@Herra Tossavainen I hope his spirit will find new life in those of us who are still breathing. Progress will be significantly harder without him, but hopefully we'll all grow enough because of him.
I agree with the idea here but boy is that a way NOT to sell a book, start out by saying you didn't bother to chase down the origin of the term that defines ur subject.
Lots of triggered snowflakes on this comment section. Lol. Of course Micheal Brooks is smug and arrogant. That is a given. Why don't yall try responding to his arguments?
He doesn't really make any arguments. He's smart, but it's like he's too smart to detail his objections aside from ,"they are to the right of me." Meh.
He doesn't make arguments - he just relentlessly ridicules people - there's nothing to respond to to someone who's whole shtick is "Haha this guy is mentally retarded and fat" - all you're doing is wasting your time by responding to an antagonistic troll like Michael Brooks, especially considering any criticism you *do* make is going to be completely strawmanned in the least imaginative way possible. "You think affirmative action isn't a wise idea? Then you clearly hate black people you white nationalist."
Jordan Peterson had his finger on the pulse that there is some sort of crisis of meaning for a lot of people. I think his message was more of a self criticism in the end though, Zizek gave him the "ultimate example" of why cleaning rooms alone isn't the answer: Peterson himself, who clearly sees the need to reach a mass audience to address what he sees as a problem with society (Zizek was more correct han he even knew as it turned out Peterson's room was far from clean). Michael Brooks has much more interesting (and less contradictory) conversations about meaning: th-cam.com/video/WGraYu0l2lU/w-d-xo.html
Politics is personal to a large degree. A Left wing worldview might work for some, but certainly not for everyone. Michael believes there is some sort of left wing ideology that is objectively good for all and that is just not the case.
Mitch Lang, What I am saying is if someone who is religious and is pro-life, or a business owner that feels that they pay a lot of taxes and pays their fair share, a left wing ideology is not going to serve that person well.
Meat Machine his devotion to forming community bonds is in contradiction with his devotion to capitalism. If you don’t understand this statement, then you probably don’t understand how the economy operates for workers.
@@nothingtoseehere411 You mention "the economy," as if there were only one economy. If you don’t understand this statement, then you probably don’t understand how community bonds operate for workers.
Great minds talk about ideas. Mediocre minds talk about events. Small minds talk about people. This guy spends the first half of his interview talking about people, and he can't even present their arguments or the events surrounding them honestly. At least he's omniscient enough to let us all know what Bret Weinstein was *really* going through at Evergreen, though.
It's so obvious that Brooks has no idea how argumentation and logic works. The guy is a walking fallacy and he adds absolutely nothing to any conversation he's a part of. Vapid pseudo-intellectualism.
You can’t discuss “ideas” without talking about people. Ideas originate from people and are shaped by people, you can’t talk about Marxism without talking about Karl Marx, nor could you talk about capitalism without talking about Adam Smith.
@@MJH-kr4zg Yes, you can. There is theory and there is biography. Personalities only matter in politics. This is how you recognize basically political arguments.
If you were forced into a camp by an enthonationalist regime because you were a minority member, Wright, would you really quibble about the terminology as your labor was being appropriated in order to educate you to love the nation?
