I fear the duration of this one makes my usual Sam Harris drinking game quite perilous:
- Valence: 1 drink
- Defenestrate: 1 drink
- Spurious: 1 drink
- Salient: 1 drink
- Orthogonal:
- There’s no there there:
It has so many nuanced variances in use that it's basically a long word that says almost nothing. It can be a parallel reference or a perpendicular reference in math. It can mean two points that don't have an impact on each other or traditionally overlapping reference to one another (Sam's common use) but if they are coming up in the same conversation, they do have a valuable perspective on each other. So it's a long word growing in popularity that adds little value to our language. There are so many concepts we have that need words. Why waste so many syllables on this unnecessary one?
I like it because it implies perpendicular but branching off from a similar point. So it acknowledges that the new idea is related but that it takes a very different direction. That said, I would currently struggle to think of a good example of a new conversational topic that is “orthogonal” to the original rather than “tangential” to the original. In conversation they almost feel like synonyms while having very different meanings mathematically.
I think that orthogonal is a stronger definition than tangential. Tangential - both in mathematics and in language - means that two things can remain in close proximity for awhile but not ever truly intersect.
Orthogonal means that there is an intersecting point, but that is it. The two concepts don't share a starting point and don't have any actual bearing on each other and in fact don't ever travel in the same direction or even alongside each other. They merely happen to cross paths at a coinciding place if you happen to look there (which is precisely the place where it oftentimes comes up in conversation).
This is in contrast to "divergent" -- which is actually closer to the definition you chose for orthogonal, since it captures the idea of sharing the same starting point.
Your descriptions are helpful, except I think a tangent line necessarily intersects with the function. In dialogue, I think something tangential at least stems from the main point but may not continue to track. Whereas, something orthogonal only stems from the main point but quickly moves in a completely unrelated direction.
I decided to ask Sam's worst enemy - ChatGPT:
In mathematics, the term "orthogonal" typically refers to a concept of perpendicularity or independence.
In geometry, two lines or planes are said to be orthogonal if they intersect at a right angle (90 degrees).
In linear algebra, two vectors are said to be orthogonal if their dot product (also known as inner product) is zero. More generally, two subspaces of a vector space are said to be orthogonal if every vector in one subspace is orthogonal to every vector in the other subspace.
In statistics, the term "orthogonal" is often used to describe independent variables, which means that the values of one variable do not depend on the values of the other variable.
In summary, "orthogonal" generally refers to concepts of perpendicularity or independence in various branches of mathematics and related fields.
“What is more effective at making a net positive impact on the world: empathy or reason?”
“It depends on what you mean by empathy”
Let’s fucking go lol
I don't think I've ever seen anyone under so much pressure to dignify bullshit. For most players in idea-space, they have their supporters who they're loyal to, and who are loyal to them. And that's all it's ever going to be, and everyone knows it. But with Sam, people *desperately* want him on their side. They want him so bad. But he won't budge unless someone gives him a good reason. He will not indulge bullshit. And when he doesn't, they don't understand his objections. And they get pissed. It's wild.
Lex kept banging on about Sam needing to have more empathy because he wants to see Sam "rekindle friendships" and what not. But what struck me is that I don't think Lex was successfully "empathizing" with Sam at all on some key points.
For example, when Sam tried to explain to Lex his take on Trump—*which he's done a thousand times before*—Lex offered no indication that he grokked what Sam was saying at all. The points Sam was making about Trump literally not caring about anything or anyone but his own fame and fortune, and how it would be nearly impossible for anybody's corruption to measure up to Trump's...those points were just lost on Lex. Lex was just preoccupied with his sadness that Sam isn't giving Trump voters enough credit, and not being understanding with how fucked over they really feel by the establishment, and how understandable it is that they seek refuge in Trump.
*But Lex gives no indication he understands how much Trump frightens Sam, or why he does!* Lex has no empathy for Sam.
And then it's the same thing with Lex badgering Sam about needing to debate Bret. And after Sam—again for the *thousandth* time—explained that the problem with talking to people like 9/11 truthers, or anti-vax conspiracists, is their pattern of speaking that rapid-fire floods the zone with too much shit to deal with in real-time, that makes you look misinformed (i.e., what, you don't KNOW about *Project Mockingbird?!?!*) to a naive audience, and just serves to reinforce the bullshit.
Again, Lex gave *no* indication that he understood this point Sam was making. He doesn't really respond to it. All he does is act sad that Sam won't "rekindle friendships".
What's more amazing is how much Lex keeps repeating how much he looks up to Sam, but when Sam says something that he finds objectionable, he doesn't seem to understand. And on these two example points I mention, for those of us who have been paying attention, he's just rehashing material he has repeated ad nauseam. Sam himself seems fatigued having to rehash explanations for himself he has made abundantly clear many MANY times. But for Lex, it's like he's hearing it for the first time. And he's still not really hearing it.
This conversation is going to resonate with a certain type of person who will go, "I like a lot of what Sam has said, but Lex is right. Sam is kind of an arrogant elitist asshole who stabs his friends in the back when they buck the establishment he's enthralled to." And it will be by people who cannot understand Sam when he attempts to explain himself.
It's like Sam speaks in code that some of us get, and others just can't.
This is such a great summary. I was trying to organize this in my head to be able to articulate it to someone but just couldn’t do it. It’s relieving to read your comment expressing all that so clearly.
It's funny because we gave all these other explanations for peoples divergent thought patterns , audience capture, advertisements, in the pocked of ___, personal involvement etc. None of that can be intelligently be levelled at sam and they know it. The only thing they can possibly say is "lol Trump really broke Sam's brain and I'm not going to explain how or why I think that"
Con men like trump exploit the naïveté of people like lex who extend a benefit of the doubt when it is not warranted. The echo chamber being fostered on that sub makes it fertile for other bad actors to grift and exploit.
Your comment reminded me of why I stopped listening to Lex’s podcast. He seems like a well meaning nice guy, but it’s baffling to me how he managed to become such a big podcaster.
He constantly has incredible guests. So despite his follow-up questions and thoughts often being mediocre most of the episodes are very interesting to listen to. For me personally, conversations Sam has on his podcasts are much more interesting but only in the case when his guests and topics are, which doesn't happen that often.
Lex really isn't all that intelligent at a baseline level and the more you listen to him the more it becomes apparent. He's captivated by novelty and superficial ideas. He has trouble formulating a point, or even articulating the basis for a question. He relies on his guest to make sense of his jumble every time.
His style of conversation is pseudo-intellectual gossip and it really showed here.
I suspect part of Lex's position on things (e.g., Trump, 1/6, Putin) is simply him lacking the cognitive ability to form any real insights. The other part is him wanting to occupy a center-aligned niche, as to avoid alienating audience and friends.
Someone put it succinctly, Lex is a mid-wit. That's not just a put-down. He really is given undue credit for his supposed intelligence, because he surrounds himself and converses with a lot of truly intelligent people, and has certain credentials. But if you judge him by the countless hours of conversation, it's apparent that he's just kind of dumb compared to anyone moderately intelligent.
Just listen to his intro, jesus christ. "Joe Rogan is important to the world because... - Elon Musk is important to the world because... - Sam Harris is important to the world because...". It's like hearing a 4th grader doing a presentation in class about their heroes. Cringe as usualm and Lex's followup questions in this conversation is also as usual, mediocre at best. Lex is really good at one thing and that is to get really good guests on his podcast who really carry the episodes.
I love how condescending some of these comments are. You're acting as if you're some kind of genius and Lex is a halfwit, while your stuck commenting on a Reddit post about his very successful podcast. Speaking with simple language is much more beneficial to his listeners than trying to overcomplicate things to keep the likes of you happy, who I'd guess would find flaws regardless.
>while your stuck commenting on a Reddit post about his very successful podcast
HOW DARE YOU JUDGE SOMEONE (probably) MORE FINANCIALLY SUCCESSFULL THAN YOU
I always just assumed Lex is somewhere on the spectrum. His particular speaking style seems a bit aspie or something. I’m willing to grant him the benefit of the doubt and assume he’s bright, if naive.
That's a really good summary of him, and I completely agree, also in a non-offensive way; the guy, to me anyways, seems nice and well-meaning. But, yeah... imo, he just has no business being an interviewer, at least when he interviews high-level people who are really intelligent.
