*The Interview* 1:55, 3:52, 5:46 “There is a difference in our thinking about that pen 🖊 “ 8:47 Differences in interpretation 10:45 Experience and The Object 11:17 13:08 External World. Physical Theories. Einstein. (Heisenberg Uncertainty) 15:18 “We Disprove Things” 19:10 Experiencing blueness 25:28 2 claims, both answered by the agnostic with “I don’t know” 28:40 Using words to prove your point. “It’s possible” “I don’t know” 45:25 32:24 A world with no categories. Awareness. Word spiral 35:07 36:49, 39:09 Motivation/Power Manipulation/ 41:00 Awareness/Obscurantism 43:57 Seeing a mental struggle with your world view from the outside 46:35 The History of the Word. Social Impact. Meaning Changes. 49:00 What do you mean by “x” ? 50:35 We don’t need clear communication to have clear mental/external experience 52:27 _Post-Interview commentary_ 2:50, 4:31, 6:48 Poking around 11:33 Correlating Objective Truth with God. 14:01 Partial to Einstein 17:58 _Point of Divergence_ 21:14 Good skepticism 24:15 Missing something 27:30 Empty Tautology 33:20 Philosophy of language. “Words correspond to internal mental states” 53:48, 55:12 The enemy of Postmodernism is Objective Definitions *_Imprecise Language_* 8:47
Thaddeus is engaged in about a one hour long performative contradiction. The original interview/conversation had me ripping my hair out if only bc I think postmodernism had a lot of interesting things to say and Thaddeus is NOT the person to talk about them. But I am truly enjoying Steve's commentary. Very cathartic. lol.
Patterson, you have the patience of a saint. I really wish that one of these days someone would ask Russell *why* he participates in these conversations. I'd genuinely like to know.
*Hour 2* 58:10 The Postmodern thinks his interlocutor is trying to lead him, to make him a fool. Claiming confusion for peace and love (this thinking might contribute to “helicopter parenting”) 1:01:58 Lol 1:05:00 Act of Love offering. What do I get out of this? What door does that open? 1:24:40 A mental necessity to not be boxed in by any category or label?) 1:13:05 Better to live in a happy fantasy of my own creation, than in a true world? 1:16:30 Logic, Introspection, Revelation 1:23:00 Blueness exists. I experience blueness. Blueness is a part of existence, my existence 1:26:57 Relativism (True for me, But not for thee) 1:29:50 I can tell you what I know, and you can tell me what you know. However, You can’t tell me what I know. 1:35:00 A narrative 1:40:56 Power , Discourse, Truth Claims Circulate 1:43:26 Conclusion
I've been watching this, and, here's my analysis: This is substantially about trust and mistrust. 1. You're right about his philosophy, broadly. The piece about: He equates any kind of truth claims and objectivity as being just the slightest hair away from religion, and with it, oppression, and manipulation, etc.,. Your general sum of analysis if correct, about his philosophy. 2. He's experiencing an emotion, and that emotion is fear. It's not that he's afraid of you personally; It's more that -- he's afraid of what your way of thinking does, what it represents to him. For him, your way of thought immediately suggests: imperialism, missionaries destroying native cultures, use of force, violent deluded men. Listening to you talking, for him, is like watching a train wreck happen in slow motion. When he says "I don't know," he's not making a truthful position of what he believes. It's more like, "I'm not getting involved." (He even explains that explicitly later on.) But the key thing here I think is that he is responding in fear, and -- I think you missed it. And missing it, I think you lost some of his trust. I think he has a sentinel in him that is going, "Is this guy responding to my emotional state?" And when he sees, "No, he's just sticking with his intellectual questions, he's just playing a game with me," I think his response is then like, "Well, I'm not going to play his game with him." At 1:31:50 -- he makes it 100% clear. He feels fear ("nervous") when he hears you making truth claims, because he fears imperialism. I think you can talk with him about knowledge, and truth, and such, but only after you establish a line of trust with him. The part in this entire thing where I thought you most connected with him, was when you communicated, "If I poke you and you say ouch, I think that you are conscious." His entire demeanor changed at that point, and he opened up to you dramatically.
