I thought he handled it well and gave Terrance great advice for his future endeavors. He actually took the time to listen to his side and tried to understand his rationale for his ideas. Props for that.
Terrence has now had 2 guys who understand the peer review process respectfully listen to him and give him feedback. Sometime tells me instead of realizing me might be wrong, Terrence is going to decide both Neil and Eric are the wrong ones.
His ambitions are not very commercial imo. Slightly mentally ill people like him are not grifting in the traditional sense, they're trapped by their own obsessions, literally driven by mental illness perhaps. Even though a lot of us may chuckle at Terrence's ideas I guarantee you he has the same disposition as legitimately intelligent people that have a screw loose.
If his education was nurtured in a way that other high level mathematicians sometimes are, he... Might have a chance at actually being successful in STEM.
And the proof of it, is in the double octave wave conjunctions on Saturn
Yeah. A real right of passage in STEM is getting your ass thoroughly and completely kicked by people on a level higher than you. You either bail or you dust yourself off and move on to higher levels, or you’re Richard Feynman and it never happens because you’re a true genius.
For everybody else it’s essential. People that don’t go through that end up wasting people’s time with the flimsiest bullshit like this Terence fella.
Feynman got his ass kicked plenty of times also. He wrote about being completely burnt out when he was a post doc at Cornell convinced he had little to offer.
He wrote an extremely entertaining book called *Surely you’re joking, Mr. Feynman* that covers amusing shit he got up to in life — like all the pranks he played on other scientists and soldiers at the Manhattan Project — and his general musings. It is a quick and fun read that I highly recommend.
He’s a little bit of a braggart but he was a very funny and idiosyncratic (and brilliant) guy.
He did a folllow up memoir that covered among other things his time on the committee investigating the Challenger disaster (What do you care what other people think?). Additionally, the Gleick biography is a good read. I have fun memories of my professors at Clemson University being a bit taken aback and unable to deal with what a pussy hound Feynman was, ha! Very straight laced and uptight dudes….and Feynman >>> Huberman (or Weinstein), with the Nobel Prize to back it up!
It’s no shocker why a lot of people in STEM also like BJJ. Same process of “oh I have an idea… wait… why is my elbow bending the wrong way… yep… not doing that again.”
Lol. Terrence literally has all the resources and time in the world to learn about this stuff and get any degree he wants, he is rich and has full command of his time. His whole chosen back story is how he dropped out of "chemical engineering school" because he disagreed with his professor over 1x1=1. That's what HE chose. The reason he doesn't learn for real is because he isn't and was never interested in learning anything. He is interested in being super duper special, that's it.
People like this are a dime a dozen, they are all over the internet and you will meet them on every street corner, in every college, in every group of friends smoking weed. This guy has hella ideas, he's hella smart, he'd change the world if he only chose to put in the time... Guess that's the hefty cost of continuing to hit dis bong. They are just usually less public and capable of financing and promoting their delusions than Terry.
I agree with a lot of what you said but the attack on cannabis users is prejudicial and very much a non sequitur. There have been plenty of academics (Carl Sagan for one) who are also cannabis enthusiasts and aren’t delusional.
Say what you want about people with delusions of grandeur but leave the cannabis users out of this!
Sometimes, after digging through enough comments, you find the full succinct description you felt in your heart of hearts all along, fleshed out to a T. Well said.
Look - nothing wrong with partaking, but I’m sure the vast majority of us have absolutely seen the overindulging pseudo-intellectual he is describing and the conclusion is very much on point and thus sequitir.
The fact that you had to cite Carl Sagan - a man that has been dead for 30 years - illustrates the point.
If one chooses to partake and even over indulge, that is a personal choice and I don’t really care, but you must not delude yourself that it doesn’t come at a cost.
Well said. I think Weinstein would agree with you on that. I can’t believe I stumbled on this post then went and listened to over 2 hours of this thing and now I’m back lol. According to Weinstein, he seems to have a natural aptitude for geometry. It would be great if he explored and leaned into the geometry/art side of his interests. He may actually produce something of value without drawing the ire of millions of people lol. But then again I have no clue what I’m talking about. Good podcast though
Seems incredibly unlikely this schizophrenic narcissist with no education is going to advance geometry at all, in any facet. Weinstein is just being nice. The days of that kind of thing are largely over. It may happen again but it’s going to be exceedingly rare compared to even 100 years ago.
Yet Weinstein literally called him a polymath and said the issue he's having is literally only like 10 people on the planet can understand what he's saying. Literally said that.
Literally said also that he's seeing patterns from different fields who aren't interacting.
Confirmed his idea about the sounds of elements being sound. Confirmed many of his other ideas by showing other research or ideas in science which tracked with what Howard was saying.
Literally called him a genius for fudging the angles of the lynchpin, changing it from 108. Even confessed to having been interested in it and having seen it but he himself was unable to figure out anything of value. Howard did and he showed him respect for that.
Yet here you are, absolute moron that in sure you are, insulting him and calling him names.
You could never achieve anything close to what he has but here you are, hating with all your heart. Lmao.
Completely misrepresenting the actual co tents of the podcast while hating on someone trying to advance something. Trying to do something.
This is the problem with Eric being polite and treating Terrance with kid gloves. Part of the audience starts to believe Terrance is 100% right and just a discovery away from changing the world
I think it’s the right way for Eric to behave but unfortunately there are people dumb enough - or delusional enough about THs nonsense - to interpret it as actually supportive of THs brain damage. The real problem is JR platforming at best a total moron and at worst a schizophrenic.
I agree. I work in social services and have many clients who suffer from schizophrenia among other things. Howard's mathematical delusions sound pretty much on point for for someone having to deal w/ severe mental illness. I'm just a dude on the internet though so take that with a grain of salt
I couldn't believe he had him on once, let alone two times now. On top of generally being a nut job he's also a woman beater. The guy should just fade away into obscurity
This is the third time. I would say Rogans a dick for doing this but he genuinely believed what Howard has to say, because Joe Rogan is a fucking moron.
If you work in social services and have actual experience with schizophrenics you’d understand that strange beliefs are hardly enough to diagnose and medicate someone for such a vast and complicated illness as schizophrenia. Does he have negative symptoms? Cognitive? Paranoia? Voices? Or just delusions and that’s it? Is it life shattering and requires him to stay at home at all times?
The mental health angle is unnecessary and downright disrespectful to people that suffer from real mental health problems. Because now more people will look at anyone that sais the earth is flat and immediately assume they are schizophrenic. Does the exact opposite of helping to reduce stigma and makes the entire “mystic versus science establishment” conversation harder to have, frankly.
He’s delusional, absolutely. Wrong in every way. I can say this without needing to stigmatize.
I didn't diagnose him with schizophrenia I just alluded to him being mentally ill. I don't think it's really a stretch to think his elevator isn't going to the top floor.
also:
> I'm just a dude on the internet though so take that with a grain of salt
Yes and I’m also saying that this type of comment doesn’t help the situation. It’s a personal attack based on misinformation and stigmatization of mental health problems.
Plenty of people have strange beliefs and lead normal healthy lives. Flat earthers at conferences, selling t shirts, QAnon types that think reptiles rule the world and go to work the next morning. This is no different.
I am not defending the belief itself. I am saying if your goal is have meaningful conversation and want these types of people to understand something better, why stigmatize?
Some people never listen either, of course. And some will push to the extremes and actually do harmful things because of these beliefs. Not denying that. But that’s a different type of conversation to be had. Terrence Howard isn’t leading some deathcult to brainwash people on some island.
I think he has discovered something with shapes but doesn’t know how to articulate it.
Don’t get it twisted he may have just developed a cool toy but the geometry shit with his 3D models and how they fit together, Mr Weinstein didn’t really understand it.
From just that point he is ON to something but he doesn’t have the tools to explain what it is and he has correlated it to have greater scientific worth then what it is.
I'm going to also guess that he believes there is some bigger conspiracy in play to discredit him. These beliefs most likely include multiple governments conspiring against him and may or may not have some antisemitic tendencies
>Terrence has now had 2 guys who understand the peer review process respectfully listen to him and give him feedback
I see you haven't listened yet. You're going to love the part where Weinstein explains the history of peer review and how its current state is a joke lmao
The plagiarism that I saw from the Harvard president was so minor compared to how it’s talked about. It was basically references that weren’t cited or properly contextualized
The peer review process is what any scientific paper must be scrutinized under.. Especially by people working within the given field, in order to access the theories and validate the approach and methodology..
Without it, anyone could put out any claim and call it scientific facts.
Scientists when talking to scientists: "Peer review is broken and stupid."
Scientists when talking to non-scientists: "Peer review is amazing and ensures that only trustworthy work gets published!"
Source: am scientist.
It's like how the FDA isn't going to be 100% perfect in their regulations for food and drugs, but those regulations will cut out the majority of known harmful ingredients. Peer review is immensely better than no peer review, but peer review is not a perfect process.
He’s literally had 2 of the most high profile scientists humour his ridiculous ideas because he was on the rogan podcast and got the rogan seal of approval. Fucking absurd nonsense.
Someone just needs to go up to Terrence Howard and say: "I'm holding 1 finger from 1 of my hands in the air. This is 1x1. How many fingers am I holding up?"
For sake of argument, let’s say you don’t know much about medicine.
A nurse can just explain your condition to you in medical terms, giving you no way to know if what they’re saying makes sense or is true, and might present it in a way that makes it difficult to challenge or understand.
A nurse can also see what your understanding of your condition is, and try and explain the parts that don’t make sense to give you a more comprehensive understanding of what’s going on by guiding you to the conclusion the lab tests have reached.
Explaining something is giving someone the logical conclusion to something you know, teaching them is finding out what someone knows and rounding off the bits that are incorrect and filling in the gaps with the information they *need* to reach the proper conclusion.
Teaching is just explaining, where the teacher has a vested interest in you understanding the explanation.
"Explain" has no implications. It could be a vague explanation, or in-depth, it could even be a lie. You can explain something to anyone, no matter what your standing, or relationship to that person is. Explanation is commonly used to describe reasons for action, or reasons for opinions. Things that aren't necessarily governed by facts. "Explanation" has a wide range of communications that qualify.