*I just left this in a thread, but figured I’d paste it for more eyes to see, with some changes to direct it to most of the Brooks’ detractors.. I hope it helps someone:* I really want recommend actually watching his show and engaging with everything he brings to bear, particularly the dialogues he engages in on a regular basis, bc I think you will find many of these negative characterizations of Michael Brooks to be incorrect, particularly claims of bad faith, or disinterest in logically making arguments. I was in many of the shoes of folks pissed at him once, at least as far as perspectives on Michael Brooks, and the politics he represents, but that really has radically changed over the last three years, and it started bc of a challenge from a friend during the last week of 2017, and I want to extend this challenge to others.. Though my politics have since changed (not that that necessarily matters), particularly post-2017/18, it was only a few years ago that I absolutely could not stand Michael Brooks (or Sam Seder, who’s show he was a long running cohost on), but I took a close friend up on a challenge they threw at me: listen to their shows (Majority Report (MR), and the then still very new The Michael Brooks Show (TMBS), but mainly MR) for at least a full week, actually contend with what they have to say in good faith, and do so while diligently challenging the biases that I’d be going into that experience with. I did exact that, and while I was far from being in total agreement, and far from being comfortable with a lot of points or perspectives I was ingesting, that week had still peaked my interests enough to keep me listening. This was January, 2018, and I haven’t stopped listening to the MR on a daily basis (give or take) since, and over the last year I’d say I’ve become increasingly even more a fan of TMBS, than of MR. (Note, MR is a daily show, while TMBS is a weekly show, aside from bonus content, and they’re actually quite different shows, with the primary intent of TMBS being more geared towards historical and political economic education.) All I’m really trying to get at here is the challenge that my friend gave me, which I, in turn, gave to another friend, and that I’m now giving to anyone else who has a particularly low opinion of Michael Brooks, and the style of leftist politics he’s repping. For myself, and this other person, actually giving his content a listen, approaching him and his arguments in good faith, and setting the standard to actually justify our biases or predispositions... dude, that changed our perspectives a fuck ton, and the only reason I’m comfortable speaking for this other person is bc we had discussed this in quite depth, as we’ve both followed a very similar political evolution over the last 5 years.. I want to stress: I absolutely don’t agree with Michael on everything, and these other two friends I mentioned probably have even more disagreements with him than I do from what I can tell, but having disagreements is an entirely different matter than thinking someone is a bad faith actor. Honestly, to assume someone is bad faith is a massive thing, and we need to be more careful about it, even if there are in fact a lot of people operating in bad faith... and there are (at least 2 of them are part of the IDW from what I can tell). So disagree with him all day long, but try to understand where he’s coming from, why he frames things like he does, how he actually thinks about the subjects IDW people being up, etc... You may walk away from it completely disagreeing with his perspective on damn near everything, but what you *won’t* conclude is that he’s just engaging in bad faith, and/or is completely dismissive of logical arguments and just a pseudo-intellectual, let alone smear merchant who’s uninterested in useful dialogue... etc and so on.. ✌️❤️♾
Nice tone , important group of ideas to debunk. Much mindfulness at work I think to remain so zen around a particular ahistorical neuroscientist member who shall remain unnamed. Enjoy you guys chatting.
Got through the first half. Couldn’t listen to another minute. I don’t think these two gentlemen understand arguments made by members of the IDW. Or they pretend not to. In either case, it’s unacceptable.
Matrix 24 The only people genuinely impressed by the intellect of the IDW are 15 year olds and libertarians who think the entire world operates off the principles laid out in Econ 101.
@@yamishogun6501 "I want you to walk into a bar and order yourselves a full-bodied opinion. I want you to get absolutely wasted on facts until 3:00 a.m., and then, when you’re just about ready to pass out, I want you to get another large glass of reality and chug it." If this is something someone with a high IQ would say, then I think we can finally write off IQ as being a usful measure of anything except how well you'd do in an IQ test. It's kinda funny you brought up IQ though, typical of the IDW. The dumb person's idea of a smart person.
what is objectively racist about stop and frisk? this hecking guy just says absurd shit like this and never explains what he means he takes it for granted that people who already agree will have som sort of assosiation with stop and frisk and the word racist so they will not question him on it and anyone who does question it it also objectively racist by definition. im so sick of people like this
"basic sanity"? seize the productivity of others are you really conflating advertising and policy? "human rights abuses in china"? as if western consumers do not participate what are you doing, Bob? the irony of devolving to this after criticizing IDW
Maybe my exasperation is a personal failing. The correlation between 3rd party slaves and the Drumpf election seems so obvious. We should confront this feature of our culture, and stop pretending the rational actor model prevails -- much less indulge in complacent pseudo smartipantsness. It's not becoming, and it's counterproductive. Ask Gore to come talk about Assault On Reason Have Alan Jacobs discuss How To Think Invite John Michael Greer to survey Dark Age America Frank Ostaseki can illuminate the grief we need to supplant denial Peder Anker can explain our abuse of vegetational concepts Stewart Lee is a benign Content Provider Meh.. I'll check out the conversation last year between Brooks and Wright. Maybe this is an aberration.