A not so educated person trying to sound smart. Whenever he cannot compute or is presented with a surprising suggestion that is true also to him - he rejects it. He deliberately sabotages the conversation and tries to stay out of it. This could be post modernism, but I doubt a philosopher would be this obstructive. I mean he is talking and responding and is able to use a microphone, but basically says he does not care or refuses to acknowledge he has to make assumptions about reality. Like "are we talking to each other", he would say I don't know. He is acting more like a flat-earther than a post modernist. Like a person addicted to having another reality than you even when you agree to his. He would then escape to a new reality and you would have to follow him there. A kind of "uncatcability". Trying to be special while you are not that special. Unable or unwilling to conclude things because it would cause relatedness. I actually think it is a fear of abandonment. Not post modernism driving this kind of talking. Fragmented minds are not unusual. Where truths and reasons float around but thoughts cannot connect. Feelings that cannot be explained or lack of understanding how other humans think. Hard work when things does not glue together.
@@tofo2 Oh wow -- conversation from 4 years ago. I'm not rewatching that video, but I remember the guy in it -- he was stonewalling everything, permitting nothing. I wouldn't chalk it up to mal-intent? I remember lots of people having that kind of omni-skepticism, in that niche of thought. They weren't mean, they were just suspicious of all narratives, unable t see their own. I hope it's a state quickly led. It's been four years, it'd be interesting to see if he's still on the same spiel.
@@LionKimbro I actually ran into a guy a few years ago where we could not agree on anything. He made a lot of bold statements and I repeated them to him and he said NO. I listened carefully and asked for more detail and when I reported back what I heard he said NO. It was like what he was speaking was so genuine it could not travel back and forth between us. I wonder if he would defy a tape recording of himself calling it false. Only him speaking was the truth not what came out of his mouth. Extremely interesting.
ChatGPT has the following idea. The behavior you described sounds like it could be related to a few psychological concepts and potential diagnoses. Here are a few possibilities: Delusional Disorder: Individuals with this disorder hold strong beliefs that are clearly false and do not align with reality. They may deny any evidence or arguments that contradict their delusions. Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD): People with NPD often have an inflated sense of their own importance and a deep need for excessive attention and admiration. They may react strongly against any challenge to their beliefs or self-perception. Ego-Syntonic Beliefs: This is a term used to describe thoughts and behaviors that are in harmony with or acceptable to the needs and goals of the ego, or consistent with one's ideal self-image. Such individuals may find it hard to accept their own statements if they feel those are being challenged or interpreted by others. Cognitive Dissonance: When someone experiences a conflict between their beliefs and new information, they may experience cognitive dissonance, leading them to deny or rationalize the new information to maintain their mental equilibrium. Gaslighting: This is a form of psychological manipulation in which a person seeks to make someone else question their reality. Although this usually involves the manipulator being consciously aware of their actions, a person could unconsciously exhibit similar behaviors due to a distorted perception of reality. Schizotypal Personality Disorder: Individuals with this disorder may have odd beliefs or magical thinking, leading them to have distorted interpretations of reality.
I define "I", I define "truth", I define "exists", in such a way that it is true that I exist. It's perfectly consistent with postmodernism but he seems terrified of it.
I think Thaddeus tries to say something deeper but he doesn't manage communicate it, which might be the reason why he sounds pretentious and avoidant or even passive-aggressive to downright smug. Plus he might not be skilled enough to debate or to explain. Hold in mind that even if a person makes 100% bad/wrong arguments doesn't mean his conclusions have to be wrong. Allow me to try to have the most charitable interpretation of Thaddeus's main point, now I'll LARP as Thaddeus: Even the idea that "one can experience redness" isn't necessarily true. Many things are implied, such as the self and mind as an individual. You can cut down even further that assumption and say "there is something that perceives something", essentially skipping the brain/mind as a unified apparatus and refer it as some structure that does some perceiving. Problem is then you validate the concept of "perception", "perceiver" and "phenomenon" as distinct things that interaction in a certain way. And then there are other concepts that needs justifying, the concept of interaction, the concept of phenomenon etc. And in the end you'd even have to justify the concept of justification, the concept of true and probably in the bedrock of extreme skepticism lies the "concept of concept" (thinking/descriptions/anything at all), no matter what kind of justification and words and models you have used so far, they all are still concepts and you would even have to justify how can concepts exist in the first place. /thaddeus Ofc it's very radical and again still implies certain truths but I think Thaddeus is more sophisticated that just "u just like love lmao" even if he might come across like that.
