the IDW community which aren't yet vocalized?
At about 10:50mins Brett Weinstein says something about finding a way of "making the conversation modular so that failures do not take down the space itself". I wonder... what exactly would constitute a "failure" within this conversation? (What does a failure look like? Are there some examples?)
5:45. Dave Rubin, driver of the Intellectual Dark Short Bus.
and fully funded by the Koch brothers, I dont know why RW never raises this,.
And what do the Koch's money buy them in Rubin? Let me guess, world domination?
@@swingset1969 I never said that, I never even implied that. But to suggest that Rubin is a champion of free ideas when his platform is funded by an overtly anti-regulation political organisation is disingenuous at best. He is paid to present a certain political viewpoint.
Dave Rubin was an IDW groupie at best.
@@Si-Horrocks Anti-regulation is a wonderful thing, so if that was meant to be a blow to the idea of free exchange of ideas, well....whatever. Rubin is leaning in a direction that his experiences are pushing him, but to his credit he's been very willing to admit that he's changing his political ideas (if you bother to listen to him), and also to invite people who challenge it. Many on the left, either because they don't like the idea of challenge or they view him through a flimsy lens of betrayal/alt-right nonsense won't sit down with him. That's not his fault, and certainly not the Koch's. I honestly don't get the hate. He's a media guy, never claimed to be an intellectual, just a dude who wanted to interview thinkers. I think he does a good job at that...and his cause (free speech) couldn't be more important. Whatever, Koch boogeyman.
"IDW space... is an environment in which the priority is put on stating what one actually believes irrespective of the social consequences of those statements, and of partnering in discussion with other people on the basis that you hold the discovery of truth to be a higher value than pushing your own agenda." - Brett Weinstein
This is why you're arguments that Dave Rubin's failure to push against his guests ideas is a problem is wrong. By Brett's definition, Rubin's approach is the most IDW expression of IDW space as you can get. He gets his guests to say exactly what they believe, irrespective of the social consequences of those statements. And then the rest of the IDW can tackle those subjects and try to get to the truth.
That's as I see it, anyway. I deeply disagree with a lot of the things said by guests on Rubin's show. But I deeply value Rubin's giving these ideas open air so that I can make better sense in this world, so that I can think through these ideas and reason out why I disagree, and find those elements of truth that do exist in these ideas and then add those ideas into my own thinking in healthier and truer ways. That is a valuable gift.
Yes
Rubin has never been intellectual. And now he has become a right-wing partisan hack, completely embraycing the "stop the steal" narrative.
Didn't realise what the public events solution imploding did to the IDW movement. I attended an event in Melbourne, and it was exciting to see mass support for long form public philosophy. Framing & Media was the centrepoint of the IDW from this discussion, discussion on business models seems the obvious gap in Rebel Wisdoms tactical exploration.
Thanks Rebel Wisdom and Bret Weinstein for thoughtful questions and answers to important issues considering bias news reporting which has the effect of making us doubt each others opinions
to the extreme and thus allows our enemies , example China , to have an advantage over us .
While many of the individual members of the IDW go on to have great content, I feel as though as a group the IDW was more about just being anti-SJW, rather than the high-minded ideals they espoused. Yes, many of them *do* strive toward those lofty ideals, but the cohesive force was really a desire to push back against authoritarian censorship from the illiberal left.
i feel it is difficult to produce content about the real ideals and goals without addressing the looming problem of social justice and its implications around free speech & the continuation of free conversation
'Not being active' is a euphemism for "the pushback met the reality of our real lives. We need to eat." Big ad money has a way of shutting down dissenting opinions. Every time you make a move your adversary ups the ante and doubles down. They can out wait you, out live you, out spend you, and out shout you. Who can even stop that? I love that some are trying, though.
@@itsv1p3r Of course that conversation was important and necessary, but when you look at it, the real thing that truly defined the IDW was that commonality of fighting against SJWs and the suppression of free speech. That means you're going to get something of an echo chamber effect, and to some extent some straw manning no matter how intellectually honest individual members may be. It's just something that will inevitably occur unless you actually have some of the social justice people come in to have discussions with you.