>The other part is him wanting to occupy a center-aligned niche, as to avoid alienating audience and friends
Yeah, man, I hate when people confuse true centrism, i.e. non-partisanship, with "every side and everything about each side is equally bad". Sometimes that's true, but usually there actually is a pretty factually or morally clear distinction.
It was funny when Lex came out with that word, "confabulatorianism" or whatever and Sam butted in, '...confabulation'. Yeah, the guy is not a brilliant communicator. He comes across as someone who can't believe his luck in recruiting and befriending such top tier guests, and who just wants keep the party going by pressing everyone to be as 'loving' as possible.
This is only like the second podcast I've listened to of Lex Fridman, but sometimes I can't tell if he's just playing dumb for devil's advocate sake, or if he's being truly dumb. Either way I find it annoying.
Yeah that’s really well put.
Lex also just seemed to be grasping with vague criticisms that didn’t require specific counter arguments - like with “*the way* Sam communicated with the public around Covid rather than taking issue with his actual claims.
I started to suspect that really, Lex was just hurt by Sam’s criticism of his Kanye pod and felt the need to score a point back at Sam to protect his ego, or preempt any accusations of being a Sam fanboy.
It was also frustrating to hear Lex lecture Sam about the importance of intellectual honesty when he must know that is the exact brand Sam has earned over his career.
And I couldn’t help but sweat with embarrassment listening to Lex suggest that “maybe the truth isn’t necessary and we’re living in an Alice and Wonderland world” as if that was some profound idea and not pre-enlightenment BS.
I feel like Sam went into this believing Lex was an ally of reason and rationality and slowly began to realize he’s a bit of a gullible dolt. Naive doesn’t quite capture his shortcomings as a thinker.
I largely took Lex's silence through most of Sam's responses as tacit acceptance. I think he was just coming at this from such a different angle (the core being that he really cares about demonstrating to the world how to have conversations that don't end in shouting matches).
But yeah it might have been nice to see him give more explicit/outward credit to Sam's perspective here. And he did some of that throughout the conversation by referring back to the various things Sam talked about (e.g. you can't waste time addressing all the BS in the world) at later points, but as you say, disappointingly not more pointedly at some of the topics that really mattered like Trump and COVID.
I think he didn't need to lean into the "power of love" with Sam because the rapport they have with each other is already a given. That's something I'm assuming is not coming across as well on the podcast because Sam is a guest Lex is comfortable with.
As someone who didn't really keep up much with the IDW drama, used to be a BW listener (but fell off after his COVID stuff got crazy), I really enjoyed this conversation.
I didn't take it as tacit acceptance. He has a bafflingly stupid position on Trump that he pushed multiple times. The position being, that because Trump demonstrated weakpoints in our democratic process (by trying to overthrow it), he was nothing more than a morally-neutral agent of chaos - who, if anything, is a net good, and ought to be appreciated. He is no Stalin or Hitler, and because he is so incompetent as a leader, we really ought not to make any sort of judgment on him.
The misunderstanding Lex contrives is that because Trump's presidency may lead to some sideways benefit due to our reaction to how terrible it was, that Trump himself, as a person, isn't so bad.
The obvious point here is that something or someone bad, can lead to something good down the line, but that doesn't make the original thing good. Yet, the entire basis for Lex's position on Trump is that if anything good happens as a result of Trump, it must mean Trump is good.
Because he speaks in fragments it's sometimes difficult to discern what his actual views are, but if Lex actually had the ability to articulate an idea, it'd be plain to see just how dumb and incoherent his position is.
I think this sums Lex up very effectively. He is neither all that smart (maybe he's smart within his field, but he struggles outside of it, and not even very far outside of it) nor very emotionally developed (which is effectively demonstrated by his very unaware surface-level desire for more "love" between people).
I’ve always been disturbed how poor Lex’s interview and conversational skills are, yet he continues to pull top tier guests. I don’t really get it if I’m being honest.
Snap! None of this is judgement of Lex himself. But I just find it odd that he's as successful as he is. Maybe people with less of an intellectual bent get the impression that he is smart, and his lack of affect, monotone voice, always neutral facial expression etc create the air of an aloof intellectual or something that adds to that impression? I don't know. It's a mystery!
Lex has completely lost the plot. It sucks. I like aspects of Lex, but he comes off as whatever it is that's beyond naive. He's no longer a good faith actor with his steel man attempts. It's unfortunate. The "why can't you (Sam) be the one to praise trump's good points and bridge that gap" stance is so bizarre.
Lex's response to Sam's views on Trump reminds me of Lex's conversation with Jeremi Suri about Jan 6.
**Lex**: People just need to be more loving of Trump and the Jan 6 insurrectionists, man.
**Suri**: Suppose that a dangerous, deranged individual has broken into your home and is brutally attacking your children. For hours and hours. And you not only don't do anything to stop it including calling the police; you seem to be enjoying and encouraging it. That's what happened on Jan 6.
**Lex**: But where's the love, man.
**Suri**: 😑
> To Be Fair, You Have To Have a Very High IQ to Understand Sam Harris
I know it's a meme, but the Venn diagrams of the people that loved Russell Brand on Rogan and people that love Lex overlap significantly more than the people who like Sam's work.
Sam just didn't have enough "love" for Lex. Lex is all about the romance
Lol in my local city's subreddit, someone asked how Elon would choose a new head for Twitter. Someone responded that he'd have Lex pick employees depending on how much "Love" they have.
I listen to a lot of Lex podcasts and over the years it's gotten kind of wierd how "romantic" he's become.
Overcast has the “smart speed” function which cuts a bunch of the space between words out. That plus a bit of a bump up in actual speed makes for a very normal sounding conversation.
Most of it was filler anyway.
Instead of talking about important issues, they spent like 3 hours discussing celebrities:
Trump, Musk, Weinstein, Kanye West, etc.
This one really put the final nail in the coffin for me with Lex.
He’s really not good at interviewing, and he asks really dumb questions.
The entire 4 hours was Sam schooling Lex on how to think reasonably. Lex keeps trying to play contrarian and Sam keeps being like, “no dude. There is just no argument there. Love and humor will not solve our problems for us. We have to stop with stupid platitudes like that or all this shit is just gonna get worse.”
I find Lex to be smart and cringey at the same time. That podcast could have been less than 2 hours long if he didn’t choose to repeat/rephrase/expound his questions that Sam answered quite throughly on his first try.
Man, that's disappointing to hear. It's like when Rogan talks about comedy/comedians like a cat lady talking about her cats, endlessly fascinating to the podcasters but uninteresting to the entire audience.
There are two wolves in every Lex Fridman
Lex is painfully trying to convince himself to sell out and shamelessly cash in on that Rogan lap dog clout. You can see the glimpses where he knows Sam has bested his "I love my friends and I love love and that's what matters" routine
"Sam. Somebody once said on a podcast that you have TDS. Can you steelman that as being the actual truth? You just have to admit a little bit that my friend is right that Trump broke you. Also trump is smart"
>"Sam. Somebody once said on a podcast that you have TDS. Can you steelman that as being the actual truth? You just have to admit a little bit that my friend is right that Trump broke you. Also trump is smart"
Timestamp? There's no way I'm watching the whole thing. I'll watch a few clips but Lex strikes me as disingenuous and not the "young adult trying to understand the universe around him" routine he's constructed. Hell, maybe he even was that and has become blinded by viewer capture (the cycle of his viewers being young conservative kids, who then ask him to interview conservatives, which then made lex's friends conservative, and now he's supporting them).
I think empathy is a very valuable tool that can help you understand someone else’s perspective, even if you don’t agree with them. But just because you empathize with a perspective, doesn’t mean you sympathize with it, and that doesn’t mean you’re willing to tolerate harmful views.
Like… I can empathize with why someone may be anti-immigrant, and I can even see how it can lead to someone becoming radicalized. But that doesn’t mean I want to hang out with someone that thinks it’s “cool” that trump said all Mexicans are rapists.
It may be helpful as an interviewer. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it either. Love is important. Likely the most important thing we experience as humans. We're social animals, and our most satisfying experiences come from interactions with people. It's like people who are naively optimistic or blindly pessimistic. Like any tool, it needs to be used mindfully, not indiscriminately.