Hi Mr Steve.... I appreciate your attempt to be intellectually rigorous. However, it would be more intellectually honest to call this video “deconstructing cretinism”...I’m afraid, once again you have been a shining example of a smart guy who has been too nice, too polite and too intellectually courteous to this so called professor, Doctor, PhD, whatever, not worthy of the name!!!
Your guest did not seem like a sincere interlocutor. Could have been a killer discussion if he was more open-minded. It’s amazing how stupid smart people can be. :) Great podcast episode BTW, you rock!
"Evangelicals" is a term you often reference for examples of people who do not think deeply, clearly, or honestly (as I've understood you) and I appreciate, of course, that you come from that background and have much experience with others who do also. I've interacted with many myself as I have a similar background to yours. Being convinced of your sincere passion for discovering truth and much respect for the clarity of your thinking, I would (and I imagine others would also) LOVE to see you interview/cross-examine some respected "evangelical" philosophers. IMHO Post-Modernists like Thaddeus have shown time and again they may be worthy foils but not worthy partners in the pursuit of truth.
@@Pngiaca Read Steve's book, "Square One: The Foundations of Knowledge" for the answer. www.amazon.com/Square-One-Foundations-Steve-Patterson/dp/1540402789/ref=sr_1_fkmrnull_1
at 1:00:17 you said that you think its kind of sweet but you also think its kind of dangerous when it comes to being agnostic or avoiding truth claims. Can you or anyone explain how it could be dangerous? Because you said you think there are lots of reasons in which this could be dangerous but you didn't want to get into it in this monologue.
I like Thaddeus and he really impressed me with his conversation with Molynuex. With this conversation, I was extremely disappointed. I feel like he decided to ideologically buckle down, perhaps with the assumption you were going to try and catch him in a gotcha in the end. Maybe he hoped the conversation would go somewhere else and when it didn't he got butthurt, I'm completely speculating. He does believe his consciousness exists, he expresses it in "I don't know." If he doesn't know than he, his "I" exists, or he is a computer (mechanismism) making the words "I don't know."
He impressed you on the Molynuex podcast? You must be kidding? The episode where he insisted that a tree could impregnate a human female. This guy is a charlatan. The only consolation to this, and credit to him, is that he seems completely unaware of it.
"I don't know where you're going with this . . . " How could that be possible if he has any awareness of the history of his own philosophy and the massive literature of arguments against it? It is so clear where Patterson is "going with this." So clear in fact that Russel could MUST be intentionally proceeding in bad faith. He is a dishonest interlocutor and a shallow thinker. Full stop.
I am 15 minutes in and have already a list of major factual errors you have said. I don't know who you are and now I am not wasting any further time with your channel. I would strongly suggest you devote more time to accuracy and research before you embarrass yourself further.
@@BobWidlefish There is just too many errors to bother with listing, sorry. If it is an occasional one that can be overlooked, but when it is pervasive it is the sign of a dishonest peddler of an agenda.
*@semidemiurge* I see. That’s not very helpful to me because I listened to those same 15 minutes and didn’t hear anything amiss so I’m completely in the dark as to what you’re concerned with. Is there not even one specific issue you can cite, maybe the first error you encountered? In any case I wish you and yours all the best - cheers!
@@BobWidlefish OK. He mischaracterized scientists goals. Science does not offer proofs, as in logical proofs. Science develops evidence that supports their theories. These theories are ALWAYS CONTENGENT on new evidence that might require them to be modified or abandoned completely. I really don't have the time to spend on this. If you are unable to see the numerous other errors then I would suggest you put the time into looking at each claim he makes and research them yourself for accuracy.
@@semidemiurge You made enough time to leave this and other comments and watch 15 minutes of the video. If you're interested in being productive at all I'm sure your honest and direct feedback is welcome. Steve invites direct criticism such as yours right at the end of the video. He is acting in accordance with this policy of contingency you are so concerned with.
*The Interview*
1:55, 3:52,
5:46 “There is a difference in our thinking about that pen 🖊 “
8:47 Differences in interpretation
10:45 Experience and The Object 11:17
13:08 External World. Physical Theories. Einstein. (Heisenberg Uncertainty)
15:18 “We Disprove Things”
19:10 Experiencing blueness
25:28 2 claims, both answered by the agnostic with “I don’t know”
28:40 Using words to prove your point. “It’s possible” “I don’t know” 45:25
32:24 A world with no categories. Awareness. Word spiral 35:07
36:49, 39:09 Motivation/Power Manipulation/
41:00 Awareness/Obscurantism
43:57 Seeing a mental struggle with your world view from the outside
46:35 The History of the Word. Social Impact. Meaning Changes. 49:00 What do you mean by “x” ?