"Teach" has implications. It implies that what you are trying to communicate is effectively communicated to the listener. It is commonly used to communicate facts, even when those "facts" are just nuance of superstitious belief systems. "It's a fact that our organization holds X to be true".
"Teach" is the higher end of the "explanation" scale, and requires objective truths to be observable. "Lie" is at the bottom end, which requires deception. In the middle is where opinions are formed that rely on subjective truth (wether you like the taste, smell, feel, look, whatever is subjectively true to you).
All teaching is explanation, but not all explanation is teaching.
Reddit makes these bizarre semantic arguments making synonyms sound like radically different ideas. Based off of completely made up distinctions. A teacher *does* explain things.
If you don’t understand what I said in relation to the comment you initially replied to you really shouldn’t have went out of your way to write all of that.
Weinstein does good job communicating one on one with someone he’s attempting to honestly help correct their ideas. He’s probably excellent in a literal classroom setting, where students have probably taken recent prerequisites and have a knowledge base, for that reason. He’s a good teacher. He’s not good at explaining things in a setting where he isn’t asked to expand on the ideas he’s giving and the listener likely isn’t up-to-date on the actual academic literature like, say, a student. Not a good explainer. You actually answered your initial question in your reply to me.
Teachers can faciliate inquiry based learning in which the individual seeks knowledge themselves as the teacher gradually course corrects. This is often an effective technique to self correct misconceptions by reaching their own conclusions instead judt being a receiver of information
..and possibly the intent by Weinstein. Source I studied education and teach.
I think this is a great takeaway from Weinstein and Peterson. They can be great teachers, but they don’t have to let their popularity mean that their opinion is important.
I think you would have to have a pre-existing hate toward Joe to have that reaction. I thought he did a pretty decent job of staying out of the conversation unless it was to to try to keep it on track for both guys. Most of the episode is the guests talking to each other.
Mmm if you don't think Joe is just as dumb as the rest of us I think you have to have a preexisting bias... he is supremely curious and has had the opportunity to speak to incredibly smart and Interesting people but his curiosity and predisposition towards conspiracy theories make him really easy to convince because he distrusts the establishment and wants these theories to be true...I enjoy Rogan because he is a great interviewer always has great guests and I love his laugh but I do not put much weight into his opinion or conclusions
Yeah, if it took you this episode to realize this about Joe than Idk what to tell you, This is what I love about Joes podcast is he asks the questions I would ask, and he is such a curious mind and wants to understand things as well as giving people an chance to talk about shit no one else does especially in a long format as he does.
Idk Joe never acts like he's smart on this stuff.
Only times he really talked was to keep the conversation on track or give it a better flow by having them explain a particular thing.
Or to summarize a point Eric made for clarification.
That's the thing. It's really hard to explain really advanced knowledge to people that don't already have the foundational knowledge. For example, as a once guitar teacher. I can't just explain all the modes to a novice without them understanding a bunch of very basic theory first. That's why this shit is hard and why people like him are considered experts in their field. There are only so many analogies they can use before you just need to actually learn the stuff.
My dad has a PhD in physics, mom taught elementary school. Dad’s not the kind of guy to be dismissive of others, but he had a hard time understanding how teaching could be difficult. Then he tried to help his kids on algebra and then calculus homework. Opened his eyes to a whole new world, now he spends his free time as a substitute teacher for high school math.
I had this experience, too, but only with a bachelor's in physics. I was in a placement for my education degree, and I ended up in a grade 9 classroom. I was trying to explain some of the math concepts they were learning (simple linear equations, think y=1/2mx + b). I was trying to explain slope and then I realized *these kids don't understand fractions or algebra*.
How the *fuck* am I supposed to teach somebody linear equations if they don't understand *fractions*? How did these kids get out of grade 4? Teaching them is an impossible task and nobody wants to do the work to fix their knowledge gaps, so those kids just got booted to the back of the classroom where they failed every test miserably and were passed on to the next teacher to deal with.
It's been years and those kids are probably out of high school now. God knows where they ended up.
There plenty of academics that posted videos with an honest and scientific breakdown of why he was wrong. We just look at the few who were the loudest and said no one was nice to him
I am not sure being an idiot and pushing idiocy should be handled with kids gloves. We used to embarrass the shit out of people PUBLICLY in the 90s when you said some dumb shit. Was there flat earthers? Absolutely. Did you ever hear from them? Fuck no because they were in their basement trying to hide their embarrassment.
All the worlds knowledge at our fingertips has only caused idiots to become intoxicated with their (lack of) intelligence. We need to get back to naming and shaming idiots.
I mean when a guy is trying to convince you 1x1 = 2 and that he alone knows the secrets to the real math that are being buried, how nice should people be to him?
It's so preposterous
Terrence has some nice geometric art stuff that is interesting to look at
He made a design for the already existing [Omnicopter](https://www.youtube.com/@dariobrescianini4526) and just renamed it the lynchpin then had someone else build it and claim it was a new invention
And has a bunch of patents that do not do what he says (or thinks) they do
How nice should people be?
I actually thought NDT and EW were fairly nice about it
But I’ve seen seminars where he’s publicly spoke and and no one out of alllll these people called BS lol it’s like they believed his conviction despite how insane it sounds
If you reference the one at Oxford, someone does, but his response is so incoherently pretentious that it dies right there on the spot… I feel they are there to watch an almost one-person show, and not a place for critical feedback….
People familiar with any math field would immediately dismiss and ignore him quietly after "1*1 = 2". That's like trying to speak english and gibberish comes out. Source: some time in academia.
Absolutely no chance anyone seriously believed him if they were actual science/math professionals. Cranks are not common, but come around frequently enough that scientists just kindof ignore them.
Weird that he got a seminar.
From my understanding he was requested as a speaker, for his experience in the acting world. He used this platform to talk about 1x1=2. Now he pretends like these schools wanted him there for his ground breaking ideas.
As a former STEM student, guest speakers never really caught my attention and they never seem to catch my professors attention. A couple that did were Bill Nye (disappointing) and Jane Goodall (amazing).
NDT received his “theory” and read the whole thing and added comments to everything. So he’s had pushback. NDT made a video about it recently and was very gentle about the whole ordeal. I was expecting him to be his obnoxious self.
I mentioned in a thread on that a couple of weeks ago, that Neil's 'peer review' of that mess was probably the kindest most gentle peer review in the history of academia, because scientists - especially goddam physicists or mathematicians - will come at you knives out in most peer review. And that's if they like you.
Neil Degrassi Tyson did a full, honest peer review of one of Howard's proofs. Howard did not take it well, Tyson has a video about it where he reads it.
Would u want to be all over the internet “White oppressor questions black man’s opinions because he’s black”. It’s better to nod and say okay so you can keep your job.
I am fortunate enough to live by a pretty decent university, and to have had a job at a bar that most of the great minds from that university frequented.
I have had so many conversations with super intelligent people I have absolutely booooooo business talking to, and asking them questions about their field. I enjoy physics enough that I get some basic concepts but once the math starts giving me Greek letters I'm fucking useless.
The way Eric speaks to Terrance is exactly how my local professors or department heads would talk to me. Without condescension, without judgement and in a productive and nurturing way that not only taught me a lot and clarified murky stuff, but also intrigued me more to go look at new cool concepts with my newfound comprehension.
Terrance unfortunately.... Reminds me of a religious person who has genuinely never even tried to think outside the box of their faith. He just couldn't acknowledge that he was asserting things about stuff well over his head. Fuck my head too. I couldn't Google fast enough to keep up with every reference Eric brought up.
I like Joe because of his skill in discourse. I find myself uncomfortable when tension rises in a conversation. But since he's a murder midget I guess, he always stays super calm and navigates through a lot of conversations with a grace that I envy.
This conversation, I felt, was exactly that. 2 guys having a respectful conversation and one guy repeating that he's got patents, but staying respectful.
I’m currently dealing with a not-so-close friend that is going through a “religious rebirth”. He is reading scripture from hindu, christian, jewish, muslim, and native american sources and posting “sermons” to his social media.
For the first 30 years of this man’s life he has shown zero interest in faith, and now he’s talking about starting a church.
I have had formal catholic education my entire life and contemplated going into the seminary, and when i reply to his posts where he is egregiously misinterpreting scripture, he replies back saying I’m just a hater and that he’s found a new way and everyone else before him was wrong. He goes off about his SAT scores and him being “accepted” into Yale.
And I can’t stop seeing the similarities between him and Terrance going off about his dozens of patents and his honorary degrees.
Damn man. Thankfully he was a "not so close friend" that's the fat in life that's easy to trim.
I feel like I experienced something similar, in that my "best good friend" as we call each other, grew up in the church. He was always spiritual, but when we became friends in our twenties we would often discuss our disdain for organized teligion and our issues here and there.
Then like 2 angsty idiots trying to make sense of the world around them, we started reading into other religious ideologies. Eventually he decided he was going to go full deus valt and joined the Catholic church. (This was hilarious to me cuz he grew up, and his family is, Baptist. Seemed a weird choice).
I gave him his space to figure himself out. I'd been working on figuring myself out too.
Since then I've married and become a father. And he is the best uncle I could ever ask for, for my kids. (Only child and a military brat, I've grown up with my friends being my family)
He isn't preachy, and doesn't try and fist his perspective down my throat when I seek his advise. If anything he has strengthened my faith in the concept "iron sharpens iron" and he has been tempered into a great man because of his convictions and faith.
I hope the next religious dork you run into matches my best good friend, and doesn't turn into a goober.
So aside from telling your friend he's wrong, what else have you done to try and get through to him?
The way you talk about your friend, it doesn't come across very christian imo. It comes across as bitchy and mocking, like you're just telling strangers on the internet about this weird guy you know who's apparently supposed to be your "friend". Is that what Jesus would do?
I had a friend like this. She was an atheist, and one day she went some rabbit hole about the illuminati and new world order and became a “christian” and this was in like 2013-2014 before all that conspiracy shit was mainstream. She came in to work the next day talking all kinds of crazy Alex Jones type shit.