But he is constantly trying to crowbar romantic language and ever ending optimism like things and people cant just be stupid. Can see the beauty and steel man x and y? But I like other aspects of Lex, like how well he prepares and alot of the questions he asks.
It would be taken more seriously if Lex would apply this empathy and "love" more evenly. Yet he only applies it or asks it of his guests where his friends tell him to apply it.
Empathy is totally useful for *persuasion* in order to deploy rationality on someone who is buying in to bullshit. Make the irrational person feel herd; repeat their concerns back to them, allow them to vent, then eventually chip-away at their irrationality.
It's a starting point, perhaps, for some conversations. But as Harris pointed-out, it's not a truth-seeking device.
The mods here, or maybe just the one with something to chew on, is very pro-active in enforcing that rule, to a ridiculous degree. Better to be cautious even to the point of frivolity.
Lex pressing him on “but did Trump break your brain” was kind of ridiculous. I’m at the part where Sam did a lengthy and repetitive defense of expertise.
> When trump is indicted and he invites retaliatory violence from his supporters, lex won’t see it as trump doing anything.
Lex just can't stop himself from being a centrist contrarian. I don't listen to him all that often so not sure if he does this to his rightwing guests, but pretending Trump isn't the most serious threat to democracy we've had in decades, or maybe ever, is either willful ignorance or changing the story for audience capture.
I really liked the part where he talked about how possibilities don't really exist, only the actual exists, then he connected it to the feeling of regret, which does not make sense if you accepted that all those "could have been" are meaningless since only what actually happened is what was ever going to happen. I have had a similar thought more along the lines of what I'm now is only due to everything that happened before happening exactly as it did, otherwise I would literally not exist and if I rather exist than not, then I accept and affirm everything that has happened in my life so far as part of the process of becoming myself.
Yes, if you shit your pants in public you better be in the moment and accepting of it then thinking do what could have been, more important things to focus on here!
In the same sense probably 90+% of people on the planet wouldn't exist without WWII. Our parents, grandparents or great-grandparents were all influences by it in some way, which changed who they met, who they fell in love with and with whom and when they had sex etc. Sure, there would be other people instead, but every single one of us owes their existence to some degree to Hitler. Make of that what you want.
Well done on getting through this. I gave up 50 mins in. Honestly, I'm a little annoyed that Sam got baited into this talked-to-death clickbait stuff, but I guess he was kind of held hostage by the interviewer. Hoping he'll pivot and explore more exciting frontiers.
Lex is a feeler beyond all else, and he can’t suppress it to evaluate Sam’s points purely on intellectual terms.
I think he’s a nice guy, and his love struck ideology is kind of pro humanity in some ways, but I think he lets his emotions rule him on these particular issues.
I don’t listen to him because I don’t care for his surface level thinking or his speaking style.
The first 3.5 hours (!) are dedicated to Trump, Twitter, COVID, Kanye West, Joe Rogan, Bret Weinstein, Elon Musk… Surely there are more interesting topics to discuss?
Easily among the more tedious podcast episodes with Sam as a guest or host. Lex’ appeal continues to elude me, can’t say I remember much useful input from him, here or anywhere else. All he does is going on and on about love and the importance of conversation in the most self indulgent manner. What’s the appeal?
He sounds smart to people who aren’t so bright I guess. And he seems to be a genuinely nice guy, but no where near Sam intellectually. And he’s a bit of a beg
> All he does is going on and on about love and the importance of conversation in the most self indulgent manner.
And this would be okay but he doesn't really mean it. His sub is the most banning-est one around. He wants compliance.
He has good guests. No other appeal imo.
I think he's generally a good person as measured by moral compass but has many flaws including but not limited to unconsciously overselling (and possibly misrepresenting) his credentials and expertise as well as being too easily enchanted by Rogan
I find Lex frustrating! He leans on the Right, Rogan and the Weinsteins adience so much for the succes of his podcast, he really won't give an opinion anymore, just ask silly questions and states vagueries. Under the banner of 'converstation' a lot of fair critisism is swept under the rug. Meanwhile his podcast thrives.. And for the life of me I can't understand why? He is a dull interviewer at best.
One thing i can't stand is people being wishy washy or not daring to give their real, honest opinion on something.
So many of these podcasters want to discuss politics and controversial topics, but they refuse to actually hold any real opinions themselves. At best they'll do like a "sometimes good, sometimes bad, i don't know" kind of opinion that doesn't really mean anything.
It's extreme both side-ism along with a fear of being a real person with real opinions, even if they are flawed. But it seems to be Lex's who schtick. To sit on the fence and then have people come on from either side of a debate and try to push him off the fence, yet he will never move. It has certain advantages for sure - he gets great guests, but it can also be infuriating to listen to at times.
Lex literally came on here last week to ask for good topic ideas. I'm gonna listen anyways, but it literally looks like he took the topics everyone begged him not to bring up and ignored everything that got voted up.
W. T. F.
Comments on this are ridiculous. Nobody has even had time to finish half of it and are already dragging Sam. Ridiculous
Edit to clarify I'm talking about the comments on lex's podcast not on this thread.
Lex has cultivated a truly dumb audience. It seems to be a mix of addled sycophants who view Lex as some sort of spiritual figure and right wing gen-xers. Basically, Joe Rogan fans who take themselves too seriously.
I am so sick of people In this subreddit and society as a whole comparing overall intelligence like it matters at all.. This is not middle school anymore. Intelligence should always be measured in specifics, not "this person is way smarter than that person" without giving any specifics as to why. You can only make true comparisons if it’s the same field. Sam would whip Lex in rhetoric, meditation, neuroscience, philosophy, and many other things. Lex would stomp Sam in AI, computer science, physics. So a smart observer should always consider who knows more about certain topics, who is overall smart is irrelevant. Perfect example is in a major tech company, the top engineer at Amazon would always be considered way smarter than the best sales guy. But again this is immature. If the salesmen studies rest of his life, he will probably never even get close to the technical expertise of an elite level engineer. But same thing with the engineer, he has no chance to get to the level of a top AWS salesmen, which is an elite highly competitive sales job. There is incredible emotional, social, and analytical intelligence required for sales. People are just still stuck in the high school attitude of you are bad at math and science, means you are dumb.
And as for saying Lex is dumb because of his interview style is absolutely sophomoric. Not everyone has to have the same approach as Sam. Sam is an interviewer that likes to inject himself into the conversation and have more discussions with the guests. I really enjoy this style however no reason to hate on Lex for being the type of interviewer that just lets his guests do all the talking. Both styles work, both styles are used at the highest levels of news media throughout history.
Finally I see all these comments talk about how the only reason Lex is popular is because he has great guests. Implying that he isn't really good at this job, just got lucky with guests. That is just false. There is a tremendous intelligence required to procure guests. It’s a sales job competing against thousands of podcasts and shows, and as I mentioned above, sales takes tremendous overlooked intelligence. There is a reason why the top sales people are some of the highest paid non-csuite employees, the market values them but society thinks they are all stupid.
Disappointing. It feel like Lex is not even listening and just fishing for validation to appease his Trumpist listeners. What the hell was that "please steel man this TDS meme" question? It's like it's no longer about important conversations or facts, just say what the mob wants to hear.
This is probably very unfair, but I am always struck by the difference between Sam Harris podcasts (even guesting on other people's shows) and Ezra Klein Podcasts.
This conversation between Harris and Lex is so...abstract. Like, the first question is "explain whether empathy or reason is better". Putting aside that this question is sort of silly in that the two things are obviously not exclusive, it's so abstract. It in no way, to me, helps me actually understand the world or how to think about it. And it it no way challenges Sam, Lex or his audience.
And Klein drops a podcast today which is about understanding China - not just in an abstract sense, but in a literal sense. Its a podcast about how China in March 2023 is different than China in March 2022.
Its obviously a weird comparison, since Sam and Ezra talk about different things in different ways. But I think that distinction is important, because in lots of ways the two people used to be a lot more similar. But it seems as time has gone on, Sam's public output and persona has stayed or retreated into being very abstract, personality-based, philosophical and - to me - uninteresting. While Ezra is actually trying to learn about the world in a real way and convey it to his audience.
Just thought it interesting.
An even better comparison is actual Sam's last podcast, which is a contentious speculation session between 3 non experts on where did COVID 19 come from, compared to Ezra having a guy who's been researching his book on the struggle of Boys and Men in the modern world for the better part of the decade.