Sadly, I think the main problem with that is that few of the social justice people would be willing to have that conversation in good faith, so it could have just ended up like the whole Cathy Newman situation all over again. The only person I could see having a real conversation would be David Pakman - although even he can be a bit suspect at times. Maybe I'm wrong and there are others out there who would actually have productive conversations with the IDW, but it sadly looks like most on the left just don't have that conversation until they become a victim of cancel culture themselves and therefore wind up in an anti-fragile position.
The IDW died after interviewing themselves to death.
Ben Shapiro interviews Jordan Peterson
Jordan Peterson interviews Sam Harris
Sam Harris interviews Brett Weinstein
Brett Weinstein interviews [repeat same circle of guests]
Blah, blah, blah.
It didn’t bring on enough new voices with different perspectives. In other words, it became boring talking about the same topics, like Atheism Vs. Christianity.
then it would be debates, not interviews. people need to prepare for debate style discussions, and we still live in post(indefinitely)modern society, where we are being judged based on how we are managing our time...
@@VM-hl8ms , seemingly IDW is/was seeking " 'good faith' discussions" and NOT "debates" where either speaker is lashed to pro/con "resolved" opinion. Sam Harris often spoke of people needing to be able to shift their opinion in real time and began eschewing "debates" some years ago.
Eric and sam's podcast bring on a good variety of guests with a wide range of topics i feel like. Joe is still joe. Rubin has turned to the generic conservative channel and i never really liked listening to Shapiro because he isnt having actual discussions he is just trying to win and tell me what my opinion's should be. So i feel like there still is good content just not from every "member"
@Don Jon there not really an organization at all which is why i put members in quotes and find this video series odd because there is no leader or set of rules to follow to be a "part of" the idw but yes ive been listening for years but i do feel rubin and shapiro have gotten away from actual discussions and put them selves in the anti PC echo chamber
I would love the IDW to expand to conversations with The Behaviour Panel, i think that would be a great piece to add into the puzzle
Yes yes yes , describing things in ways that , do, make sense .
Such wonderfull, conversation. Thanks!
The idea and momentum behind the idw is alive well and growing exponentially. Your belief that it lives and dies with a group of personalities is quite myopic. Also whats with all the attacks on Rubin these days?? I don't listen as much but just looking at his guests there is a very broad spectrum. Your thinking is still stuck in a left right paradigm...evolve a little
Rubin is trying to take the Larry King route by staying as neutral as possible with his guest (he states that LK is one of his influences and idols) - Many don't like that because they view it as fence sitting. In reality, his show isn't about Dave, just like Larry Kings show wasn't about him either - it's about their guests and their views / ideas.
Joe Rogan just needs to put the IDW on in a series of conversations.
Bret : "Fact is, I am a very busy person and I don't have time to interview every Sam, Dick and Harry who wants to expose my grift, OK? Now excuse me while I interview my brother here on my podcast ... and then I have another podcast to go to where my brother will interview ME ... so give me a break "
@@jfreeman3978 That's a Bingo ...
I would certainly say that my interest in the intellectual dark web has not been because of the clashing of different ideological narratives, but rather because the individuals within it have personalized integrated narratives which they honestly attempt to weave. It’s the dialogue that transcends each person (let alone each ism) that makes it truthful and interesting.
Aside from JBP's absence, and perhaps in part because of it, the "IDW" has been frozen in time to some degree. The issues are still there, but they have progressed, while the IDW has not. And the progression that never happened, in a gap that only JBP could really fill, is that actual conservatives and Christians needed to be brought into the conversations. The "IDW", like the "red pill" phenomenon, "#walkaway" and so on, has been almost completely filled with liberals disaffected by the radicalization of the left and the Democratic Party and other parties of the left in the Anglosphere. But there are conservative and Christian intellectuals who have been talking about these issues for years, and decades. Bret and Eric are a bit too determined to stay on the left for them to make those connections. Some others, like JBP, Lindsay and Boghossian, and Shapiro to the extent he fits in the IDW, have done that a bit, but the full connections have never really been made. Look up Voddie Baucham, for example. He's never been mentioned, but he has also talked about these issues at length, for years. And it's almost criminal that David Horowitz hasn't been more involved.