50:35 We don’t need clear communication to have clear mental/external experience 52:27
_Post-Interview commentary_
2:50, 4:31,
6:48 Poking around
11:33 Correlating Objective Truth with God.
14:01 Partial to Einstein
17:58 _Point of Divergence_
21:14 Good skepticism
24:15 Missing something
27:30 Empty Tautology
33:20 Philosophy of language. “Words correspond to internal mental states”
53:48, 55:12 The enemy of Postmodernism is Objective Definitions
*_Imprecise Language_*
8:47
Thanks Michael!
We need this on a t-shirt:
“Hey friend,
I’ve meditated and become aware that there are things taking place in my visual field.
- Steve”
Thaddeus is engaged in about a one hour long performative contradiction. The original interview/conversation had me ripping my hair out if only bc I think postmodernism had a lot of interesting things to say and Thaddeus is NOT the person to talk about them. But I am truly enjoying Steve's commentary. Very cathartic. lol.
Patterson, you have the patience of a saint. I really wish that one of these days someone would ask Russell *why* he participates in these conversations. I'd genuinely like to know.
*Hour 2*
58:10 The Postmodern thinks his interlocutor is trying to lead him, to make him a fool.
Claiming confusion for peace and love (this thinking might contribute to “helicopter parenting”)
1:01:58 Lol
1:05:00 Act of Love offering. What do I get out of this? What door does that open?
1:24:40 A mental necessity to not be boxed in by any category or label?)
1:13:05 Better to live in a happy fantasy of my own creation, than in a true world?
1:16:30 Logic,
Introspection, Revelation
1:23:00 Blueness exists. I experience blueness. Blueness is a part of existence, my existence
1:26:57 Relativism (True for me, But not for thee)
1:29:50 I can tell you what I know, and you can tell me what you know. However, You can’t tell me what I know.
1:35:00 A narrative
1:40:56 Power , Discourse, Truth Claims Circulate
1:43:26 Conclusion
This requires so much unpacking because Thaddeus has never taken a step forward that wasn't in bad faith.
I've been watching this, and, here's my analysis:
This is substantially about trust and mistrust.
1. You're right about his philosophy, broadly. The piece about: He equates any kind of truth claims and objectivity as being just the slightest hair away from religion, and with it, oppression, and manipulation, etc.,. Your general sum of analysis if correct, about his philosophy.
2. He's experiencing an emotion, and that emotion is fear. It's not that he's afraid of you personally; It's more that -- he's afraid of what your way of thinking does, what it represents to him. For him, your way of thought immediately suggests: imperialism, missionaries destroying native cultures, use of force, violent deluded men. Listening to you talking, for him, is like watching a train wreck happen in slow motion. When he says "I don't know," he's not making a truthful position of what he believes. It's more like, "I'm not getting involved." (He even explains that explicitly later on.) But the key thing here I think is that he is responding in fear, and -- I think you missed it. And missing it, I think you lost some of his trust. I think he has a sentinel in him that is going, "Is this guy responding to my emotional state?" And when he sees, "No, he's just sticking with his intellectual questions, he's just playing a game with me," I think his response is then like, "Well, I'm not going to play his game with him."
At 1:31:50 -- he makes it 100% clear. He feels fear ("nervous") when he hears you making truth claims, because he fears imperialism.
I think you can talk with him about knowledge, and truth, and such, but only after you establish a line of trust with him.
The part in this entire thing where I thought you most connected with him, was when you communicated, "If I poke you and you say ouch, I think that you are conscious." His entire demeanor changed at that point, and he opened up to you dramatically.
A not so educated person trying to sound smart. Whenever he cannot compute or is presented with a surprising suggestion that is true also to him - he rejects it.
He deliberately sabotages the conversation and tries to stay out of it.
This could be post modernism, but I doubt a philosopher would be this obstructive.
I mean he is talking and responding and is able to use a microphone, but basically says he does not care or refuses to acknowledge he has to make assumptions about reality.
Like "are we talking to each other", he would say I don't know.