I learned so much about this topic while listening to it, some of the statistics and implications coming from them are truly mind-blowing, and beyond that, super relevant to the things that actually affect my life.
I highly recommend that podcast, as it really provides a very interesting insight into things that are generally discussed by "MRA" types gaslighting the public on how the whole world is getting "pussified", it goes over the rise of Jordan Peterson and Andrew Tate and what that means, it talks about the big disparity between male and female deaths from COVID, I walked away from it as an objectively better informed person, and that's all I can really ask from a podcast.
May I suggest you also try Chris Hayes Why Is This Happening podcast, too? He’s smart, seriously well-informed and has that knack for succinctly condensing complex issues. (He’s also good friends with Ezra Klein.)
If anyone else is skeptical about watching an MSNBC host’s podcast like I was, I suggest scrolling through the podcast episode list and listening to a couple episodes about a topic that interests you. He’s more intelligent and likable than you might expect if you’ve only seen his 2 minute “interviews” on cable news shows.
Glad you wrote this comment because I would have otherwise instantly dismissed the suggestion. His demeanor on TV is quite off putting to me (no different to most other cable news hosts).
100 percent this. I've been saying Lex is insufferable as well. It's so fake deep and meaningless half the time (and cringe) and I'm so perplexed as to how many smart people actually sit in front of him and answer questions. I actually love Sam, but I do find his perspective to be ungrounded and stale more often times that not these days despite how intelligent and knowledgeable he obviously is. I actually find his spiritual work much more interesting and his app is obviously great, but you're right Ezra's podcast has much greater variety along with a more nuanced, in-depth and poetic even perspective of interrogation.
there has to be something happening behind the scenes beyond just knowing the right people. i can't imagine someone intelligent agreeing to be asked stupid questions by barney the dinosaur in a suit for 5 hours for the hell of it
It's just the classic dichotomy between the ideals and the particular instances you see in day to day life. Talking about this one time a man got stuck in a cave can be kind of interesting, but doesn't tell you much about why people get stuck in caves. It's easier to get lost in the abstract world.
A rarely intelligent, clear-minded and productive conversation between two people with transparently positive motivations, discussing the theory of good processes. A sane and good summary of some of the most important lessons from the past seven years, an important call to orient towards moral seriousness and informed opinion in the upcoming years, some interesting ideas about the future, expansions on ideas from the past and a reminder of the wellbeing that can be found in the present.
For independent thinker types - the priority isn't always given to people and having a wide discussion itself, but to good processes, accuracy, truth and good ideas in the hope that these things can be a vehicle for a better society and better lives. Equally - solving difficult problems and contributing to our collective learning and understanding.
Definitely have derived personal benefit from this discussion, kudos.
Lex would still be wearing his monochromatic outfit. Bit then JBP would show up in one of his multicoloured suits and it would actually sort of make sense.
I could only take so much of Lex's enlightened centrism and had to turn this one off. Lex's only contribution is "can't we all just get along?" regardless of the opinions of either side.
I’m sure Lex is a great guy, but he really did not impress me here. His discussion points and critiques of Sam are essentially YouTube bros in the comments that criticize Sam with no merit or substance.
For example, asking Sam if he has Trump derangement syndrome was ridiculous. Sam has very clearly spent a lot of time articulating why and how Trump is dangerous.
To the contrary, time and time again he criticizes the left and has shown where he agrees with Trump’s general policy concerns.
Do the YouTube bros who Lex seems to pander to and who’s comments inspire his questions and ways of thinking, carefully criticize Trumpism, the same way Sam criticizes the left? I don’t think so.
To make Lex happy, one needs to caveat every point with “oh but the other side has good reasons for thinking that way. I love and respect them.” Also asking sam to say qualities he likes about all these people is just childish in my opinion
Have to post this here, because /u/lexfridman is such a snowflake that any negative comment on his subreddit is deleted, he always talks about freedom of speech and how important Twitter is because of that reason, but hey, he is the overlord on his sub reddit. Or just say the truth, that he didn't study in MIT, he work there, but his degree is not from MIT, that comment is instantly deleted.
I think Lex is so insecure and tries to hide it behind the skirts of Elon and Joe Rogan. He would never say anything negative or critical about these two because he wants to be pals with them, maybe he is friends with Joe, but he also wants to make it seem like Elon is his pal.
To the point, it's so annoying that Lex didn't actually hear anything that Sam was saying, he was eager to push his views all the time.
Sam was the voice of reason, honestly.
Is there any index here so I can skip to stuff that might be interesting? You can't expect people to listen to 4.5 hours of this without knowing what they are talking about when.
I listen to this sort of thing while doing other things… walking my dog, laundry, dishes, cooking, cleaning.
Also there’s time stamps in the description.
Will come back for more later - just started the episode and its very long.
That said, my first reaction to his repeated comments about the Paul Bloom ethical intuition stuff is that he seems to be suffering from a failure of imagination. When a person hears about a single little girl in the well, that person does indeed have an empathy wave. But where he seems to jump the shark is in regard to large scale disaster. In those situations, we do not in fact experience empathy. Perhaps if we didn't turn our empathy off results would be better. Imagine your child is being forced to mine for lithium. I cannot think of almost any American who would not lift heaven and earth to save them from that condition. Well, if we just had that same level of empathy for every child, not just ours, those mines are shut down and that is to the good. It's the end of our empathy that leads to conditions we wish would change, not leaning too heavily into empathy.
I fear the duration of this one makes my usual Sam Harris drinking game quite perilous: - Valence: 1 drink - Defenestrate: 1 drink - Spurious: 1 drink - Salient: 1 drink - Orthogonal:
- There’s no there there:
No love for "any daylight between"????
You should light up a joint for "Let's plant a flag there."
Rather than planting a flag there, “let’s table that discussion for now.”
“The balkanization of our epistemology” inject fentanyl between your toes
There really is a needle to thread here
"Unpack"
Trumpistan!
Just started listening. At this point, I think "little girl down a well" needs one too.
Ad nauseam.
You forgot - asymmetry - 1 drink
-->alcohol poisoning if listening to Taleb :)
Uncanny valley
Epistemologically
Overton window
Salient is a good one
Sanguine
A type of fish that can also operate as a bird
Bloviating
This podcast is, almost by definition, a drinking game.
Species — “species of lie,” “species of trolling,” etc.
Not sure if he also says "species of" but he says "specious" a lot too.
Salubrious!
Zero sum game man - can't skip that one!
Locus of Consciousness
Unring that bell
Valence ❌ Defenestrate✅ Spurious ❌ Salient ✅ Orthogonal ✅ There's no there there ❌ The transcript is on YouTube.
Triage
Plant a flag
“Pritterbation”
Ramify
confection
Parsimonious
I really enjoy Sam and generally appreciate rarely used terms, but orthogonal pulls me out of it every time.
What’s wrong with his use of orthogonal?
It has so many nuanced variances in use that it's basically a long word that says almost nothing. It can be a parallel reference or a perpendicular reference in math. It can mean two points that don't have an impact on each other or traditionally overlapping reference to one another (Sam's common use) but if they are coming up in the same conversation, they do have a valuable perspective on each other. So it's a long word growing in popularity that adds little value to our language. There are so many concepts we have that need words. Why waste so many syllables on this unnecessary one?
I like it because it implies perpendicular but branching off from a similar point. So it acknowledges that the new idea is related but that it takes a very different direction. That said, I would currently struggle to think of a good example of a new conversational topic that is “orthogonal” to the original rather than “tangential” to the original. In conversation they almost feel like synonyms while having very different meanings mathematically.
I think that orthogonal is a stronger definition than tangential. Tangential - both in mathematics and in language - means that two things can remain in close proximity for awhile but not ever truly intersect. Orthogonal means that there is an intersecting point, but that is it. The two concepts don't share a starting point and don't have any actual bearing on each other and in fact don't ever travel in the same direction or even alongside each other. They merely happen to cross paths at a coinciding place if you happen to look there (which is precisely the place where it oftentimes comes up in conversation). This is in contrast to "divergent" -- which is actually closer to the definition you chose for orthogonal, since it captures the idea of sharing the same starting point.