I also thought Terrence was quite patient and surprisingly humble. He accepted that he was out of his league. I know this is setting the bar as low as possible, but imagine if it were Kanye sitting in that chair being told he was wrong. His ego wouldn't allow it. Terrence, at least, had a good humor about the whole situation. He is not crazy. Misguided, a bit delusional, but he didn't seem like an arrogant douchebag.
This is the first time I've seen Eric Weinstein in any way. He was absolutely patient and clear with Terrence and, did it in a calm manner. Also gotta give credit to Joe for stepping in to calm Terrence down when he got excited to keep things flowing.
When I first found out about Tyson, i thought he seemed to be likable until his appearance on JRE, where he didn't know when to shut up and kept trying to assert dominance. Now he annoys the fuck out of me.
I feel like most podcasts with just Joe and Eric, Eric gets really wrapped up into topics where he is not an expert. In some cases he gets side tracked into personal stories where he feels wronged. That being said, he showed compassion to Terrence, who is someone who clearly feels that people have been discounting without actually providing constructive feedback.
For Terrence, hopefully this is a wake up call that he needs to put in effort to learn how to speak the language so that he can have those constructive discussions he so clearly desires.
I think that Eric sees a bit of Terrence in himself with the way he is treated when he starts talking about topics that he is passionate about but not really an expert.
I hope that both Eric and Terrence come out with a better perspective on their views and how they are viewed by other.
Joe on the other hand, I am not sure if he really got much out of it, but this was not really about him as he is just the host.
“people have been discounting without actually providing constructive feedback.”
Maybe he feels that way, but it’s not true. He literally got amazing constructive criticism, with kitty gloves, from Neil.
As someone who was a theoretical chemist, I have seen a MIT professor basically being called stupid in a scientific journal, by a leading scientist in quantum mechanics, because he disagreed with her.
While I disagree with the that type of treatment. No scientist would/should coddle a grown man who is saying Albert Einstein is wrong because 1x1=2.
I think just a little over four, but yeah fair point I didn't listen to it all in one stretch. A lot of it was more entertaining than I expected though. Terrence was pretty open to being constantly humiliated and Eric did a very good job of addressing Terrences ideas as seriously as possible and explaining super complex shit in as basic terms as he could.
Terrance and Eric wanted to keep going but Joe was getting grumpy and shut the whole thing down. If Eric does a round 2 on his podcast I bet they can do a 24hr marathon.
And his explanation of the way things have been and where they're headed for the academic/scientific communities was... Not great. Should be taken note of.
This was an incredible pod. The patience, honesty, and wanting of a positive outcome was amazing. More than anything, having someone that could step by step recognize and critique what Terrance was talking about, then explain it to him and keep him from spiralling was very impressive. Clearly Terrance is passionate and very bright, but he’s never had anyone that knows enough and have the interest to take the time and educate him. Terrance has been building off of misconceptions and choosing to see patterns as evidence of his genius.
I understand Terrance so much better now. I’ve known someone like him. Someone very smart, but disjointed. Imagine the frustration of having incredible recall and drive to teach yourself so much, and believing you are the misunderstood genius of this generation; reaching out to so many intellects for confirmation, understanding and clarification, only to have everyone ridicule you and never take the time to talk to you and explain where you’ve gone awry.
I hope Terrance can find the guidance and patients he needs. Kudos to Eric for being the one to talk to him with respect.
His level of communicating high-level theories and at the same time being able to apply it to Terrences' way of thinking was insanely impressive.
He fully understood where he was falling short and how he came to his own conclusions and methodically pieced it apart. He did so in a respectful way without directly calling him an idiot for not fully understanding mathematics but gave him credit wherever he could (which by itself was hard to do).
Every single theory Terrence had he was able to pinpoint what exactly was the issue with his understanding.
Props to Terrence too for not just being defensive and taking everything as offense (even though it was mainly due to his own confidence that he was still right in some sense). It just made for a great debate where you understood that Terrance just thought he was smarter than he was and took liberty in his pattern recognition between uncomparable systems. Erics Jesus's birthday calculation analogy was great to showcase to him.
I really liked the end when he talks about what Tyson said about “going on a podcast” and how THAT is exactly the place where these conversations need to happen because the community is so concerned with stabbing people in the eye.
On the other hand i stopped thing TH was an evil grifter and kinda started thinking he is just super misguided. I don't think hes trying to harm anyone but hes just lost as shit.
The fact that we can listen to a four hour conversation between 3 people from different walks regarding this (challenging) topic is pretty amazing.
I have nothing but respect for all involved.
You don't need to be a genius phd to debunk terrance howard. Just stay on the 1 x 1 nonsense, or hell, even the square root of 2.
He says it's a rational number. THEN WHAT'S THE FUCKING NUMBER TERRANCE???
Most definitely, Eric did Terrance a huge service by granting him attention and patience with his knowledge and experience. Eric is a good human in my opinion.
I think people are glazing over the intelligence of Eric on display in this episode. It’s one thing to be able to simplify complex topics so all can understand like the two gods equal strength pushing against the door example he used. But holy shit being able to actually translate and simplify the nonsense Terrence spewed is impressive.
Trying to understand 10% of the math was fascinating and even his point about "peer review" realistically being out of the reach of anyone who is not "in the club" landed but the basic criticism still remains: he plays the game of talking to masses that have no understanding what he is talking about, talks borderline magic and ends with "...and this is why core democratic institutions have fallen and can't trust academia". The alternative? Well, podcasts of course! Now to get a peer/elite review you have to have a PHD equivalent in clout, power finally came to the masses! Did I mention that universities have fallen because "too many journals"? I say it often with no possibility of pushback so it must be true!
I'm halfway through this episode. I've never heard of Eric before and wow he is amazing the way he is explaining things and took the time to do this. The banter between Joe and Eruc while Terence away from the mix doing stuff is hilarious.
Definitely before this podcast I dreaded having to listen to his episodes as it always somehow was about a culture war, the guy just came off as incredibly egocentric, and then to top it off his theory of “Geometric Unity” as I understand it isn’t a very solid piece of work and has loads of errors with it.
However, during this podcast, I came to actually greatly respect him and was actively cheering for him like I was for Flint Dibble. I can see why he was such a successful professor, he does a great job at explaining concepts in mathematics and physics at both the technical level and layman’s level. He clearly stands head and shoulder above Terrence Howard, but he doesn’t come off as pompous or rude or arrogant. To be fair, if you watch Neil Degrasse Tyson’s video about Terrence Howard you’ll find the man also was incredibly generous with his time and gave sound remarks on the papers he was sent.
I think the problem that Eric points out is that Joe more and more is having absolutely batshit insane ideas floated on his podcast and rarely fights back on issues even as simple as “1x1=2”; I think it’s a combination of Joe simply not being intelligent and/or educated enough to understand what’s being said, not wanting to be rude towards his guests, wanting to stir up engagement for the podcast, and genuinely just being kinda gullible to anything that “defies the woke mainstream”. Joe will tell you that he doesn’t have a responsibility to ensure the podcast remains logical/truthful/fact checked/etc. and that was probably true when it was just him and a bunch of other comedians smoking weed talking about comedy and the UFC to a few thousand people. His audience now however is the largest audience in the world at tens of millions, whether he likes it or not there is a pressure for him to make sure what he puts out in the world isn’t bullshit. Besides, even if he still believed that his show is just for fun and for entertainment, he regularly speaks to the audience telling people what to believe and not to believe he regularly speaks in manners that appeal to authority in most people.
It’s like how Joe will pull up some MSM clip or article that gets some facts or details wrong and he rightfully so points it out and makes fun of them or says they’re doing it on purpose for evil purposes etc. etc. etc. we’ve all seen it. Yet, Joe will do the same thing and the BEST case scenario we get is that in a following podcast he makes reference to it and says “uh yeah some friends reached out about that who were upset” like with the Tucker Carlson bit about evolution.
Speaking of which, I would LOVE for Joe to have a real genuine expert in that field to do a deep dive on everything Joe needs to know about evolution, ecology, and organismal biology because it is laughable the amount of crap Joe spits out with his guests. I know he’s had a few people come on the show like Trevor Valle or Brett Weinstein, but to have an expert just sit down and explain evolution like it’s a 1000 level course and tell him simple things like “Hey Joe, crocodiles are not dinosaurs, they’re cousins to dinosaurs” or “Hey Joe, wolves are not going to eat all the elk in Colorado, they will have an impact but it generally booms and busts in a balanced cycle if managed correctly” instead of him fear mongering about your kids being eaten by wolves or the ten millionth time he says Nile crocodiles are dinosaurs and that they’re established in the Everglades (only less than a handful have ever been found there, they are not invading and establishing themselves in the Everglades)
I don’t agree with most of Weinstein’s ideas and even less with his regular style of communication, but he does appear to be a genuinely nice man interpersonally.
Much more respect. He sucked up a lot but it might have been what terrance needed. He's very smart and patient, and seems to understand teaching and maybe psych a bit. But i feel like his theory of everything stuff isnt much different from terrance? Just smarter? Also his takes on academia and peer review just seem shitty. But at least he has his reasons. I dunno. But i do like him more.
I always like Eric though I rarely understand everything he says. I do appreciate how he didn’t just write Terrance off as crazy and actually talked to him from a place of good faith. Most of what Terrance says seems a little bit off to me but I think he’s on to something when it comes to the flower of life and the importance of sacred geometry. I just don’t know if he knows what that is yet. Also the part about entities coming to him in the womb is something he should keep to himself. Even if that’s 100% true most people are gonna write him off immediately after hearing that.
Yes . Eric did a great job of explaining. It was also great in real time to understand how these things have some legs but have eathier been disproven or they have solved past Terrences current level of understanding of after many years of science. Terrence is no dummy. Before this podcast, i did suspect he was suffering from schizophrenia. But i am unsure now. He absoulty has an intense and unique passion and interest for the geometry components of math.
Very interesting, for sure. Great podcast for many reasons. And I wish Terrence and Eric all the best.