He is acting more like a flat-earther than a post modernist.
Like a person addicted to having another reality than you even when you agree to his. He would then escape to a new reality and you would have to follow him there.
A kind of "uncatcability". Trying to be special while you are not that special. Unable or unwilling to conclude things because it would cause relatedness.
I actually think it is a fear of abandonment. Not post modernism driving this kind of talking.
Fragmented minds are not unusual. Where truths and reasons float around but thoughts cannot connect. Feelings that cannot be explained or lack of understanding how other humans think.
Hard work when things does not glue together.
@@tofo2 Oh wow -- conversation from 4 years ago. I'm not rewatching that video, but I remember the guy in it -- he was stonewalling everything, permitting nothing.
I wouldn't chalk it up to mal-intent? I remember lots of people having that kind of omni-skepticism, in that niche of thought. They weren't mean, they were just suspicious of all narratives, unable t see their own.
I hope it's a state quickly led. It's been four years, it'd be interesting to see if he's still on the same spiel.
@@LionKimbro I actually ran into a guy a few years ago where we could not agree on anything. He made a lot of bold statements and I repeated them to him and he said NO.
I listened carefully and asked for more detail and when I reported back what I heard he said NO.
It was like what he was speaking was so genuine it could not travel back and forth between us. I wonder if he would defy a tape recording of himself calling it false.
Only him speaking was the truth not what came out of his mouth. Extremely interesting.
ChatGPT has the following idea.
The behavior you described sounds like it could be related to a few psychological concepts and potential diagnoses. Here are a few possibilities:
Delusional Disorder: Individuals with this disorder hold strong beliefs that are clearly false and do not align with reality. They may deny any evidence or arguments that contradict their delusions.
Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD): People with NPD often have an inflated sense of their own importance and a deep need for excessive attention and admiration. They may react strongly against any challenge to their beliefs or self-perception.
Ego-Syntonic Beliefs: This is a term used to describe thoughts and behaviors that are in harmony with or acceptable to the needs and goals of the ego, or consistent with one's ideal self-image. Such individuals may find it hard to accept their own statements if they feel those are being challenged or interpreted by others.
Cognitive Dissonance: When someone experiences a conflict between their beliefs and new information, they may experience cognitive dissonance, leading them to deny or rationalize the new information to maintain their mental equilibrium.
Gaslighting: This is a form of psychological manipulation in which a person seeks to make someone else question their reality. Although this usually involves the manipulator being consciously aware of their actions, a person could unconsciously exhibit similar behaviors due to a distorted perception of reality.
Schizotypal Personality Disorder: Individuals with this disorder may have odd beliefs or magical thinking, leading them to have distorted interpretations of reality.
I define "I", I define "truth", I define "exists", in such a way that it is true that I exist.
It's perfectly consistent with postmodernism but he seems terrified of it.
I think Thaddeus tries to say something deeper but he doesn't manage communicate it, which might be the reason why he sounds pretentious and avoidant or even passive-aggressive to downright smug. Plus he might not be skilled enough to debate or to explain.
Hold in mind that even if a person makes 100% bad/wrong arguments doesn't mean his conclusions have to be wrong.
Allow me to try to have the most charitable interpretation of Thaddeus's main point, now I'll LARP as Thaddeus:
Even the idea that "one can experience redness" isn't necessarily true.
Many things are implied, such as the self and mind as an individual.
You can cut down even further that assumption and say "there is something that perceives something", essentially skipping the brain/mind as a unified apparatus and refer it as some structure that does some perceiving.
Problem is then you validate the concept of "perception", "perceiver" and "phenomenon" as distinct things that interaction in a certain way.
And then there are other concepts that needs justifying, the concept of interaction, the concept of phenomenon etc.
And in the end you'd even have to justify the concept of justification, the concept of true and probably in the bedrock of extreme skepticism lies the "concept of concept" (thinking/descriptions/anything at all), no matter what kind of justification and words and models you have used so far, they all are still concepts and you would even have to justify how can concepts exist in the first place.
/thaddeus
Ofc it's very radical and again still implies certain truths but I think Thaddeus is more sophisticated that just "u just like love lmao" even if he might come across like that.
Hi Mr Steve.... I appreciate your attempt to be intellectually rigorous. However, it would be more intellectually honest to call this video “deconstructing cretinism”...I’m afraid, once again you have been a shining example of a smart guy who has been too nice, too polite and too intellectually courteous to this so called professor, Doctor, PhD, whatever, not worthy of the name!!!