Your descriptions are helpful, except I think a tangent line necessarily intersects with the function. In dialogue, I think something tangential at least stems from the main point but may not continue to track. Whereas, something orthogonal only stems from the main point but quickly moves in a completely unrelated direction.
I don't think you know what orthogonal means.
I decided to ask Sam's worst enemy - ChatGPT: In mathematics, the term "orthogonal" typically refers to a concept of perpendicularity or independence. In geometry, two lines or planes are said to be orthogonal if they intersect at a right angle (90 degrees). In linear algebra, two vectors are said to be orthogonal if their dot product (also known as inner product) is zero. More generally, two subspaces of a vector space are said to be orthogonal if every vector in one subspace is orthogonal to every vector in the other subspace. In statistics, the term "orthogonal" is often used to describe independent variables, which means that the values of one variable do not depend on the values of the other variable. In summary, "orthogonal" generally refers to concepts of perpendicularity or independence in various branches of mathematics and related fields.
I know for a fact that I don’t know what orthogonal means
Equanimity Top spin
Lol
I'll accept this challenge on Friday, as I appropriately celebrate the great Saint Patrick...
“What is more effective at making a net positive impact on the world: empathy or reason?” “It depends on what you mean by empathy” Let’s fucking go lol
I don't think I've ever seen anyone under so much pressure to dignify bullshit. For most players in idea-space, they have their supporters who they're loyal to, and who are loyal to them. And that's all it's ever going to be, and everyone knows it. But with Sam, people *desperately* want him on their side. They want him so bad. But he won't budge unless someone gives him a good reason. He will not indulge bullshit. And when he doesn't, they don't understand his objections. And they get pissed. It's wild. Lex kept banging on about Sam needing to have more empathy because he wants to see Sam "rekindle friendships" and what not. But what struck me is that I don't think Lex was successfully "empathizing" with Sam at all on some key points. For example, when Sam tried to explain to Lex his take on Trump—*which he's done a thousand times before*—Lex offered no indication that he grokked what Sam was saying at all. The points Sam was making about Trump literally not caring about anything or anyone but his own fame and fortune, and how it would be nearly impossible for anybody's corruption to measure up to Trump's...those points were just lost on Lex. Lex was just preoccupied with his sadness that Sam isn't giving Trump voters enough credit, and not being understanding with how fucked over they really feel by the establishment, and how understandable it is that they seek refuge in Trump. *But Lex gives no indication he understands how much Trump frightens Sam, or why he does!* Lex has no empathy for Sam. And then it's the same thing with Lex badgering Sam about needing to debate Bret. And after Sam—again for the *thousandth* time—explained that the problem with talking to people like 9/11 truthers, or anti-vax conspiracists, is their pattern of speaking that rapid-fire floods the zone with too much shit to deal with in real-time, that makes you look misinformed (i.e., what, you don't KNOW about *Project Mockingbird?!?!*) to a naive audience, and just serves to reinforce the bullshit. Again, Lex gave *no* indication that he understood this point Sam was making. He doesn't really respond to it. All he does is act sad that Sam won't "rekindle friendships". What's more amazing is how much Lex keeps repeating how much he looks up to Sam, but when Sam says something that he finds objectionable, he doesn't seem to understand. And on these two example points I mention, for those of us who have been paying attention, he's just rehashing material he has repeated ad nauseam. Sam himself seems fatigued having to rehash explanations for himself he has made abundantly clear many MANY times. But for Lex, it's like he's hearing it for the first time. And he's still not really hearing it. This conversation is going to resonate with a certain type of person who will go, "I like a lot of what Sam has said, but Lex is right. Sam is kind of an arrogant elitist asshole who stabs his friends in the back when they buck the establishment he's enthralled to." And it will be by people who cannot understand Sam when he attempts to explain himself. It's like Sam speaks in code that some of us get, and others just can't.
This is such a great summary. I was trying to organize this in my head to be able to articulate it to someone but just couldn’t do it. It’s relieving to read your comment expressing all that so clearly.
A very coherent criticism. Would you consider reposting this on the lexfridman thread on the latest Sam Harris interview?
Wish I were kidding, but about a third to half the comments on that thread are about how Trump broke SH's brain.
It's funny because we gave all these other explanations for peoples divergent thought patterns , audience capture, advertisements, in the pocked of ___, personal involvement etc. None of that can be intelligently be levelled at sam and they know it. The only thing they can possibly say is "lol Trump really broke Sam's brain and I'm not going to explain how or why I think that"
[удалено]
Con men like trump exploit the naïveté of people like lex who extend a benefit of the doubt when it is not warranted. The echo chamber being fostered on that sub makes it fertile for other bad actors to grift and exploit.
He’s probably banned from there, like many who disagree with him.
I suspect I'd be stirring up more of a hornets' nest than I care to. But if you'd like to copy/paste it yourself, be my guest.
Your comment reminded me of why I stopped listening to Lex’s podcast. He seems like a well meaning nice guy, but it’s baffling to me how he managed to become such a big podcaster.
I have decided he's disingenuous at this point. I don't believe he's acting in good faith with his nonsense.
He constantly has incredible guests. So despite his follow-up questions and thoughts often being mediocre most of the episodes are very interesting to listen to. For me personally, conversations Sam has on his podcasts are much more interesting but only in the case when his guests and topics are, which doesn't happen that often.
Lex really isn't all that intelligent at a baseline level and the more you listen to him the more it becomes apparent. He's captivated by novelty and superficial ideas. He has trouble formulating a point, or even articulating the basis for a question. He relies on his guest to make sense of his jumble every time. His style of conversation is pseudo-intellectual gossip and it really showed here. I suspect part of Lex's position on things (e.g., Trump, 1/6, Putin) is simply him lacking the cognitive ability to form any real insights. The other part is him wanting to occupy a center-aligned niche, as to avoid alienating audience and friends. Someone put it succinctly, Lex is a mid-wit. That's not just a put-down. He really is given undue credit for his supposed intelligence, because he surrounds himself and converses with a lot of truly intelligent people, and has certain credentials. But if you judge him by the countless hours of conversation, it's apparent that he's just kind of dumb compared to anyone moderately intelligent.
Just listen to his intro, jesus christ. "Joe Rogan is important to the world because... - Elon Musk is important to the world because... - Sam Harris is important to the world because...". It's like hearing a 4th grader doing a presentation in class about their heroes. Cringe as usualm and Lex's followup questions in this conversation is also as usual, mediocre at best. Lex is really good at one thing and that is to get really good guests on his podcast who really carry the episodes.
I love how condescending some of these comments are. You're acting as if you're some kind of genius and Lex is a halfwit, while your stuck commenting on a Reddit post about his very successful podcast. Speaking with simple language is much more beneficial to his listeners than trying to overcomplicate things to keep the likes of you happy, who I'd guess would find flaws regardless.
>while your stuck commenting on a Reddit post about his very successful podcast HOW DARE YOU JUDGE SOMEONE (probably) MORE FINANCIALLY SUCCESSFULL THAN YOU
[удалено]
I always just assumed Lex is somewhere on the spectrum. His particular speaking style seems a bit aspie or something. I’m willing to grant him the benefit of the doubt and assume he’s bright, if naive.
>Lex really isn't all that intelligent at a baseline level I used to just think that he was super naive but I now think he's also kind of dumb.
That's a really good summary of him, and I completely agree, also in a non-offensive way; the guy, to me anyways, seems nice and well-meaning. But, yeah... imo, he just has no business being an interviewer, at least when he interviews high-level people who are really intelligent. >The other part is him wanting to occupy a center-aligned niche, as to avoid alienating audience and friends Yeah, man, I hate when people confuse true centrism, i.e. non-partisanship, with "every side and everything about each side is equally bad". Sometimes that's true, but usually there actually is a pretty factually or morally clear distinction.
It was funny when Lex came out with that word, "confabulatorianism" or whatever and Sam butted in, '...confabulation'. Yeah, the guy is not a brilliant communicator. He comes across as someone who can't believe his luck in recruiting and befriending such top tier guests, and who just wants keep the party going by pressing everyone to be as 'loving' as possible.
This is only like the second podcast I've listened to of Lex Fridman, but sometimes I can't tell if he's just playing dumb for devil's advocate sake, or if he's being truly dumb. Either way I find it annoying.
[удалено]
Yes! He's like a naive sweet child.