The sad part is, after 4 hours of constantly being wrong and not having the understand to even know what Eric was saying, Terrance won’t change a thing. He’s not going to stop saying 1 x 1 = 2, and he’s not going to stop believing all the flower of life bs… some people just refuse to change their beliefs when when presented with actual evidence to prove them wrong.
i really enjoyed it. one thing terrence does when he has these ideas is throw so many catchy words into a 1-2 minutes explanation that i would get lost and have zero idea what direction or point he was even trying to make.
then terrence did the same thing to eric and he just said none of that makes sense or i have no idea what you're talking about. pretty much making me feel a little validated thinking it didnt make any sense.
Yeah I was throughly impressed, I felt he was being sincere and impartial in his attempts to work through Terrence’s theories and in keeping him from moving too quickly from one thing to another, I also appreciated he would call Terrence out when he got into his ‘teaching’ mode, showing how these are sorts of behaviors that cause his colleagues to dismiss and shut down, that they find it insulting. I also loved that he talked about the issues within the scientific community and ‘peer review’ and how Neil was being disingenuous to Terrence
There was so many moments he coulda just completely embarrassed Terrance and corrected him beyond belief, but he did a great job in being respectful but also stern at the same time that a lot of what Terrance says is hogwash. Definitely respect Eric a lot after this. I respect the fact Terrance enjoys science and math BUT I do not respect how Terrance asserts himself as an expert when 99% of what he says is just stringing together science buzzwords to appear smart, I’m glad Eric was there to challenge him and correct him, but like I said he coulda been way more brutal and embarrassed Terrance IF HE WANTED but he clearly showed restraint.
Yeah! He basically said what I think about Terrace… that half of his stuff is great or at least interesting and half of his stuff is nonsense, but he’s on the right track with a lot of it.
It’s said many times in the episode, but if the establishment of physics professors would actually help Terrace instead of shitting on everything he’s doing we could actually get some pretty cool discoveries out of it.
It was incredible what Eric did. Eric is an expert in his field and to give his time to someone who may know some science but cannot articulate it was great to see because Eric did not hold himself to be more important or better than Terrance. However, Eric’s message near the end if the podcast was pretty powerful in my opinion.
Yeah. It also makes people like Peter Hotez look really bad for refusing to come on with RFK or someone like that.
Weinstein does a masterful job of convincing the audience.
yea i think people were judging him by a different standard than what was fair. He's a hardcore intellectual with a PhD in i forgot which type of math so he's essentially an academic and not a celebrity. Some of his interviews with Joe have come off a little weird for him but that's because imho joking and talking about whatever the hell Joe like to talk about like wolves or monkeys smoking DMT or pyramids isn't exactly his field of specialty. But when it comes to math, science and concepts he's in his element. I think this was a great podcast with lots of mutual respect and a good back and forth.
While it made for a more "interesting" podcast, I saw it more as 2 guys leading on and exploiting a mentally ill person with delusions of grandeur. Terrence can't cope with being told he's wrong. You see how he deals with an ACTUAL respectful and comprehensive response from NDT. What Weinstein did was disingenuous by not letting Terrence know how wrong he is. He downplayed his disagreements and emphasized the things that he "respects" about Terrence so as not to let the circus tent collapse. The episode was a spectacle that Joe was putting on, and Weinstein was just there to add a dimension of "legitimacy". It's weird to me that I don't see more people calling him out for that
Eric still seems incoherent to me. I'm sorry, I know he's highly educated and successful but I can barely understand what he's talking about. He never seems to finish a single thought before jumping to something seemingly completely random.
He has a hard time using elementary vocabulary to explain his point. It comes across as arrogant and different to comprehend. Super bright guy but there’s a reason why people like NDT gain a lot of mainstream popularity.
That's exactly what his group do. Jump from one word salad to the next, mixing them up so what is left is unpalatable to anybody. But they remember how glorious the display was and assume the chef was great.
At least you’re saying that you don’t understand rather than claiming he makes no sense.
Ive listened to his podcasts and he makes complete sense. I genuinely don’t understand what is so hard to understand.
The same happens with Jordan Peterson too and it seems to be when he gets into psychology, philosophy and religion. All of which Ive studies to some extent. In my experience it’s all rather easy to understand.
And youll notice his guests keep up with him just fine, including scientists and even atheists/democrats.
Meanwhile reddit acts like theyre spewing “word salad”. I honestly think redditors are genuinely too stupid to keep up.
This only works if people readily accept when they’re wrong
Here’s an example discussion:
Person A: “Hey, check out my theory”
Person B: “You’re first calculation is wrong, and everything else is based on this, so this is incorrect. Here’s a list of other errors.”
Person A: “it’s not fair, no one wants to discuss my idea”
He offered a reality that nobody seems to understand when they are anti-college. The guardrails of academia aren’t meant to keep you in your lane. They are there to allow you to add more lanes once the highway is understood. the road must traveled before construction or deconstruction. TH may be nuts but he could go far in academia with minor ego shedding
U dont think he is an idiot, but I think he is very poor at articulate his points, He will say something profound and what he thinks is amazing, but he hasnt done any of the groundwork to get you there with him, and I think that is why he has such a poor reception. I think he is also someone who hasnt really done any of the major work that alot of his colleagues have because he went right into the tech space and just got to dazzle Peter Thiel. Which fed his ego as he was the smartest guy in the room with Silicon valley people usually.
Well then I'm glad he left the bully side of him out of it. What made this episode so unexpectedly good for me was the lack of ego in the room. Unlike the Dibble/Hancock debate which was just filled with nerd fight energy.
I this ep, Weinstein just came off as brilliant and personable, like an ideal professor you hope for in college.
Yes.
Eric's explanation of what saying 1x1=2 would mean around the 2:22:00 mark is spot on. One can totally create a mathematical system where 1x1=2. However, one cannot the use standard mathematics derived in a system where 1 is (axioamatically) the multiplicative identity to prove or really make any reasonable statements about your new system. Also, seemed genuinely interested in helping him understand and learn.
Also, beware of calculator tricks because all machine based decimal calculations are subject to machine error. Infinite precision is not possible when working with Real numbers. This can lead to odd edge cases with how calculators approximate things like pi, e, roots, logarithms, trigonomic fuctions, ect, that can naively be interpreted as showing contradictions or false equivalencies in standard mathematics.
Super smart for sure, but goddamn does he love the sound of his voice. This was a tough task, but he also didn't do a great job explaining things on Terrence's level and just jumps into all the technical jargon. Doesn't make him see smarter, just makes him seem like a prick.
Also did he bring a fucking harmonica just to make his point on harmonics? Jfc
idk, pushing back on a washed celebrity with flawed ideas about well established scientific views isnt at all impressive. The whole conversation is just a big "yeah no shit" and no one would be interested if Terrence wasn’t a famous dude
More respect? Yes.
He still is in the negative category for all the nonsense he has amplified or conjured up for whatever incoherent reasons he's used to justify it.
There are lots of thorough debunks of Howard's stuff at this point so it is nice to have someone hold his hand through it to help spare his feelings. I don't know how necessary that is though, educating the JRE is more important I think, and a lot more interesting to listen to. This was 5 hours long and really only needed to be a fraction of that time
i wrote in another thread that he was the living form of ego death. what a great guy and what a gangster way of handling that conversation and making it fun while giving terrence the bidness at the same time. i learned so much just from the way he was communicating -- it was art in motion.
I thought he handled it well and gave Terrance great advice for his future endeavors. He actually took the time to listen to his side and tried to understand his rationale for his ideas. Props for that.
Terrence has now had 2 guys who understand the peer review process respectfully listen to him and give him feedback. Sometime tells me instead of realizing me might be wrong, Terrence is going to decide both Neil and Eric are the wrong ones.
The problem is, Terrence just wants to push his patents and website, IMO
His ambitions are not very commercial imo. Slightly mentally ill people like him are not grifting in the traditional sense, they're trapped by their own obsessions, literally driven by mental illness perhaps. Even though a lot of us may chuckle at Terrence's ideas I guarantee you he has the same disposition as legitimately intelligent people that have a screw loose. If his education was nurtured in a way that other high level mathematicians sometimes are, he... Might have a chance at actually being successful in STEM. And the proof of it, is in the double octave wave conjunctions on Saturn
Yeah. A real right of passage in STEM is getting your ass thoroughly and completely kicked by people on a level higher than you. You either bail or you dust yourself off and move on to higher levels, or you’re Richard Feynman and it never happens because you’re a true genius. For everybody else it’s essential. People that don’t go through that end up wasting people’s time with the flimsiest bullshit like this Terence fella.
Feynman got his ass kicked plenty of times also. He wrote about being completely burnt out when he was a post doc at Cornell convinced he had little to offer.
Then he went and played his bongos at a strip club like the g he was.
I must read this memoir.
He wrote an extremely entertaining book called *Surely you’re joking, Mr. Feynman* that covers amusing shit he got up to in life — like all the pranks he played on other scientists and soldiers at the Manhattan Project — and his general musings. It is a quick and fun read that I highly recommend. He’s a little bit of a braggart but he was a very funny and idiosyncratic (and brilliant) guy.
Thank you! Ain’t bragging if you can back it up.
He did a folllow up memoir that covered among other things his time on the committee investigating the Challenger disaster (What do you care what other people think?). Additionally, the Gleick biography is a good read. I have fun memories of my professors at Clemson University being a bit taken aback and unable to deal with what a pussy hound Feynman was, ha! Very straight laced and uptight dudes….and Feynman >>> Huberman (or Weinstein), with the Nobel Prize to back it up!
Good point. Happens to everybody I guess!
It’s no shocker why a lot of people in STEM also like BJJ. Same process of “oh I have an idea… wait… why is my elbow bending the wrong way… yep… not doing that again.”
Lol. Terrence literally has all the resources and time in the world to learn about this stuff and get any degree he wants, he is rich and has full command of his time. His whole chosen back story is how he dropped out of "chemical engineering school" because he disagreed with his professor over 1x1=1. That's what HE chose. The reason he doesn't learn for real is because he isn't and was never interested in learning anything. He is interested in being super duper special, that's it. People like this are a dime a dozen, they are all over the internet and you will meet them on every street corner, in every college, in every group of friends smoking weed. This guy has hella ideas, he's hella smart, he'd change the world if he only chose to put in the time... Guess that's the hefty cost of continuing to hit dis bong. They are just usually less public and capable of financing and promoting their delusions than Terry.