Love your show but I’m puzzled by the harshness toward Sam Harris, which feels overdetermined. Harris seems, like you, a man of integrity and intellect. What am I missing? I (almost) always find you fair and above the fray. But this feels patronizing toward him. Was that your intent? As I said I love your show, but I am puzzled by what feels unfair and simplifying and dismissive here. Perhaps you can enlighten me? Loved your Buddhism book ...and Harris’ meditation app. The narcissism of small differences.
![Tribalism, identity politics, and the IDW | Robert Wright & Michael Brooks [The Wright Show]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/HXE-6DUoIFc/mqdefault.jpg)
![Tribalism, identity politics, and the IDW | Robert Wright & Michael Brooks [The Wright Show]](/img/tr.png)
Rest in Power, Michael Brooks! :'(
@Herra Tossavainen I hope his spirit will find new life in those of us who are still breathing. Progress will be significantly harder without him, but hopefully we'll all grow enough because of him.
Sad to think how little time he had left at the time of this recording... I guess you never know 😞
Rest in peace Michael Brooks
As a card carrying sam harris fan boy, i really enjoyed this:) thank you for a really interesting meta conversation.
Gosh I wish Michael went on The Glenn Show before he passed...
I agree with the idea here but boy is that a way NOT to sell a book, start out by saying you didn't bother to chase down the origin of the term that defines ur subject.
Lots of triggered snowflakes on this comment section. Lol.
Of course Micheal Brooks is smug and arrogant. That is a given. Why don't yall try responding to his arguments?
He doesn't really make any arguments. He's smart, but it's like he's too smart to detail his objections aside from ,"they are to the right of me." Meh.
He doesn't make arguments - he just relentlessly ridicules people - there's nothing to respond to to someone who's whole shtick is "Haha this guy is mentally retarded and fat" - all you're doing is wasting your time by responding to an antagonistic troll like Michael Brooks, especially considering any criticism you *do* make is going to be completely strawmanned in the least imaginative way possible. "You think affirmative action isn't a wise idea? Then you clearly hate black people you white nationalist."
Nick Thomas - well... I agree with his arguments... just not his style of engagement.
Jordan Peterson had his finger on the pulse that there is some sort of crisis of meaning for a lot of people. I think his message was more of a self criticism in the end though, Zizek gave him the "ultimate example" of why cleaning rooms alone isn't the answer: Peterson himself, who clearly sees the need to reach a mass audience to address what he sees as a problem with society (Zizek was more correct han he even knew as it turned out Peterson's room was far from clean).
Michael Brooks has much more interesting (and less contradictory) conversations about meaning: th-cam.com/video/WGraYu0l2lU/w-d-xo.html
"Michael Brooks has much more interesting (and less contradictory) conversations about meaning" Hold X for DOUBT.
Brooks is a charlatan but at least he doesn't realise it - that's a redeeming quality.
Who do you rate?
Politics is personal to a large degree. A Left wing worldview might work for some, but certainly not for everyone. Michael believes there is some sort of left wing ideology that is objectively good for all and that is just not the case.
Mitch Lang, What I am saying is if someone who is religious and is pro-life, or a business owner that feels that they pay a lot of taxes and pays their fair share, a left wing ideology is not going to serve that person well.
Correct. Landlords and the ultra-rich would lose their power. I’m fine with that :)
For fuck sake, he wrote a book about IDW not including either of Weinsteins, so he could slap "new right" on it. No straw man here at all.
Seems like they are right leaning.
37:07 "his answers are in my view *very* internally contradictory"
can anyone tell me what the stated contradiction was?
Meat Machine his devotion to forming community bonds is in contradiction with his devotion to capitalism. If you don’t understand this statement, then you probably don’t understand how the economy operates for workers.
@@nothingtoseehere411 how generic of you.
Peter M generic and correct. Thank you
Mark M you’re hot. Were you a fan of michael’s? I feel like you call in to majority report
@@nothingtoseehere411 You mention "the economy," as if there were only one economy. If you don’t understand this statement, then you probably don’t understand how community bonds operate for workers.
Great minds talk about ideas.
Mediocre minds talk about events.