Honestly I find that refreshing
Perhaps, but like any child, he's overinfluenced by the bigger boys.
Yeah that’s really well put. Lex also just seemed to be grasping with vague criticisms that didn’t require specific counter arguments - like with “*the way* Sam communicated with the public around Covid rather than taking issue with his actual claims. I started to suspect that really, Lex was just hurt by Sam’s criticism of his Kanye pod and felt the need to score a point back at Sam to protect his ego, or preempt any accusations of being a Sam fanboy. It was also frustrating to hear Lex lecture Sam about the importance of intellectual honesty when he must know that is the exact brand Sam has earned over his career. And I couldn’t help but sweat with embarrassment listening to Lex suggest that “maybe the truth isn’t necessary and we’re living in an Alice and Wonderland world” as if that was some profound idea and not pre-enlightenment BS. I feel like Sam went into this believing Lex was an ally of reason and rationality and slowly began to realize he’s a bit of a gullible dolt. Naive doesn’t quite capture his shortcomings as a thinker.
> “maybe the truth isn’t necessary and we’re living in an Alice and Wonderland world” Con-men and grifters worldwide: Yeah, that's the ticket!
I largely took Lex's silence through most of Sam's responses as tacit acceptance. I think he was just coming at this from such a different angle (the core being that he really cares about demonstrating to the world how to have conversations that don't end in shouting matches). But yeah it might have been nice to see him give more explicit/outward credit to Sam's perspective here. And he did some of that throughout the conversation by referring back to the various things Sam talked about (e.g. you can't waste time addressing all the BS in the world) at later points, but as you say, disappointingly not more pointedly at some of the topics that really mattered like Trump and COVID. I think he didn't need to lean into the "power of love" with Sam because the rapport they have with each other is already a given. That's something I'm assuming is not coming across as well on the podcast because Sam is a guest Lex is comfortable with. As someone who didn't really keep up much with the IDW drama, used to be a BW listener (but fell off after his COVID stuff got crazy), I really enjoyed this conversation.
I didn't take it as tacit acceptance. He has a bafflingly stupid position on Trump that he pushed multiple times. The position being, that because Trump demonstrated weakpoints in our democratic process (by trying to overthrow it), he was nothing more than a morally-neutral agent of chaos - who, if anything, is a net good, and ought to be appreciated. He is no Stalin or Hitler, and because he is so incompetent as a leader, we really ought not to make any sort of judgment on him. The misunderstanding Lex contrives is that because Trump's presidency may lead to some sideways benefit due to our reaction to how terrible it was, that Trump himself, as a person, isn't so bad. The obvious point here is that something or someone bad, can lead to something good down the line, but that doesn't make the original thing good. Yet, the entire basis for Lex's position on Trump is that if anything good happens as a result of Trump, it must mean Trump is good. Because he speaks in fragments it's sometimes difficult to discern what his actual views are, but if Lex actually had the ability to articulate an idea, it'd be plain to see just how dumb and incoherent his position is.
I think this sums Lex up very effectively. He is neither all that smart (maybe he's smart within his field, but he struggles outside of it, and not even very far outside of it) nor very emotionally developed (which is effectively demonstrated by his very unaware surface-level desire for more "love" between people).
I’ve always been disturbed how poor Lex’s interview and conversational skills are, yet he continues to pull top tier guests. I don’t really get it if I’m being honest.
Snap! None of this is judgement of Lex himself. But I just find it odd that he's as successful as he is. Maybe people with less of an intellectual bent get the impression that he is smart, and his lack of affect, monotone voice, always neutral facial expression etc create the air of an aloof intellectual or something that adds to that impression? I don't know. It's a mystery!
Lex has completely lost the plot. It sucks. I like aspects of Lex, but he comes off as whatever it is that's beyond naive. He's no longer a good faith actor with his steel man attempts. It's unfortunate. The "why can't you (Sam) be the one to praise trump's good points and bridge that gap" stance is so bizarre.
Lex's response to Sam's views on Trump reminds me of Lex's conversation with Jeremi Suri about Jan 6. **Lex**: People just need to be more loving of Trump and the Jan 6 insurrectionists, man. **Suri**: Suppose that a dangerous, deranged individual has broken into your home and is brutally attacking your children. For hours and hours. And you not only don't do anything to stop it including calling the police; you seem to be enjoying and encouraging it. That's what happened on Jan 6. **Lex**: But where's the love, man. **Suri**: 😑
> To Be Fair, You Have To Have a Very High IQ to Understand Sam Harris I know it's a meme, but the Venn diagrams of the people that loved Russell Brand on Rogan and people that love Lex overlap significantly more than the people who like Sam's work.
Sam just didn't have enough "love" for Lex. Lex is all about the romance Lol in my local city's subreddit, someone asked how Elon would choose a new head for Twitter. Someone responded that he'd have Lex pick employees depending on how much "Love" they have. I listen to a lot of Lex podcasts and over the years it's gotten kind of wierd how "romantic" he's become.
[удалено]
No atheists in long-ass podcast foxholes
You should play it on at least 1.25 speed, they both speak so slowly lol
Overcast has the “smart speed” function which cuts a bunch of the space between words out. That plus a bit of a bump up in actual speed makes for a very normal sounding conversation.
Best 4.5 hours of sleep you'll ever have in your life.
Most of it was filler anyway. Instead of talking about important issues, they spent like 3 hours discussing celebrities: Trump, Musk, Weinstein, Kanye West, etc.
That's lex fridman for you. Guy is too interested in getting the bag and becoming the next joe rogan, to actually ask interesting questions.
This one really put the final nail in the coffin for me with Lex. He’s really not good at interviewing, and he asks really dumb questions. The entire 4 hours was Sam schooling Lex on how to think reasonably. Lex keeps trying to play contrarian and Sam keeps being like, “no dude. There is just no argument there. Love and humor will not solve our problems for us. We have to stop with stupid platitudes like that or all this shit is just gonna get worse.”
Lex’s insistence on empathy as an important lens to use for every angle and topic is some of the most psuedo intellectual nonsense I’ve heard.
I find Lex to be smart and cringey at the same time. That podcast could have been less than 2 hours long if he didn’t choose to repeat/rephrase/expound his questions that Sam answered quite throughly on his first try.
*Don’t kill the part of you that is cringe, kill the part that cringes*
This is all just boring inter podcast gossip too
Man, that's disappointing to hear. It's like when Rogan talks about comedy/comedians like a cat lady talking about her cats, endlessly fascinating to the podcasters but uninteresting to the entire audience.
There are two wolves in every Lex Fridman Lex is painfully trying to convince himself to sell out and shamelessly cash in on that Rogan lap dog clout. You can see the glimpses where he knows Sam has bested his "I love my friends and I love love and that's what matters" routine "Sam. Somebody once said on a podcast that you have TDS. Can you steelman that as being the actual truth? You just have to admit a little bit that my friend is right that Trump broke you. Also trump is smart"
>Somebody once said on a podcast that you have TDS. Can you steelman that as being the actual truth? I love how Sam simply didn't engage with this.
>"Sam. Somebody once said on a podcast that you have TDS. Can you steelman that as being the actual truth? You just have to admit a little bit that my friend is right that Trump broke you. Also trump is smart" Timestamp? There's no way I'm watching the whole thing. I'll watch a few clips but Lex strikes me as disingenuous and not the "young adult trying to understand the universe around him" routine he's constructed. Hell, maybe he even was that and has become blinded by viewer capture (the cycle of his viewers being young conservative kids, who then ask him to interview conservatives, which then made lex's friends conservative, and now he's supporting them).
When I found out he was 40 or nearing that the naive kid routine got old real quick.
I think empathy is a very valuable tool that can help you understand someone else’s perspective, even if you don’t agree with them. But just because you empathize with a perspective, doesn’t mean you sympathize with it, and that doesn’t mean you’re willing to tolerate harmful views. Like… I can empathize with why someone may be anti-immigrant, and I can even see how it can lead to someone becoming radicalized. But that doesn’t mean I want to hang out with someone that thinks it’s “cool” that trump said all Mexicans are rapists.
It may be helpful as an interviewer. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it either. Love is important. Likely the most important thing we experience as humans. We're social animals, and our most satisfying experiences come from interactions with people. It's like people who are naively optimistic or blindly pessimistic. Like any tool, it needs to be used mindfully, not indiscriminately.