Ultimately, the core Marxism of the left has become more and more clear (as opposed to mere postmodernism), and conservatives have been fighting that battle since the 1950s at least. A lot of what the IDW talks about has been on the tongue of Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and so on for a long time. When they warned about Obama's associations with Jeremiah Wright, Frank Marshall Davis, Bill Ayers and Saul Alinsky, 12 years ago, this is what they were warning of. Like it or not, they were right.
This war has been destroying the Democratic Party since the Truman administration began to oppose communism after WWII. Members of the Frankfurt School were IN the administration of FDR. It's the reason JFK was assassinated (yes, by a communist, for all of the conspiracy nuts). Lee Harvey Oswald was in the Antifa of 1963. It's the reason Viet Nam became such a disaster, LBJ stepped down, and the 1968 DNC disintegrated into riots. Then there was George McGovern.
In short, communism, through academia, has invaded, compromised and threatened the Democratic Party for almost 100 years, and it has never been properly excised. That's the ultimate issue. Look at the way Angela Davis has been treated by academia. What more needs to be said?
Watch out! There's a commie under your bed right now!
The trouble is, not many christian thinkers could do what Jordan did. His talks articulated a nonmaterialist worldview in a way that made material atheists listen more closely instead of tune him out. A handful of thinkers can do that at all, I'd bet the number who can do it and speak publicly as well as Peterson is probably nil. He survived in a ruthlessly materialist environment for decades without compromising or hiding his metaphysics, that's extremely rare among western thinkers. The degree to which he engaged atheists is probably quite underappreciated; a christian thinker who couldn't do the same wouldn't have anything near the same effect.
I too find it very interesting that David Horowitz is never mentioned! If you haven't read his book Radical Son, it's quite a story.
@@mkor7 thanks for modeling why the IDW is basically a collective for the disaffected left.
Martin K They have never been treated the way they should be treated: worse than Nazis. Instead, they have been tolerated in major institutions for many years. That needs to change, and that will solve all of these problems.
IDW was born of being anti-censorship. Censorship at that time was coming almost entirely from the left. Therefore it was necessarily anti-left to this extent. This doesn't mean that the liberal part of the left was ever opposed (to whatever small extent that now exists). Jordan's self-responsibility point is directly related to opposing this censorship, but people like Eric being a committed leftist needs to be challenged in his thinking. Lacking this, of course it is caving in on itself.
I like Bret, but his political philosophy is still leftist in the sense of wanting to combine the church of his version of humanism with the state aka various shades of socialism. All of this neglects the possibility of using charity, from the heart of the giver as an act of self-responsibility with careful thinking about the impact of "giving a man a fish compared with teaching him to fish" included, to serve this important role. Also, the clear link between big state control and censorship. Where is the pushback on this? So long as this is missing, the movement is dead because it is missing the point.
Jordan recently posted a wonderful piece on academic corruption on his website. This strikes directly at the censorship without naming or addressing the root problems (which he of course did elsewhere). This is useful and fine, but it misses the core points around exactly where the corruption is almost entirely coming from.
Yes. The Weinsteins are basically collectivists. Those of us who are about the individual embarrass them. I am just done with all the arrogant sin sniffing Puritans from the left.
@@lydiamalone1859 Yes, but the problem here isn't that they are collectivists. The problem is that nobody is calling them out on how this is currently, and perhaps fundamentally, linked to the censorship and corruption issues now being faced that the IDW is supposed to address.
@@konberner170 I get it but in order to deal with the censorship problem they may want to stop insulting those who are not collectivists. They can't help themselves because of the arrogance.
@@lydiamalone1859 I'll extend the principle of charity and say that perhaps they cannot help themselves because they haven't thought it through carefully enough yet. There are other reasons than arrogance to stop short of comprehensive understanding e.g. childhood experiences both parental and otherwise, cultural pressures, etc.. If I were to place a wild bet, I'd put in on the good old "meaning shaped hole in the heart that can come from nihilism" aka denying that humanism is a religion that includes enforcement of ideology.