Small minds talk about people.
This guy spends the first half of his interview talking about people, and he can't even present their arguments or the events surrounding them honestly.
At least he's omniscient enough to let us all know what Bret Weinstein was *really* going through at Evergreen, though.
It's so obvious that Brooks has no idea how argumentation and logic works. The guy is a walking fallacy and he adds absolutely nothing to any conversation he's a part of. Vapid pseudo-intellectualism.
He occasionally got parts right
Jeremy Scott haha 🙏
You can’t discuss “ideas” without talking about people. Ideas originate from people and are shaped by people, you can’t talk about Marxism without talking about Karl Marx, nor could you talk about capitalism without talking about Adam Smith.
@@MJH-kr4zg Yes, you can. There is theory and there is biography. Personalities only matter in politics. This is how you recognize basically political arguments.
If you were forced into a camp by an enthonationalist regime because you were a minority member, Wright, would you really quibble about the terminology as your labor was being appropriated in order to educate you to love the nation?
*I just left this in a thread, but figured I’d paste it for more eyes to see, with some changes to direct it to most of the Brooks’ detractors.. I hope it helps someone:*
I really want recommend actually watching his show and engaging with everything he brings to bear, particularly the dialogues he engages in on a regular basis, bc I think you will find many of these negative characterizations of Michael Brooks to be incorrect, particularly claims of bad faith, or disinterest in logically making arguments. I was in many of the shoes of folks pissed at him once, at least as far as perspectives on Michael Brooks, and the politics he represents, but that really has radically changed over the last three years, and it started bc of a challenge from a friend during the last week of 2017, and I want to extend this challenge to others..
Though my politics have since changed (not that that necessarily matters), particularly post-2017/18, it was only a few years ago that I absolutely could not stand Michael Brooks (or Sam Seder, who’s show he was a long running cohost on), but I took a close friend up on a challenge they threw at me: listen to their shows (Majority Report (MR), and the then still very new The Michael Brooks Show (TMBS), but mainly MR) for at least a full week, actually contend with what they have to say in good faith, and do so while diligently challenging the biases that I’d be going into that experience with. I did exact that, and while I was far from being in total agreement, and far from being comfortable with a lot of points or perspectives I was ingesting, that week had still peaked my interests enough to keep me listening. This was January, 2018, and I haven’t stopped listening to the MR on a daily basis (give or take) since, and over the last year I’d say I’ve become increasingly even more a fan of TMBS, than of MR. (Note, MR is a daily show, while TMBS is a weekly show, aside from bonus content, and they’re actually quite different shows, with the primary intent of TMBS being more geared towards historical and political economic education.)
All I’m really trying to get at here is the challenge that my friend gave me, which I, in turn, gave to another friend, and that I’m now giving to anyone else who has a particularly low opinion of Michael Brooks, and the style of leftist politics he’s repping. For myself, and this other person, actually giving his content a listen, approaching him and his arguments in good faith, and setting the standard to actually justify our biases or predispositions... dude, that changed our perspectives a fuck ton, and the only reason I’m comfortable speaking for this other person is bc we had discussed this in quite depth, as we’ve both followed a very similar political evolution over the last 5 years..
I want to stress: I absolutely don’t agree with Michael on everything, and these other two friends I mentioned probably have even more disagreements with him than I do from what I can tell, but having disagreements is an entirely different matter than thinking someone is a bad faith actor. Honestly, to assume someone is bad faith is a massive thing, and we need to be more careful about it, even if there are in fact a lot of people operating in bad faith... and there are (at least 2 of them are part of the IDW from what I can tell).
So disagree with him all day long, but try to understand where he’s coming from, why he frames things like he does, how he actually thinks about the subjects IDW people being up, etc... You may walk away from it completely disagreeing with his perspective on damn near everything, but what you *won’t* conclude is that he’s just engaging in bad faith, and/or is completely dismissive of logical arguments and just a pseudo-intellectual, let alone smear merchant who’s uninterested in useful dialogue... etc and so on.. ✌️❤️♾
It's not a good look to judge the intelligence of others. Among other things, it invites the same.
yes. good
These comments are fascinating
I invite the viewers to interpret this as a cryptic therapy session where Bob trashes the right-wing nutjobs who work for him.