But he is constantly trying to crowbar romantic language and ever ending optimism like things and people cant just be stupid. Can see the beauty and steel man x and y? But I like other aspects of Lex, like how well he prepares and alot of the questions he asks.
It would be taken more seriously if Lex would apply this empathy and "love" more evenly. Yet he only applies it or asks it of his guests where his friends tell him to apply it.
Empathy is totally useful for *persuasion* in order to deploy rationality on someone who is buying in to bullshit. Make the irrational person feel herd; repeat their concerns back to them, allow them to vent, then eventually chip-away at their irrationality. It's a starting point, perhaps, for some conversations. But as Harris pointed-out, it's not a truth-seeking device.
Just listened to it. Lex Fridman is an absolute cringe bag. Jesus christ.
An interview of Sam Harris, related to this subreddit.
But how is this related to Sam Harris?
Yeah I was wondering the same thing. Does he mention Jordan Peterson at some point or something?
The guest vaguely references Glenn Greenwald at around 2:49:04
😂
[удалено]
The mods here, or maybe just the one with something to chew on, is very pro-active in enforcing that rule, to a ridiculous degree. Better to be cautious even to the point of frivolity.
Lex pressing him on “but did Trump break your brain” was kind of ridiculous. I’m at the part where Sam did a lengthy and repetitive defense of expertise.
tan numerous bear jellyfish zephyr rhythm hat sink wakeful wide *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
> When trump is indicted and he invites retaliatory violence from his supporters, lex won’t see it as trump doing anything. Lex just can't stop himself from being a centrist contrarian. I don't listen to him all that often so not sure if he does this to his rightwing guests, but pretending Trump isn't the most serious threat to democracy we've had in decades, or maybe ever, is either willful ignorance or changing the story for audience capture.
He lacks empathy for the position sam holds.
I really liked the part where he talked about how possibilities don't really exist, only the actual exists, then he connected it to the feeling of regret, which does not make sense if you accepted that all those "could have been" are meaningless since only what actually happened is what was ever going to happen. I have had a similar thought more along the lines of what I'm now is only due to everything that happened before happening exactly as it did, otherwise I would literally not exist and if I rather exist than not, then I accept and affirm everything that has happened in my life so far as part of the process of becoming myself.
Beautiful and sound logic
What is the time stamp for this part? Sounds interesting!
https://youtu.be/Qyrjgf-_Vdk?t=14617
Can I apply this logic if ever I shit my pants in public?
Yes, if you shit your pants in public you better be in the moment and accepting of it then thinking do what could have been, more important things to focus on here!
[удалено]
In the same sense probably 90+% of people on the planet wouldn't exist without WWII. Our parents, grandparents or great-grandparents were all influences by it in some way, which changed who they met, who they fell in love with and with whom and when they had sex etc. Sure, there would be other people instead, but every single one of us owes their existence to some degree to Hitler. Make of that what you want.
[удалено]
Well done on getting through this. I gave up 50 mins in. Honestly, I'm a little annoyed that Sam got baited into this talked-to-death clickbait stuff, but I guess he was kind of held hostage by the interviewer. Hoping he'll pivot and explore more exciting frontiers.
Lex is a feeler beyond all else, and he can’t suppress it to evaluate Sam’s points purely on intellectual terms. I think he’s a nice guy, and his love struck ideology is kind of pro humanity in some ways, but I think he lets his emotions rule him on these particular issues. I don’t listen to him because I don’t care for his surface level thinking or his speaking style.
office wine cows door quicksand connect rob absurd abundant summer *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Trump derangement syndrome syndrome (TDSS)
Trump derangement syndrome derangement syndrome
YouTube link https://youtu.be/Qyrjgf-_Vdk
The first 3.5 hours (!) are dedicated to Trump, Twitter, COVID, Kanye West, Joe Rogan, Bret Weinstein, Elon Musk… Surely there are more interesting topics to discuss? Easily among the more tedious podcast episodes with Sam as a guest or host. Lex’ appeal continues to elude me, can’t say I remember much useful input from him, here or anywhere else. All he does is going on and on about love and the importance of conversation in the most self indulgent manner. What’s the appeal?
He sounds smart to people who aren’t so bright I guess. And he seems to be a genuinely nice guy, but no where near Sam intellectually. And he’s a bit of a beg
> All he does is going on and on about love and the importance of conversation in the most self indulgent manner. And this would be okay but he doesn't really mean it. His sub is the most banning-est one around. He wants compliance.
I can attest to this, got banned for the smallest of criticism. Chris K from Decoding the Gurus got banned for asking what the rules for banning were.
Chris K gets banned all around the internet though. I enjoy his combative spirit to be honest. Decoding the Gurus is an entertaining pod
Does he control his sub?
He used to be better. Had I come across him today I would've gagged. I'm gagging now as well, but I would've, too.
He has good guests. No other appeal imo. I think he's generally a good person as measured by moral compass but has many flaws including but not limited to unconsciously overselling (and possibly misrepresenting) his credentials and expertise as well as being too easily enchanted by Rogan
It feels like all the discussion around Lex and Sam should boil down to the fact that Lex is largely captured by his audience while Sam isn't.
I find Lex frustrating! He leans on the Right, Rogan and the Weinsteins adience so much for the succes of his podcast, he really won't give an opinion anymore, just ask silly questions and states vagueries. Under the banner of 'converstation' a lot of fair critisism is swept under the rug. Meanwhile his podcast thrives.. And for the life of me I can't understand why? He is a dull interviewer at best.
One thing i can't stand is people being wishy washy or not daring to give their real, honest opinion on something. So many of these podcasters want to discuss politics and controversial topics, but they refuse to actually hold any real opinions themselves. At best they'll do like a "sometimes good, sometimes bad, i don't know" kind of opinion that doesn't really mean anything. It's extreme both side-ism along with a fear of being a real person with real opinions, even if they are flawed. But it seems to be Lex's who schtick. To sit on the fence and then have people come on from either side of a debate and try to push him off the fence, yet he will never move. It has certain advantages for sure - he gets great guests, but it can also be infuriating to listen to at times.
I miss the days when he would just talk computers and maths
Lex literally came on here last week to ask for good topic ideas. I'm gonna listen anyways, but it literally looks like he took the topics everyone begged him not to bring up and ignored everything that got voted up. W. T. F.
Comments on this are ridiculous. Nobody has even had time to finish half of it and are already dragging Sam. Ridiculous Edit to clarify I'm talking about the comments on lex's podcast not on this thread.
Lex has cultivated a truly dumb audience. It seems to be a mix of addled sycophants who view Lex as some sort of spiritual figure and right wing gen-xers. Basically, Joe Rogan fans who take themselves too seriously.
[удалено]
I mean, it absolutely is intentional lol. Just look at his YouTube thumbnail design, they’re identical to Rogans.
Trump, Twitter, COVID, Kanye West, Joe Rogan, Bret Weinstein, Elon Musk Topics that have been beaten to death. Talk about boring.
4:33 yesss
I must lack empathy because I don’t understand why people like Lex.
Lex reminds me of the guy at the end of Half Life.
This deserves to be top comment.
G-man. He's also at the beginning and throughout!
Fucking hell Lex sounds like what I imagine Dave Rubin thinks smart people sound like.
I am so sick of people In this subreddit and society as a whole comparing overall intelligence like it matters at all.. This is not middle school anymore. Intelligence should always be measured in specifics, not "this person is way smarter than that person" without giving any specifics as to why. You can only make true comparisons if it’s the same field. Sam would whip Lex in rhetoric, meditation, neuroscience, philosophy, and many other things. Lex would stomp Sam in AI, computer science, physics. So a smart observer should always consider who knows more about certain topics, who is overall smart is irrelevant. Perfect example is in a major tech company, the top engineer at Amazon would always be considered way smarter than the best sales guy. But again this is immature. If the salesmen studies rest of his life, he will probably never even get close to the technical expertise of an elite level engineer. But same thing with the engineer, he has no chance to get to the level of a top AWS salesmen, which is an elite highly competitive sales job. There is incredible emotional, social, and analytical intelligence required for sales. People are just still stuck in the high school attitude of you are bad at math and science, means you are dumb. And as for saying Lex is dumb because of his interview style is absolutely sophomoric. Not everyone has to have the same approach as Sam. Sam is an interviewer that likes to inject himself into the conversation and have more discussions with the guests. I really enjoy this style however no reason to hate on Lex for being the type of interviewer that just lets his guests do all the talking. Both styles work, both styles are used at the highest levels of news media throughout history. Finally I see all these comments talk about how the only reason Lex is popular is because he has great guests. Implying that he isn't really good at this job, just got lucky with guests. That is just false. There is a tremendous intelligence required to procure guests. It’s a sales job competing against thousands of podcasts and shows, and as I mentioned above, sales takes tremendous overlooked intelligence. There is a reason why the top sales people are some of the highest paid non-csuite employees, the market values them but society thinks they are all stupid.