IDW was a bunch of gate keepers.
Tbh, what happened is that they stopped appearing together and went their own separate ways. To be expected of those with iconoclastic & contrarian personalities, to be sure, but we need a place to herd the cats together just enough to form a solid force to rally around. Quilette is a good platform to facilitate that, but unfortunately it's mainly a text platform. Rogan has a good podcast, but his format isn't set up for more than 3-person conversations (not that you want a lot more people in on a discussion).
A week long IDW Summit on Rogan.
It is not only the courage to speak the truth regardless of consequences, but also the courage to hear others regardless of our opposition to their ideas without creating consequences for them. I am grateful to the IDW for trying to give people an example of what that looks like. We teach one another how to react. ( yes, some people never learn )
Im right wing but damn I love the weinstein bros.
JBP was the cornerstone of the IDW, so it's been on hiatus while he's been recovering.
the idw must expand. i find a lot of the conversations sound the same. also, we understand the problems (mostly) now how do we proceed forward
Espectacular conversation, thanks.
Are we all gonna ignore how Ruben sold out?
He's sold out. It's because just as disgusting as sjws are. Always railing against them is becoming a group think
I don’t know anything about it. How has he sold out? To whom?
as other have asked, please explain what you mean by he 'sold out'.
Yes, Dave hasn’t held up his side of the unspoken IDW bargain
@@ronantopolski48 care to elaborate?
Maybe they can all meet at Jordan Peterson’s Thinkspot.
I love your channel.
This conversation referred me back to Kenneth Burke's concept of trained incapacity (perspective of incongruity).
Petersen was the glue that held it all together... And what did he have the others didn't? A respect for religion, in particular Christianity, but an ability to not preach, but explain. Bret is still wanting to be a Leftist, just one that cares about facts. Eric I think understands the stakes are too high to continue being a Leftist and accepting even a small amount of their current bullshit, but he talks over people too much and obviously thinks he's right about everything. Harris is too interested in proving religion is stupid and Trump is a moron to really be talking about anything useful right now. Rogan is cool, but he's just a comedian and his utility lies in giving others his platform, not in his original thoughts. Petersen was the guy.
he also had balls to criticize idealistic ideas by using real examples from soviet union and china. it's a tabu. some kind of wall of air western intellectuals rarely dare to overstep.
The "Intellectual Dark Web" lost themselves in a thick and hazy fog of their own rotten-funkied flatulence.
boom
Too many self important upper middle class twits involved in this so-called "movement."
@@666marquis Have u seen the entitled millenial-esque upper middle class "twits" that have co-opted the counter "movement"?
Too many of them as well! Indoctrinated with an "Activist Ideology" that covers the gamut of every real or perceived injustice without real world experience to temper their spoon-fed rhetoric.
At least the IDW "movement" is in agreement that massive reform is necessary and are willing to advance the conversation.
Whereas the amalgamation of the "leaderless" Alphabet Soup Group suppresses any attempt at mediation by screaming & yelling like a hypoglycemic kid in the grocery store that got into the bulk bin whoppers!.
Basically, the way they yelled at their parents for getting them a Game Cube instead of a PS1 when they were 8 years old.
Of course the parents relent. Brats get the newly released PS2 AND XBOX to distract while mom & the patriarchal oppressor spend weekends droppin' Molly & having random 3ways w/non gender specific 20sumthins from CL Casual Encounters !!
And here we are. Bottom line is if discussion between said groups of "twits" isn't in the cards just wait until the 3rd group of twits enters the fray. These fuckers r armed 2 the twits! Shits gonna hit the proverbial fan! At least Bret c's the approaching storm & is trying to avert imminent disaster in GOOD FAITH! Fasten your seat-belts and don your Kevlar vest folks. It's gonna get bumpy & bullety b4 it gets better ;p
We are the fart sniffers, we are the sniffers of farts.