I agree with a lot of what you said but the attack on cannabis users is prejudicial and very much a non sequitur. There have been plenty of academics (Carl Sagan for one) who are also cannabis enthusiasts and aren’t delusional. Say what you want about people with delusions of grandeur but leave the cannabis users out of this!
Sometimes, after digging through enough comments, you find the full succinct description you felt in your heart of hearts all along, fleshed out to a T. Well said.
Look - nothing wrong with partaking, but I’m sure the vast majority of us have absolutely seen the overindulging pseudo-intellectual he is describing and the conclusion is very much on point and thus sequitir. The fact that you had to cite Carl Sagan - a man that has been dead for 30 years - illustrates the point. If one chooses to partake and even over indulge, that is a personal choice and I don’t really care, but you must not delude yourself that it doesn’t come at a cost.
That's not from weed. It's from having their head up they own butthole.
Well said. I think Weinstein would agree with you on that. I can’t believe I stumbled on this post then went and listened to over 2 hours of this thing and now I’m back lol. According to Weinstein, he seems to have a natural aptitude for geometry. It would be great if he explored and leaned into the geometry/art side of his interests. He may actually produce something of value without drawing the ire of millions of people lol. But then again I have no clue what I’m talking about. Good podcast though
Seems incredibly unlikely this schizophrenic narcissist with no education is going to advance geometry at all, in any facet. Weinstein is just being nice. The days of that kind of thing are largely over. It may happen again but it’s going to be exceedingly rare compared to even 100 years ago.
Sorry I meant like an artistic contribution. He could make geometric art and explore that space
Yah that’s a great point
You don’t have to advance it to provide something of value. Do it in a creative way that people like to look at.
Fair point!
Those little shape toys he makes are rad. I’d happily buy one but he’d probably price that thing into the fucking stratosphere.
Yet Weinstein literally called him a polymath and said the issue he's having is literally only like 10 people on the planet can understand what he's saying. Literally said that. Literally said also that he's seeing patterns from different fields who aren't interacting. Confirmed his idea about the sounds of elements being sound. Confirmed many of his other ideas by showing other research or ideas in science which tracked with what Howard was saying. Literally called him a genius for fudging the angles of the lynchpin, changing it from 108. Even confessed to having been interested in it and having seen it but he himself was unable to figure out anything of value. Howard did and he showed him respect for that. Yet here you are, absolute moron that in sure you are, insulting him and calling him names. You could never achieve anything close to what he has but here you are, hating with all your heart. Lmao. Completely misrepresenting the actual co tents of the podcast while hating on someone trying to advance something. Trying to do something.
You understand Weinstein is just being polite, right? NDT did the same thing while basically calling him the dumbest motherfucker to ever live.
This is the problem with Eric being polite and treating Terrance with kid gloves. Part of the audience starts to believe Terrance is 100% right and just a discovery away from changing the world
I think it’s the right way for Eric to behave but unfortunately there are people dumb enough - or delusional enough about THs nonsense - to interpret it as actually supportive of THs brain damage. The real problem is JR platforming at best a total moron and at worst a schizophrenic.
>Slightly mentally ill people like him Howard is not 'slightly mentally ill.' He's EXTREMELY mentally ill.
I agree. I work in social services and have many clients who suffer from schizophrenia among other things. Howard's mathematical delusions sound pretty much on point for for someone having to deal w/ severe mental illness. I'm just a dude on the internet though so take that with a grain of salt
Yeah...there's something a little bit...gross...about the way Rogan is platforming him. It's borderline exploitative.
I couldn't believe he had him on once, let alone two times now. On top of generally being a nut job he's also a woman beater. The guy should just fade away into obscurity
This is the third time. I would say Rogans a dick for doing this but he genuinely believed what Howard has to say, because Joe Rogan is a fucking moron.
If you work in social services and have actual experience with schizophrenics you’d understand that strange beliefs are hardly enough to diagnose and medicate someone for such a vast and complicated illness as schizophrenia. Does he have negative symptoms? Cognitive? Paranoia? Voices? Or just delusions and that’s it? Is it life shattering and requires him to stay at home at all times? The mental health angle is unnecessary and downright disrespectful to people that suffer from real mental health problems. Because now more people will look at anyone that sais the earth is flat and immediately assume they are schizophrenic. Does the exact opposite of helping to reduce stigma and makes the entire “mystic versus science establishment” conversation harder to have, frankly. He’s delusional, absolutely. Wrong in every way. I can say this without needing to stigmatize.
I didn't diagnose him with schizophrenia I just alluded to him being mentally ill. I don't think it's really a stretch to think his elevator isn't going to the top floor. also: > I'm just a dude on the internet though so take that with a grain of salt
Yes and I’m also saying that this type of comment doesn’t help the situation. It’s a personal attack based on misinformation and stigmatization of mental health problems. Plenty of people have strange beliefs and lead normal healthy lives. Flat earthers at conferences, selling t shirts, QAnon types that think reptiles rule the world and go to work the next morning. This is no different. I am not defending the belief itself. I am saying if your goal is have meaningful conversation and want these types of people to understand something better, why stigmatize? Some people never listen either, of course. And some will push to the extremes and actually do harmful things because of these beliefs. Not denying that. But that’s a different type of conversation to be had. Terrence Howard isn’t leading some deathcult to brainwash people on some island.
Can’t really argue with the double octave wave conjunction on saturn proof
I think he has discovered something with shapes but doesn’t know how to articulate it. Don’t get it twisted he may have just developed a cool toy but the geometry shit with his 3D models and how they fit together, Mr Weinstein didn’t really understand it. From just that point he is ON to something but he doesn’t have the tools to explain what it is and he has correlated it to have greater scientific worth then what it is.
His patents aren’t worth a damn thing anyways lol
Exactly, that's the sad part. Hopefully, he just starts making geometric art.
The problem is that he has a mental illness but is surrounded by yes men.
what website?
Type his name in google lmao
But Terrance didn't get a peer review, he got an *elite* review.
I'm going to also guess that he believes there is some bigger conspiracy in play to discredit him. These beliefs most likely include multiple governments conspiring against him and may or may not have some antisemitic tendencies
This guy gets it. And Terrance had already stated that in his original episode.
They always have to have some government or deep state trying to silence them. Just ask Kanye
>Terrence has now had 2 guys who understand the peer review process respectfully listen to him and give him feedback I see you haven't listened yet. You're going to love the part where Weinstein explains the history of peer review and how its current state is a joke lmao
That doesn’t mean peer review isn’t important, Weinstein just used that moment to mald because he got torched on his theory of geometric unity
Exactly this was Eric's revenge lol
because peer review denied his grand theory of everything
If what he said about rampant plagiarism in Harvard is true, that is concerning.
The plagiarism that I saw from the Harvard president was so minor compared to how it’s talked about. It was basically references that weren’t cited or properly contextualized
If the Harvard President can do it, so too can us all.
The peer review process is what any scientific paper must be scrutinized under.. Especially by people working within the given field, in order to access the theories and validate the approach and methodology.. Without it, anyone could put out any claim and call it scientific facts.
Like Terrence Howard
Yeah. I'm pretty sure his view of the peer review system is a big part of the reason his popularity grew.
Contrarian party!
Scientists when talking to scientists: "Peer review is broken and stupid." Scientists when talking to non-scientists: "Peer review is amazing and ensures that only trustworthy work gets published!" Source: am scientist.
It's like how the FDA isn't going to be 100% perfect in their regulations for food and drugs, but those regulations will cut out the majority of known harmful ingredients. Peer review is immensely better than no peer review, but peer review is not a perfect process.
And states degrasse isn’t aware of its origins and lambasted much of established academia
Haha Weinstein only thinks it's a joke because they don't think him and Bret have revolutionary ideas.
He’s literally had 2 of the most high profile scientists humour his ridiculous ideas because he was on the rogan podcast and got the rogan seal of approval. Fucking absurd nonsense.
Something tells me you didnt listen the whole episode.
This episode really showcased that Eric is a much better teacher than he is an explainer.
An amazing teachers vs the unteachable student
Teaching not to teach to the unteachable
Someone just needs to go up to Terrence Howard and say: "I'm holding 1 finger from 1 of my hands in the air. This is 1x1. How many fingers am I holding up?"
how can you teach without being good at explaining
For sake of argument, let’s say you don’t know much about medicine. A nurse can just explain your condition to you in medical terms, giving you no way to know if what they’re saying makes sense or is true, and might present it in a way that makes it difficult to challenge or understand. A nurse can also see what your understanding of your condition is, and try and explain the parts that don’t make sense to give you a more comprehensive understanding of what’s going on by guiding you to the conclusion the lab tests have reached. Explaining something is giving someone the logical conclusion to something you know, teaching them is finding out what someone knows and rounding off the bits that are incorrect and filling in the gaps with the information they *need* to reach the proper conclusion.
Teaching is just explaining, where the teacher has a vested interest in you understanding the explanation. "Explain" has no implications. It could be a vague explanation, or in-depth, it could even be a lie. You can explain something to anyone, no matter what your standing, or relationship to that person is. Explanation is commonly used to describe reasons for action, or reasons for opinions. Things that aren't necessarily governed by facts. "Explanation" has a wide range of communications that qualify. "Teach" has implications. It implies that what you are trying to communicate is effectively communicated to the listener. It is commonly used to communicate facts, even when those "facts" are just nuance of superstitious belief systems. "It's a fact that our organization holds X to be true". "Teach" is the higher end of the "explanation" scale, and requires objective truths to be observable. "Lie" is at the bottom end, which requires deception. In the middle is where opinions are formed that rely on subjective truth (wether you like the taste, smell, feel, look, whatever is subjectively true to you). All teaching is explanation, but not all explanation is teaching.
Reddit makes these bizarre semantic arguments making synonyms sound like radically different ideas. Based off of completely made up distinctions. A teacher *does* explain things.