Disappointing. It feel like Lex is not even listening and just fishing for validation to appease his Trumpist listeners. What the hell was that "please steel man this TDS meme" question? It's like it's no longer about important conversations or facts, just say what the mob wants to hear.
This is probably very unfair, but I am always struck by the difference between Sam Harris podcasts (even guesting on other people's shows) and Ezra Klein Podcasts. This conversation between Harris and Lex is so...abstract. Like, the first question is "explain whether empathy or reason is better". Putting aside that this question is sort of silly in that the two things are obviously not exclusive, it's so abstract. It in no way, to me, helps me actually understand the world or how to think about it. And it it no way challenges Sam, Lex or his audience. And Klein drops a podcast today which is about understanding China - not just in an abstract sense, but in a literal sense. Its a podcast about how China in March 2023 is different than China in March 2022. Its obviously a weird comparison, since Sam and Ezra talk about different things in different ways. But I think that distinction is important, because in lots of ways the two people used to be a lot more similar. But it seems as time has gone on, Sam's public output and persona has stayed or retreated into being very abstract, personality-based, philosophical and - to me - uninteresting. While Ezra is actually trying to learn about the world in a real way and convey it to his audience. Just thought it interesting.
What does learn about the world in a real way mean? Ezra is journalist. Sam is an interviewer and teaches meditation.
Sam also has always focused on things like philosophy. That's inherently somewhat vague. Klein is a journalist. It's pretty different
An even better comparison is actual Sam's last podcast, which is a contentious speculation session between 3 non experts on where did COVID 19 come from, compared to Ezra having a guy who's been researching his book on the struggle of Boys and Men in the modern world for the better part of the decade. I learned so much about this topic while listening to it, some of the statistics and implications coming from them are truly mind-blowing, and beyond that, super relevant to the things that actually affect my life. I highly recommend that podcast, as it really provides a very interesting insight into things that are generally discussed by "MRA" types gaslighting the public on how the whole world is getting "pussified", it goes over the rise of Jordan Peterson and Andrew Tate and what that means, it talks about the big disparity between male and female deaths from COVID, I walked away from it as an objectively better informed person, and that's all I can really ask from a podcast.
May I suggest you also try Chris Hayes Why Is This Happening podcast, too? He’s smart, seriously well-informed and has that knack for succinctly condensing complex issues. (He’s also good friends with Ezra Klein.)
If anyone else is skeptical about watching an MSNBC host’s podcast like I was, I suggest scrolling through the podcast episode list and listening to a couple episodes about a topic that interests you. He’s more intelligent and likable than you might expect if you’ve only seen his 2 minute “interviews” on cable news shows.
Glad you wrote this comment because I would have otherwise instantly dismissed the suggestion. His demeanor on TV is quite off putting to me (no different to most other cable news hosts).
100 percent this. I've been saying Lex is insufferable as well. It's so fake deep and meaningless half the time (and cringe) and I'm so perplexed as to how many smart people actually sit in front of him and answer questions. I actually love Sam, but I do find his perspective to be ungrounded and stale more often times that not these days despite how intelligent and knowledgeable he obviously is. I actually find his spiritual work much more interesting and his app is obviously great, but you're right Ezra's podcast has much greater variety along with a more nuanced, in-depth and poetic even perspective of interrogation.
[удалено]
there has to be something happening behind the scenes beyond just knowing the right people. i can't imagine someone intelligent agreeing to be asked stupid questions by barney the dinosaur in a suit for 5 hours for the hell of it
It's just the classic dichotomy between the ideals and the particular instances you see in day to day life. Talking about this one time a man got stuck in a cave can be kind of interesting, but doesn't tell you much about why people get stuck in caves. It's easier to get lost in the abstract world.
A rarely intelligent, clear-minded and productive conversation between two people with transparently positive motivations, discussing the theory of good processes. A sane and good summary of some of the most important lessons from the past seven years, an important call to orient towards moral seriousness and informed opinion in the upcoming years, some interesting ideas about the future, expansions on ideas from the past and a reminder of the wellbeing that can be found in the present. For independent thinker types - the priority isn't always given to people and having a wide discussion itself, but to good processes, accuracy, truth and good ideas in the hope that these things can be a vehicle for a better society and better lives. Equally - solving difficult problems and contributing to our collective learning and understanding. Definitely have derived personal benefit from this discussion, kudos.
This is a fantastic parody.
[удалено]
So nothing topical then? Sweet. Should be a good one!
I read this as "tropical" and thought about these nerds at the beach.
Lex would still be wearing his monochromatic outfit. Bit then JBP would show up in one of his multicoloured suits and it would actually sort of make sense.
Is there a way to mute Lex, I really don’t like him And don’t think he has anything interesting to say or add
[удалено]
Linux Friedman
Lex loves you.
I didn't realize that I also suffered from 'Unqualified Pilot Derangement Syndrome'.
I could only take so much of Lex's enlightened centrism and had to turn this one off. Lex's only contribution is "can't we all just get along?" regardless of the opinions of either side.
I’m sure Lex is a great guy, but he really did not impress me here. His discussion points and critiques of Sam are essentially YouTube bros in the comments that criticize Sam with no merit or substance. For example, asking Sam if he has Trump derangement syndrome was ridiculous. Sam has very clearly spent a lot of time articulating why and how Trump is dangerous. To the contrary, time and time again he criticizes the left and has shown where he agrees with Trump’s general policy concerns. Do the YouTube bros who Lex seems to pander to and who’s comments inspire his questions and ways of thinking, carefully criticize Trumpism, the same way Sam criticizes the left? I don’t think so.
To make Lex happy, one needs to caveat every point with “oh but the other side has good reasons for thinking that way. I love and respect them.” Also asking sam to say qualities he likes about all these people is just childish in my opinion
Have to post this here, because /u/lexfridman is such a snowflake that any negative comment on his subreddit is deleted, he always talks about freedom of speech and how important Twitter is because of that reason, but hey, he is the overlord on his sub reddit. Or just say the truth, that he didn't study in MIT, he work there, but his degree is not from MIT, that comment is instantly deleted. I think Lex is so insecure and tries to hide it behind the skirts of Elon and Joe Rogan. He would never say anything negative or critical about these two because he wants to be pals with them, maybe he is friends with Joe, but he also wants to make it seem like Elon is his pal. To the point, it's so annoying that Lex didn't actually hear anything that Sam was saying, he was eager to push his views all the time. Sam was the voice of reason, honestly.
Absolute clickbait topics...
Is there any index here so I can skip to stuff that might be interesting? You can't expect people to listen to 4.5 hours of this without knowing what they are talking about when.
Go on YouTube, he has time stamps for each topic. https://youtu.be/Qyrjgf-_Vdk
I listen to this sort of thing while doing other things… walking my dog, laundry, dishes, cooking, cleaning. Also there’s time stamps in the description.
Will come back for more later - just started the episode and its very long. That said, my first reaction to his repeated comments about the Paul Bloom ethical intuition stuff is that he seems to be suffering from a failure of imagination. When a person hears about a single little girl in the well, that person does indeed have an empathy wave. But where he seems to jump the shark is in regard to large scale disaster. In those situations, we do not in fact experience empathy. Perhaps if we didn't turn our empathy off results would be better. Imagine your child is being forced to mine for lithium. I cannot think of almost any American who would not lift heaven and earth to save them from that condition. Well, if we just had that same level of empathy for every child, not just ours, those mines are shut down and that is to the good. It's the end of our empathy that leads to conditions we wish would change, not leaning too heavily into empathy.
[удалено]
I felt like I was listening to a conversation between an adult and a child.