It’s fun to watch David Fuller find new revenue streams by and through the IDW.
Great video Cheers guys
They did not have good solutions, on ly complain in an intellectual way.
They analyze, discuss root causes, and give insight. They’ve never claimed to have solutions to our problems. That usually takes different people with different skillsets. But first you have to understand what you’re dealing with, and that is valuable as nobody is discussing that publicly right now. Once you have a good grasp on what it is that’s happening, only then can you move on to finding solutions. And a different set of people may indeed be needed for this.
I hear this complaint a lot about these guys, and I don’t think it’s a valid one. It certainly doesn’t take away from the work that they’re doing, which is just as important.
I also disagree that it’s mere complaining. Not sure how much of their work you’ve watched or listened to, but they do go in to great depth about our current issues and give a lot of much-needed context. Especially surrounding the social justice movement that has taken over everything.
nailed it.
Jordan Peterson can't admit he's religious. This is not a good corner stone for any movement.
The hell are you talking about. Religious doesn’t describe him in any way.
@@0rthogonal You haven't watched his debate with Sam Harris
@@taurtue You just don't understand what he's arguing, Sam Harris is a simpleton
What part of "I act as if God exists" isn't admiting what he is doing?
And he not only did that but admits his goal of talking about how important religion is to people.
If he said "I don't belive god exists" and also "I act as if God exsists" then your argument would make sense.
Both talking about biblical stories in a psychological way and expressing the fault is people trying to make there own value structures and thus abandoning religion are both stated goals that all evidence points to him actually wanting to achive.
He isn't bad faith.
@@oldnosoul4183 From a logical and scientific point of view, acting as though something exists, is not acceptable. If I design a component based on math and physics, I can't pretend there are other law's not accounted for. This is not the way clinical people think. The reason we can communicate is due to acceptance of these laws, and to some dogmatic beliefs or witchcraft.
I'm glad the interviewer mentioned Dave Rubin's direction. A few years ago I liked the space Rubin created where all kinds of people--left, right, for guns, against guns, politicians, influencers, etc--could come and express what they believe, and Rubin wasn't there to beat up on them. I learned a lot from people I vehemently disagreed with. I would still disagree, but they were no longer these monsters that the mainstream media presented them as.
With major disappointment, I watched as Rubin slowly became a political activist cheering for his team and jeering at the other team. Big loss.
OMG Genius...So well spoken....Hit's the nail on the head regarding "good faith" vs. "bad faith"
"Intellectual" and "Dave Rubin" go together like oil and water. "Grifter" and "Dave Rubin" are made for each other.
Maybe peeps figured out it wasn't so "intellectual"...maybe they figured out it was the same ole double speak BS.
Was this filmed pre covid? I'm only 6 minutes in but bret doesn't have his bandana.
he's done with that rag. going to upgrade to a bolo tie
"Chasing a higher agenda beyond your own self".... This is very tricky. What is self? For animals it's just the boundary of body with maybe familial images. For humans it goes beyond, your ideas, the image you create in your audience, friends, family etc all become part of self.
Discussion-driven pursuit of higher self or escaping boundaries of self might be possible, but not on its own.
The question is 'can you spend time alone?' 'What do you see, what do you feel when you do for a long time (more time than you comfortable with initially)'
One of the things that happened was that the discussions started to become about having discussions.
right, they crawled up they own ass.
I like Bret because doesn't talk so much about people but about beliefs, perspectives, models, motives, forces, behaviours, groups, rules and incentives. It's so much easier to have a constructive conversation when it's not personal but is about the systems we are all part of.
Very wellspoken. Simple analogies from a deep place.
Thank you David and Bret. Dedication to truth, to which I am a humble servant.
For a second, I thought this channel was called Rebel Wilson.
32:37 "A mismatch between your stated objectives and the objective revealed by your observed behaviors." - Q: As would be the case of Googles' "Don't Be Evil" when making observations on a group (corporate) scale dynamic?
thanks for the work you are doing
21:30, his point here is very important and something I feel very few people consider.