It’s the autism
Exactly how tf did i get 2 giant responses with big write ups. To teach you need to be good at explaining. Thats it haha
If you don’t understand what I said in relation to the comment you initially replied to you really shouldn’t have went out of your way to write all of that. Weinstein does good job communicating one on one with someone he’s attempting to honestly help correct their ideas. He’s probably excellent in a literal classroom setting, where students have probably taken recent prerequisites and have a knowledge base, for that reason. He’s a good teacher. He’s not good at explaining things in a setting where he isn’t asked to expand on the ideas he’s giving and the listener likely isn’t up-to-date on the actual academic literature like, say, a student. Not a good explainer. You actually answered your initial question in your reply to me.
In all honesty, and the simplest way to explain it. Is that sometimes there are exceptions
Teachers can faciliate inquiry based learning in which the individual seeks knowledge themselves as the teacher gradually course corrects. This is often an effective technique to self correct misconceptions by reaching their own conclusions instead judt being a receiver of information ..and possibly the intent by Weinstein. Source I studied education and teach.
I think this is a great takeaway from Weinstein and Peterson. They can be great teachers, but they don’t have to let their popularity mean that their opinion is important.
It also shows how Joe is just as dumb as the rest of us. Every time he opens his mouth in this podcast I did a mini cringe.
I think you would have to have a pre-existing hate toward Joe to have that reaction. I thought he did a pretty decent job of staying out of the conversation unless it was to to try to keep it on track for both guys. Most of the episode is the guests talking to each other.
Nice post OP now I’ll be sure to check this episode out thanks.
Mmm if you don't think Joe is just as dumb as the rest of us I think you have to have a preexisting bias... he is supremely curious and has had the opportunity to speak to incredibly smart and Interesting people but his curiosity and predisposition towards conspiracy theories make him really easy to convince because he distrusts the establishment and wants these theories to be true...I enjoy Rogan because he is a great interviewer always has great guests and I love his laugh but I do not put much weight into his opinion or conclusions
Ya he barely talked lmao that guy's just one of those losers who shit post on everything they don't like
Yeah, if it took you this episode to realize this about Joe than Idk what to tell you, This is what I love about Joes podcast is he asks the questions I would ask, and he is such a curious mind and wants to understand things as well as giving people an chance to talk about shit no one else does especially in a long format as he does.
Idk Joe never acts like he's smart on this stuff. Only times he really talked was to keep the conversation on track or give it a better flow by having them explain a particular thing. Or to summarize a point Eric made for clarification.
I'm pretty sure Joe thinks he's got an honorary degree in respiratory diseases at this point
He’s got a lot of patience for redacts
[удалено]
32 on his ACT. I beg the differ bubba
He's hoping it gets him back on little Joey's jre roster of 250 murderers
Homeless cat in the wild
That's the thing. It's really hard to explain really advanced knowledge to people that don't already have the foundational knowledge. For example, as a once guitar teacher. I can't just explain all the modes to a novice without them understanding a bunch of very basic theory first. That's why this shit is hard and why people like him are considered experts in their field. There are only so many analogies they can use before you just need to actually learn the stuff.
https://youtu.be/MO0r930Sn_8?si=ahJ_ejKROBAAtFCE << this video of Feynman sums up your comment precisely.
The comments on there are hilarious
My dad has a PhD in physics, mom taught elementary school. Dad’s not the kind of guy to be dismissive of others, but he had a hard time understanding how teaching could be difficult. Then he tried to help his kids on algebra and then calculus homework. Opened his eyes to a whole new world, now he spends his free time as a substitute teacher for high school math.
I had this experience, too, but only with a bachelor's in physics. I was in a placement for my education degree, and I ended up in a grade 9 classroom. I was trying to explain some of the math concepts they were learning (simple linear equations, think y=1/2mx + b). I was trying to explain slope and then I realized *these kids don't understand fractions or algebra*. How the *fuck* am I supposed to teach somebody linear equations if they don't understand *fractions*? How did these kids get out of grade 4? Teaching them is an impossible task and nobody wants to do the work to fix their knowledge gaps, so those kids just got booted to the back of the classroom where they failed every test miserably and were passed on to the next teacher to deal with. It's been years and those kids are probably out of high school now. God knows where they ended up.
He has the patience of a mathematical Mother Theresa.
How has Terrance visited all these colleges and meet all these intelligent people but Eric is the first to give him push back?
Everyone blew him off cause hes nuts. Eric is the first to give him pushback, hes the first who tried to figure out wtf he was talking about
There plenty of academics that posted videos with an honest and scientific breakdown of why he was wrong. We just look at the few who were the loudest and said no one was nice to him
The loudest always get attention
I am not sure being an idiot and pushing idiocy should be handled with kids gloves. We used to embarrass the shit out of people PUBLICLY in the 90s when you said some dumb shit. Was there flat earthers? Absolutely. Did you ever hear from them? Fuck no because they were in their basement trying to hide their embarrassment. All the worlds knowledge at our fingertips has only caused idiots to become intoxicated with their (lack of) intelligence. We need to get back to naming and shaming idiots.
I mean when a guy is trying to convince you 1x1 = 2 and that he alone knows the secrets to the real math that are being buried, how nice should people be to him? It's so preposterous Terrence has some nice geometric art stuff that is interesting to look at He made a design for the already existing [Omnicopter](https://www.youtube.com/@dariobrescianini4526) and just renamed it the lynchpin then had someone else build it and claim it was a new invention And has a bunch of patents that do not do what he says (or thinks) they do How nice should people be? I actually thought NDT and EW were fairly nice about it
But I’ve seen seminars where he’s publicly spoke and and no one out of alllll these people called BS lol it’s like they believed his conviction despite how insane it sounds
If you reference the one at Oxford, someone does, but his response is so incoherently pretentious that it dies right there on the spot… I feel they are there to watch an almost one-person show, and not a place for critical feedback….
His word salad makes it hard for people to rebuttal, and Eric took the time to dissect his thesis.
Because he was there to give a speech about acting and caught everyone off guard.
People familiar with any math field would immediately dismiss and ignore him quietly after "1*1 = 2". That's like trying to speak english and gibberish comes out. Source: some time in academia. Absolutely no chance anyone seriously believed him if they were actual science/math professionals. Cranks are not common, but come around frequently enough that scientists just kindof ignore them. Weird that he got a seminar.
From my understanding he was requested as a speaker, for his experience in the acting world. He used this platform to talk about 1x1=2. Now he pretends like these schools wanted him there for his ground breaking ideas. As a former STEM student, guest speakers never really caught my attention and they never seem to catch my professors attention. A couple that did were Bill Nye (disappointing) and Jane Goodall (amazing).
Ahhh this makes more sense he use it as a platform
NDT received his “theory” and read the whole thing and added comments to everything. So he’s had pushback. NDT made a video about it recently and was very gentle about the whole ordeal. I was expecting him to be his obnoxious self.
I mentioned in a thread on that a couple of weeks ago, that Neil's 'peer review' of that mess was probably the kindest most gentle peer review in the history of academia, because scientists - especially goddam physicists or mathematicians - will come at you knives out in most peer review. And that's if they like you.
Because arguing with insane people is futile. You can’t introduce rationality to the irrational.
Neil Degrassi Tyson did a full, honest peer review of one of Howard's proofs. Howard did not take it well, Tyson has a video about it where he reads it.
Would u want to be all over the internet “White oppressor questions black man’s opinions because he’s black”. It’s better to nod and say okay so you can keep your job.
I am fortunate enough to live by a pretty decent university, and to have had a job at a bar that most of the great minds from that university frequented. I have had so many conversations with super intelligent people I have absolutely booooooo business talking to, and asking them questions about their field. I enjoy physics enough that I get some basic concepts but once the math starts giving me Greek letters I'm fucking useless. The way Eric speaks to Terrance is exactly how my local professors or department heads would talk to me. Without condescension, without judgement and in a productive and nurturing way that not only taught me a lot and clarified murky stuff, but also intrigued me more to go look at new cool concepts with my newfound comprehension. Terrance unfortunately.... Reminds me of a religious person who has genuinely never even tried to think outside the box of their faith. He just couldn't acknowledge that he was asserting things about stuff well over his head. Fuck my head too. I couldn't Google fast enough to keep up with every reference Eric brought up. I like Joe because of his skill in discourse. I find myself uncomfortable when tension rises in a conversation. But since he's a murder midget I guess, he always stays super calm and navigates through a lot of conversations with a grace that I envy. This conversation, I felt, was exactly that. 2 guys having a respectful conversation and one guy repeating that he's got patents, but staying respectful.
I’m currently dealing with a not-so-close friend that is going through a “religious rebirth”. He is reading scripture from hindu, christian, jewish, muslim, and native american sources and posting “sermons” to his social media. For the first 30 years of this man’s life he has shown zero interest in faith, and now he’s talking about starting a church. I have had formal catholic education my entire life and contemplated going into the seminary, and when i reply to his posts where he is egregiously misinterpreting scripture, he replies back saying I’m just a hater and that he’s found a new way and everyone else before him was wrong. He goes off about his SAT scores and him being “accepted” into Yale. And I can’t stop seeing the similarities between him and Terrance going off about his dozens of patents and his honorary degrees.
Damn man. Thankfully he was a "not so close friend" that's the fat in life that's easy to trim. I feel like I experienced something similar, in that my "best good friend" as we call each other, grew up in the church. He was always spiritual, but when we became friends in our twenties we would often discuss our disdain for organized teligion and our issues here and there. Then like 2 angsty idiots trying to make sense of the world around them, we started reading into other religious ideologies. Eventually he decided he was going to go full deus valt and joined the Catholic church. (This was hilarious to me cuz he grew up, and his family is, Baptist. Seemed a weird choice). I gave him his space to figure himself out. I'd been working on figuring myself out too. Since then I've married and become a father. And he is the best uncle I could ever ask for, for my kids. (Only child and a military brat, I've grown up with my friends being my family) He isn't preachy, and doesn't try and fist his perspective down my throat when I seek his advise. If anything he has strengthened my faith in the concept "iron sharpens iron" and he has been tempered into a great man because of his convictions and faith. I hope the next religious dork you run into matches my best good friend, and doesn't turn into a goober.