58:00 suddenly Thaddeus knows a lot of things about other people's motivations, missionaries etc.
Your guest did not seem like a sincere interlocutor. Could have been a killer discussion if he was more open-minded. It’s amazing how stupid smart people can be. :)
Great podcast episode BTW, you rock!
"Evangelicals" is a term you often reference for examples of people who do not think deeply, clearly, or honestly (as I've understood you) and I appreciate, of course, that you come from that background and have much experience with others who do also. I've interacted with many myself as I have a similar background to yours. Being convinced of your sincere passion for discovering truth and much respect for the clarity of your thinking, I would (and I imagine others would also) LOVE to see you interview/cross-examine some respected "evangelical" philosophers. IMHO Post-Modernists like Thaddeus have shown time and again they may be worthy foils but not worthy partners in the pursuit of truth.
pursuit of who's truth?
@@Pngiaca Read Steve's book, "Square One: The Foundations of Knowledge" for the answer. www.amazon.com/Square-One-Foundations-Steve-Patterson/dp/1540402789/ref=sr_1_fkmrnull_1
I think he was saying, “I’m not sure, I need to think about it.” At least at first. Then he just went off the rails.(I’m being extremely charitable)
at 1:00:17 you said that you think its kind of sweet but you also think its kind of dangerous when it comes to being agnostic or avoiding truth claims. Can you or anyone explain how it could be dangerous? Because you said you think there are lots of reasons in which this could be dangerous but you didn't want to get into it in this monologue.
I like Thaddeus and he really impressed me with his conversation with Molynuex.
With this conversation, I was extremely disappointed. I feel like he decided to ideologically buckle down, perhaps with the assumption you were going to try and catch him in a gotcha in the end.
Maybe he hoped the conversation would go somewhere else and when it didn't he got butthurt, I'm completely speculating.
He does believe his consciousness exists, he expresses it in "I don't know." If he doesn't know than he, his "I" exists, or he is a computer (mechanismism) making the words "I don't know."
He impressed you on the Molynuex podcast? You must be kidding? The episode where he insisted that a tree could impregnate a human female. This guy is a charlatan. The only consolation to this, and credit to him, is that he seems completely unaware of it.
@@joelkeane3160"a treem can impregnate a women" 😂😂wtf that's something I never thought I'd hear
"There's a strategy here . . . "
Of course that's what you care about. Epistemic virtue is alien to you Thadge.
Should have said. Consciousness= the lights are on.
"I don't know where you're going with this . . . "
How could that be possible if he has any awareness of the history of his own philosophy and the massive literature of arguments against it? It is so clear where Patterson is "going with this." So clear in fact that Russel could MUST be intentionally proceeding in bad faith. He is a dishonest interlocutor and a shallow thinker. Full stop.
I am 15 minutes in and have already a list of major factual errors you have said. I don't know who you are and now I am not wasting any further time with your channel. I would strongly suggest you devote more time to accuracy and research before you embarrass yourself further.
I’m already an hour in and it seems like he’s nailing it. What did you find in error? Cheers!
@@BobWidlefish There is just too many errors to bother with listing, sorry. If it is an occasional one that can be overlooked, but when it is pervasive it is the sign of a dishonest peddler of an agenda.
*@semidemiurge* I see. That’s not very helpful to me because I listened to those same 15 minutes and didn’t hear anything amiss so I’m completely in the dark as to what you’re concerned with. Is there not even one specific issue you can cite, maybe the first error you encountered?
In any case I wish you and yours all the best - cheers!
@@BobWidlefish OK. He mischaracterized scientists goals. Science does not offer proofs, as in logical proofs. Science develops evidence that supports their theories. These theories are ALWAYS CONTENGENT on new evidence that might require them to be modified or abandoned completely. I really don't have the time to spend on this. If you are unable to see the numerous other errors then I would suggest you put the time into looking at each claim he makes and research them yourself for accuracy.
@@semidemiurge You made enough time to leave this and other comments and watch 15 minutes of the video.
If you're interested in being productive at all I'm sure your honest and direct feedback is welcome. Steve invites direct criticism such as yours right at the end of the video. He is acting in accordance with this policy of contingency you are so concerned with.