Im a big fan of Sam Harris and Michael brooks, sue me.
Same
Nice tone , important group of ideas to debunk. Much mindfulness at work I think to remain so zen around a particular ahistorical neuroscientist member who shall remain unnamed. Enjoy you guys chatting.
The continental philosophy is strong in this one!
He is right about Dave Rubin for sure. But his criticisms of Dave are criticisms that I would lay on him also.
Got through the first half. Couldn’t listen to another minute.
I don’t think these two gentlemen understand arguments made by members of the IDW. Or they pretend not to.
In either case, it’s unacceptable.
I like Mike’s Kali or whatever Tantric deity it is.
This guy thinks he’s much smarter than he is, quite amusing
@@yamishogun6501 no way either have an iq around 120.
You can’t even engage with his ideas because you don’t understand them.
He is for sure smarter than anyone on the so called IDW
Matrix 24 The only people genuinely impressed by the intellect of the IDW are 15 year olds and libertarians who think the entire world operates off the principles laid out in Econ 101.
@@yamishogun6501 "I want you to walk into a bar and order yourselves a full-bodied opinion. I want you to get absolutely wasted on facts until 3:00 a.m., and then, when you’re just about ready to pass out, I want you to get another large glass of reality and chug it."
If this is something someone with a high IQ would say, then I think we can finally write off IQ as being a usful measure of anything except how well you'd do in an IQ test. It's kinda funny you brought up IQ though, typical of the IDW. The dumb person's idea of a smart person.
Well you lost me when you quoted BarI Weiss. These men are not the new right wing. They are simply integrated in their views and opinions.
Besides Shapiro
Cringe comments. RIP Micheal
what is objectively racist about stop and frisk? this hecking guy just says absurd shit like this and never explains what he means he takes it for granted that people who already agree will have som sort of assosiation with stop and frisk and the word racist so they will not question him on it and anyone who does question it it also objectively racist by definition. im so sick of people like this
"basic sanity"? seize the productivity of others
are you really conflating advertising and policy?
"human rights abuses in china"? as if western consumers do not participate
what are you doing, Bob? the irony of devolving to this after criticizing IDW
Maybe my exasperation is a personal failing. The correlation between 3rd party slaves and the Drumpf election seems so obvious. We should confront this feature of our culture, and stop pretending the rational actor model prevails -- much less indulge in complacent pseudo smartipantsness. It's not becoming, and it's counterproductive.
Ask Gore to come talk about Assault On Reason
Have Alan Jacobs discuss How To Think
Invite John Michael Greer to survey Dark Age America
Frank Ostaseki can illuminate the grief we need to supplant denial
Peder Anker can explain our abuse of vegetational concepts
Stewart Lee is a benign Content Provider
Meh.. I'll check out the conversation last year between Brooks and Wright. Maybe this is an aberration.
28:00
Robert, you need to have some IDWs on your channel!
Chris Young True. Let them make more of a mockery of themselves
He has already. Robert has debated Sam Harris. Check it out.
Half Against The Web: A Hipster Takes On The Fash
EVERYTHING IS FASCIST!! rEEEEE
Great discussion. But where this amount of ignorance in the comment section comes from.
Maybe it's people actually know a thing or two about this person with an overly inflated ego? Just a thought.
Love your show but I’m puzzled by the harshness toward Sam Harris, which feels overdetermined. Harris seems, like you, a man of integrity and intellect. What am I missing? I (almost) always find you fair and above the fray. But this feels patronizing toward him. Was that your intent? As I said I love your show, but I am puzzled by what feels unfair and simplifying and dismissive here. Perhaps you can enlighten me? Loved your Buddhism book ...and Harris’ meditation app. The narcissism of small differences.
No one is "above the fray"
Neil B good point. Poor choice of words on my part.
Sam harris wrote two famous articled one called “in defense of torture” another “in defense of profiling” . That’s all you need to know..
ROBERT GET MICHAEL REGULARLY.
Loved it.
great show
He was surprisingly good.
If by good you mean "absolute trash tier" then sure, he was 'good'.
yes yes yes!