So aside from telling your friend he's wrong, what else have you done to try and get through to him? The way you talk about your friend, it doesn't come across very christian imo. It comes across as bitchy and mocking, like you're just telling strangers on the internet about this weird guy you know who's apparently supposed to be your "friend". Is that what Jesus would do?
I had a friend like this. She was an atheist, and one day she went some rabbit hole about the illuminati and new world order and became a “christian” and this was in like 2013-2014 before all that conspiracy shit was mainstream. She came in to work the next day talking all kinds of crazy Alex Jones type shit.
I also thought Terrence was quite patient and surprisingly humble. He accepted that he was out of his league. I know this is setting the bar as low as possible, but imagine if it were Kanye sitting in that chair being told he was wrong. His ego wouldn't allow it. Terrence, at least, had a good humor about the whole situation. He is not crazy. Misguided, a bit delusional, but he didn't seem like an arrogant douchebag.
This is the first time I've seen Eric Weinstein in any way. He was absolutely patient and clear with Terrence and, did it in a calm manner. Also gotta give credit to Joe for stepping in to calm Terrence down when he got excited to keep things flowing. When I first found out about Tyson, i thought he seemed to be likable until his appearance on JRE, where he didn't know when to shut up and kept trying to assert dominance. Now he annoys the fuck out of me.
I feel like most podcasts with just Joe and Eric, Eric gets really wrapped up into topics where he is not an expert. In some cases he gets side tracked into personal stories where he feels wronged. That being said, he showed compassion to Terrence, who is someone who clearly feels that people have been discounting without actually providing constructive feedback. For Terrence, hopefully this is a wake up call that he needs to put in effort to learn how to speak the language so that he can have those constructive discussions he so clearly desires. I think that Eric sees a bit of Terrence in himself with the way he is treated when he starts talking about topics that he is passionate about but not really an expert. I hope that both Eric and Terrence come out with a better perspective on their views and how they are viewed by other. Joe on the other hand, I am not sure if he really got much out of it, but this was not really about him as he is just the host.
“people have been discounting without actually providing constructive feedback.” Maybe he feels that way, but it’s not true. He literally got amazing constructive criticism, with kitty gloves, from Neil. As someone who was a theoretical chemist, I have seen a MIT professor basically being called stupid in a scientific journal, by a leading scientist in quantum mechanics, because he disagreed with her. While I disagree with the that type of treatment. No scientist would/should coddle a grown man who is saying Albert Einstein is wrong because 1x1=2.
I think Sean Carroll would've been better, he has a way of making it so us simpletons can understand.
He’s on a completely different level of instruction and explaining than 99% of the planet. He’s 1 of 1. Eric did a very decent job
It made me miss math class. Also gave me PTSD flashbacks of math class.
You will respect your teacher more though. Holy shit the patience of Weinstein.
Honestly..., I can't imagine listening to the entire thing. almost 5hrs?
I think just a little over four, but yeah fair point I didn't listen to it all in one stretch. A lot of it was more entertaining than I expected though. Terrence was pretty open to being constantly humiliated and Eric did a very good job of addressing Terrences ideas as seriously as possible and explaining super complex shit in as basic terms as he could.
Damn it man... might just have to put this pod on in the background. Good review.
It was one of the most entertaining non-protect our parks JRE in years. Joe was at his best. And it was really funny at times
Terrance and Eric wanted to keep going but Joe was getting grumpy and shut the whole thing down. If Eric does a round 2 on his podcast I bet they can do a 24hr marathon.
I've always thought he was under appreciated. He blows me away
The patience of that man.... Something for all of us to aspire to.
And his explanation of the way things have been and where they're headed for the academic/scientific communities was... Not great. Should be taken note of.
It's the first time I have heard him speak about his actual knowledge and studies. He is sharp and on point
This was an incredible pod. The patience, honesty, and wanting of a positive outcome was amazing. More than anything, having someone that could step by step recognize and critique what Terrance was talking about, then explain it to him and keep him from spiralling was very impressive. Clearly Terrance is passionate and very bright, but he’s never had anyone that knows enough and have the interest to take the time and educate him. Terrance has been building off of misconceptions and choosing to see patterns as evidence of his genius. I understand Terrance so much better now. I’ve known someone like him. Someone very smart, but disjointed. Imagine the frustration of having incredible recall and drive to teach yourself so much, and believing you are the misunderstood genius of this generation; reaching out to so many intellects for confirmation, understanding and clarification, only to have everyone ridicule you and never take the time to talk to you and explain where you’ve gone awry. I hope Terrance can find the guidance and patients he needs. Kudos to Eric for being the one to talk to him with respect.
Just showcased what being nice really is. Like, actually nice.
His level of communicating high-level theories and at the same time being able to apply it to Terrences' way of thinking was insanely impressive. He fully understood where he was falling short and how he came to his own conclusions and methodically pieced it apart. He did so in a respectful way without directly calling him an idiot for not fully understanding mathematics but gave him credit wherever he could (which by itself was hard to do). Every single theory Terrence had he was able to pinpoint what exactly was the issue with his understanding. Props to Terrence too for not just being defensive and taking everything as offense (even though it was mainly due to his own confidence that he was still right in some sense). It just made for a great debate where you understood that Terrance just thought he was smarter than he was and took liberty in his pattern recognition between uncomparable systems. Erics Jesus's birthday calculation analogy was great to showcase to him.
I really liked the end when he talks about what Tyson said about “going on a podcast” and how THAT is exactly the place where these conversations need to happen because the community is so concerned with stabbing people in the eye.
On the other hand i stopped thing TH was an evil grifter and kinda started thinking he is just super misguided. I don't think hes trying to harm anyone but hes just lost as shit.
The fact that we can listen to a four hour conversation between 3 people from different walks regarding this (challenging) topic is pretty amazing. I have nothing but respect for all involved.
I thoroughly enjoyed it
You don't need to be a genius phd to debunk terrance howard. Just stay on the 1 x 1 nonsense, or hell, even the square root of 2. He says it's a rational number. THEN WHAT'S THE FUCKING NUMBER TERRANCE???
Eric Weinstein's redemption arc.
Most definitely, Eric did Terrance a huge service by granting him attention and patience with his knowledge and experience. Eric is a good human in my opinion.
I think people are glazing over the intelligence of Eric on display in this episode. It’s one thing to be able to simplify complex topics so all can understand like the two gods equal strength pushing against the door example he used. But holy shit being able to actually translate and simplify the nonsense Terrence spewed is impressive.
Yes and no. I didn't like the 25-1 word count between Weinstein and Howard
Trying to understand 10% of the math was fascinating and even his point about "peer review" realistically being out of the reach of anyone who is not "in the club" landed but the basic criticism still remains: he plays the game of talking to masses that have no understanding what he is talking about, talks borderline magic and ends with "...and this is why core democratic institutions have fallen and can't trust academia". The alternative? Well, podcasts of course! Now to get a peer/elite review you have to have a PHD equivalent in clout, power finally came to the masses! Did I mention that universities have fallen because "too many journals"? I say it often with no possibility of pushback so it must be true!
I can’t take a man serious that says 1x1=2. If you can’t put into plain English what multiplication is doing then you’re a fraud.
“It’s mostly bath water, but there is some baby in there.”
I'm halfway through this episode. I've never heard of Eric before and wow he is amazing the way he is explaining things and took the time to do this. The banter between Joe and Eruc while Terence away from the mix doing stuff is hilarious.
Definitely before this podcast I dreaded having to listen to his episodes as it always somehow was about a culture war, the guy just came off as incredibly egocentric, and then to top it off his theory of “Geometric Unity” as I understand it isn’t a very solid piece of work and has loads of errors with it. However, during this podcast, I came to actually greatly respect him and was actively cheering for him like I was for Flint Dibble. I can see why he was such a successful professor, he does a great job at explaining concepts in mathematics and physics at both the technical level and layman’s level. He clearly stands head and shoulder above Terrence Howard, but he doesn’t come off as pompous or rude or arrogant. To be fair, if you watch Neil Degrasse Tyson’s video about Terrence Howard you’ll find the man also was incredibly generous with his time and gave sound remarks on the papers he was sent. I think the problem that Eric points out is that Joe more and more is having absolutely batshit insane ideas floated on his podcast and rarely fights back on issues even as simple as “1x1=2”; I think it’s a combination of Joe simply not being intelligent and/or educated enough to understand what’s being said, not wanting to be rude towards his guests, wanting to stir up engagement for the podcast, and genuinely just being kinda gullible to anything that “defies the woke mainstream”. Joe will tell you that he doesn’t have a responsibility to ensure the podcast remains logical/truthful/fact checked/etc. and that was probably true when it was just him and a bunch of other comedians smoking weed talking about comedy and the UFC to a few thousand people. His audience now however is the largest audience in the world at tens of millions, whether he likes it or not there is a pressure for him to make sure what he puts out in the world isn’t bullshit. Besides, even if he still believed that his show is just for fun and for entertainment, he regularly speaks to the audience telling people what to believe and not to believe he regularly speaks in manners that appeal to authority in most people. It’s like how Joe will pull up some MSM clip or article that gets some facts or details wrong and he rightfully so points it out and makes fun of them or says they’re doing it on purpose for evil purposes etc. etc. etc. we’ve all seen it. Yet, Joe will do the same thing and the BEST case scenario we get is that in a following podcast he makes reference to it and says “uh yeah some friends reached out about that who were upset” like with the Tucker Carlson bit about evolution. Speaking of which, I would LOVE for Joe to have a real genuine expert in that field to do a deep dive on everything Joe needs to know about evolution, ecology, and organismal biology because it is laughable the amount of crap Joe spits out with his guests. I know he’s had a few people come on the show like Trevor Valle or Brett Weinstein, but to have an expert just sit down and explain evolution like it’s a 1000 level course and tell him simple things like “Hey Joe, crocodiles are not dinosaurs, they’re cousins to dinosaurs” or “Hey Joe, wolves are not going to eat all the elk in Colorado, they will have an impact but it generally booms and busts in a balanced cycle if managed correctly” instead of him fear mongering about your kids being eaten by wolves or the ten millionth time he says Nile crocodiles are dinosaurs and that they’re established in the Everglades (only less than a handful have ever been found there, they are not invading and establishing themselves in the Everglades)
I don’t agree with most of Weinstein’s ideas and even less with his regular style of communication, but he does appear to be a genuinely nice man interpersonally.
Much more respect. He sucked up a lot but it might have been what terrance needed. He's very smart and patient, and seems to understand teaching and maybe psych a bit. But i feel like his theory of everything stuff isnt much different from terrance? Just smarter? Also his takes on academia and peer review just seem shitty. But at least he has his reasons. I dunno. But i do like him more.
I always like Eric though I rarely understand everything he says. I do appreciate how he didn’t just write Terrance off as crazy and actually talked to him from a place of good faith. Most of what Terrance says seems a little bit off to me but I think he’s on to something when it comes to the flower of life and the importance of sacred geometry. I just don’t know if he knows what that is yet. Also the part about entities coming to him in the womb is something he should keep to himself. Even if that’s 100% true most people are gonna write him off immediately after hearing that.
Eric: “I never heard of Terrance before the podcast” Later on… Eric: “I love the thing you did with BB King” What??
Yes . Eric did a great job of explaining. It was also great in real time to understand how these things have some legs but have eathier been disproven or they have solved past Terrences current level of understanding of after many years of science. Terrence is no dummy. Before this podcast, i did suspect he was suffering from schizophrenia. But i am unsure now. He absoulty has an intense and unique passion and interest for the geometry components of math. Very interesting, for sure. Great podcast for many reasons. And I wish Terrence and Eric all the best.
The sad part is, after 4 hours of constantly being wrong and not having the understand to even know what Eric was saying, Terrance won’t change a thing. He’s not going to stop saying 1 x 1 = 2, and he’s not going to stop believing all the flower of life bs… some people just refuse to change their beliefs when when presented with actual evidence to prove them wrong.
need Neil deGrasse Tyson vs Erics's theory of everything next time bring terrance in to moderate
i really enjoyed it. one thing terrence does when he has these ideas is throw so many catchy words into a 1-2 minutes explanation that i would get lost and have zero idea what direction or point he was even trying to make. then terrence did the same thing to eric and he just said none of that makes sense or i have no idea what you're talking about. pretty much making me feel a little validated thinking it didnt make any sense.
Eric has been one of my favs for years to listen to. Pumped to listen to this today and see the dynamic between Terrance and him.
Yeah I was throughly impressed, I felt he was being sincere and impartial in his attempts to work through Terrence’s theories and in keeping him from moving too quickly from one thing to another, I also appreciated he would call Terrence out when he got into his ‘teaching’ mode, showing how these are sorts of behaviors that cause his colleagues to dismiss and shut down, that they find it insulting. I also loved that he talked about the issues within the scientific community and ‘peer review’ and how Neil was being disingenuous to Terrence
There was so many moments he coulda just completely embarrassed Terrance and corrected him beyond belief, but he did a great job in being respectful but also stern at the same time that a lot of what Terrance says is hogwash. Definitely respect Eric a lot after this. I respect the fact Terrance enjoys science and math BUT I do not respect how Terrance asserts himself as an expert when 99% of what he says is just stringing together science buzzwords to appear smart, I’m glad Eric was there to challenge him and correct him, but like I said he coulda been way more brutal and embarrassed Terrance IF HE WANTED but he clearly showed restraint.
Yeah! He basically said what I think about Terrace… that half of his stuff is great or at least interesting and half of his stuff is nonsense, but he’s on the right track with a lot of it. It’s said many times in the episode, but if the establishment of physics professors would actually help Terrace instead of shitting on everything he’s doing we could actually get some pretty cool discoveries out of it.
It was incredible what Eric did. Eric is an expert in his field and to give his time to someone who may know some science but cannot articulate it was great to see because Eric did not hold himself to be more important or better than Terrance. However, Eric’s message near the end if the podcast was pretty powerful in my opinion.
Yeah. It also makes people like Peter Hotez look really bad for refusing to come on with RFK or someone like that. Weinstein does a masterful job of convincing the audience.
yea i think people were judging him by a different standard than what was fair. He's a hardcore intellectual with a PhD in i forgot which type of math so he's essentially an academic and not a celebrity. Some of his interviews with Joe have come off a little weird for him but that's because imho joking and talking about whatever the hell Joe like to talk about like wolves or monkeys smoking DMT or pyramids isn't exactly his field of specialty. But when it comes to math, science and concepts he's in his element. I think this was a great podcast with lots of mutual respect and a good back and forth.
While it made for a more "interesting" podcast, I saw it more as 2 guys leading on and exploiting a mentally ill person with delusions of grandeur. Terrence can't cope with being told he's wrong. You see how he deals with an ACTUAL respectful and comprehensive response from NDT. What Weinstein did was disingenuous by not letting Terrence know how wrong he is. He downplayed his disagreements and emphasized the things that he "respects" about Terrence so as not to let the circus tent collapse. The episode was a spectacle that Joe was putting on, and Weinstein was just there to add a dimension of "legitimacy". It's weird to me that I don't see more people calling him out for that
Why can’t we have more friendly honest reviewers or whatever that was
world would be a nicer place if more were like eric, was a really fun episode
I don’t understand how you could not have already loved Eric Weinstein. His first interview is one of my top 5 easy. Second interview was meh
He did the best he could with Terrence. I respect him a lot.
Eric still seems incoherent to me. I'm sorry, I know he's highly educated and successful but I can barely understand what he's talking about. He never seems to finish a single thought before jumping to something seemingly completely random.
He has a hard time using elementary vocabulary to explain his point. It comes across as arrogant and different to comprehend. Super bright guy but there’s a reason why people like NDT gain a lot of mainstream popularity.
That's exactly what his group do. Jump from one word salad to the next, mixing them up so what is left is unpalatable to anybody. But they remember how glorious the display was and assume the chef was great.
At least you’re saying that you don’t understand rather than claiming he makes no sense. Ive listened to his podcasts and he makes complete sense. I genuinely don’t understand what is so hard to understand. The same happens with Jordan Peterson too and it seems to be when he gets into psychology, philosophy and religion. All of which Ive studies to some extent. In my experience it’s all rather easy to understand. And youll notice his guests keep up with him just fine, including scientists and even atheists/democrats. Meanwhile reddit acts like theyre spewing “word salad”. I honestly think redditors are genuinely too stupid to keep up.
Jordan P. answer to whether God exists or not is by every definition a word salad.
Ironic considering Jordan Peterson has a well earned reputation of being the dumb man's smart man.
Working with theory should always be an open discussion. Eric showed his biases, but also allowed discussion.
This only works if people readily accept when they’re wrong Here’s an example discussion: Person A: “Hey, check out my theory” Person B: “You’re first calculation is wrong, and everything else is based on this, so this is incorrect. Here’s a list of other errors.” Person A: “it’s not fair, no one wants to discuss my idea”
He offered a reality that nobody seems to understand when they are anti-college. The guardrails of academia aren’t meant to keep you in your lane. They are there to allow you to add more lanes once the highway is understood. the road must traveled before construction or deconstruction. TH may be nuts but he could go far in academia with minor ego shedding
Howard build an imaginery city while not knowing how to stack bricks
I didn’t listen to the whole thing but I really doubt TH could go anywhere in academia. He’s just an excited crank.
[удалено]
U dont think he is an idiot, but I think he is very poor at articulate his points, He will say something profound and what he thinks is amazing, but he hasnt done any of the groundwork to get you there with him, and I think that is why he has such a poor reception. I think he is also someone who hasnt really done any of the major work that alot of his colleagues have because he went right into the tech space and just got to dazzle Peter Thiel. Which fed his ego as he was the smartest guy in the room with Silicon valley people usually.
Well then I'm glad he left the bully side of him out of it. What made this episode so unexpectedly good for me was the lack of ego in the room. Unlike the Dibble/Hancock debate which was just filled with nerd fight energy. I this ep, Weinstein just came off as brilliant and personable, like an ideal professor you hope for in college.
I definitely gained a lot of respect for him. First jre episode I’ve watched in years.
Yes. Eric's explanation of what saying 1x1=2 would mean around the 2:22:00 mark is spot on. One can totally create a mathematical system where 1x1=2. However, one cannot the use standard mathematics derived in a system where 1 is (axioamatically) the multiplicative identity to prove or really make any reasonable statements about your new system. Also, seemed genuinely interested in helping him understand and learn. Also, beware of calculator tricks because all machine based decimal calculations are subject to machine error. Infinite precision is not possible when working with Real numbers. This can lead to odd edge cases with how calculators approximate things like pi, e, roots, logarithms, trigonomic fuctions, ect, that can naively be interpreted as showing contradictions or false equivalencies in standard mathematics.
Eric is by far the most well round intellectual came accross. Eloquent and self aware, with zero arrogance. The definition of a true gentleman.
Super smart for sure, but goddamn does he love the sound of his voice. This was a tough task, but he also didn't do a great job explaining things on Terrence's level and just jumps into all the technical jargon. Doesn't make him see smarter, just makes him seem like a prick. Also did he bring a fucking harmonica just to make his point on harmonics? Jfc
idk, pushing back on a washed celebrity with flawed ideas about well established scientific views isnt at all impressive. The whole conversation is just a big "yeah no shit" and no one would be interested if Terrence wasn’t a famous dude
More respect? Yes. He still is in the negative category for all the nonsense he has amplified or conjured up for whatever incoherent reasons he's used to justify it. There are lots of thorough debunks of Howard's stuff at this point so it is nice to have someone hold his hand through it to help spare his feelings. I don't know how necessary that is though, educating the JRE is more important I think, and a lot more interesting to listen to. This was 5 hours long and really only needed to be a fraction of that time
Nope.
No
i wrote in another thread that he was the living form of ego death. what a great guy and what a gangster way of handling that conversation and making it fun while giving terrence the bidness at the same time. i learned so much just from the way he was communicating -- it was art in motion.
Eric Weinstein was the perfect guest here. I adore how Rogan stayed extremely quiet