Great conversation!!! I want to challenge Chris’s version of the Peter Gabriel story. In my experience, every time I’ve thought, ‘That person surely thought I was an idiot in that moment,’ it turned out not to be true when I asked them later. But ironically, on some occasions when I didn’t think I came off badly, I did. And whenever people say to me, ‘Oh my God, you must have thought I was an idiot when I said that,’ I usually didn’t think that at all. I think that especially when it comes to people we don’t know well we have no idea how they perceive us. Or is it just me and other people actually have the ability to accurately guess what someone they just met thinks of them? I really believe it’s all just stories we make up in our heads.
Great conversation. One of the ones that tests my mind and forces me to sit and think for 10-15 minutes after the episode.
I sat there racking my brain for what exactly I was resistant to, and I couldn’t place it.
I was annoyed at how Jeff said “Joe was into Covid-Home-Remedy’s”. I highly doubt Jeff listened to any of those pods and got that impression from the media attack that was thrown Joes way b/c the pharmaceutical companies that fund those media companies didn’t like that Joe had on guests that were attempting to disseminate the cloud of confusion around COVID.
But, Jeff is a great guy. This was a great conversation. And I really enjoy his perspective. So why do I care about his view on that particular thing?
I guess I feel like it was Big Pharma, Big Corporate Media, and Censorship vs. Joe Rogan (and him having guests like Robert Malone on when no one else would and he was banned on Twitter for saying the virus leaked from a lab, when that has been proven to be a fact at this moment). And then, when someone discounts that, I guess that’s why it annoys me.
I feel deeply passionate about conversation. I want people to understand each other. To make things simpler than they probably are: there is good and evil in this world -> good people should be able to understand where the other is coming from because ultimately the good want the same thing -> to be happy, to love, and to have a good life for themselves and those they cherish. Somehow, the powers that be have done a great job clouding this arena of discourse.
Thanks for your comment. Very thoughtful. However, to my knowledge, it has not “been proven” that the virus leaked from the lab. I’ve read strong arguments on both sides of that issue as late as this past week. It’s still a very open question.
Okay, may not be “proven as fact”, but clearly the most likely hypothesis. In gambling terms I’d put it at -5000.
And, early in 2020 it was demonized and seen as not even worthy of investigation as if the odds were +10000 and anyone who publicly discusses it should be stripped of their right to do so.
Even now, I guarantee there are people who will read my comment as scoff, roll their eyes, and come to many other conclusions about me that they are certain of. That’s what saddens me. I am a rational guy and I’m simply sharing what i believe to be the truth based on the facts presented to me.
I guess that’s kind of the problem? That I’m the one diagnosing truth whereas truth should be an objective element of reality? Or not? I don’t know.
But I do know this - I refuse to outsource my thinking to “experts”. I have personal experience that has unequivocally shown that to be foolish for any thinking intelligent being (doctors telling me I “needed surgery”). But at the same time, I need individuals with expertise to convey information to me - that’s the benefit of division of labor.
There is some middle ground there.
There is also some need for objective truth.
But at the same time, we know so little about this reality. We could be living in a simulation (go ahead, scoff!). Take enough psychedelic substance and you will know exactly what I mean.
Like you said in this episode:
“Admire those who seek the truth, but be weary of those who claim to have found it.”
So, is objective truth a good thing? Is it something to be admired? Or is it a belief like everything else, just waiting to be proved incorrect?
Do we need truth to have rational discussion?
Idk, just spitballing. Feels good to get it down on “paper” and out of my head though.
I often hear Rogan being praised for how "curious" he is. I think it's true but I also think It's become one of his biggest weaknesses. More specifically he loves to be in a state of wonder. The problem is, to wonder about something requires, almost by definition, a minimal amount of information about the subject. As a person gains knowledge on a subject the magic begins to melt away. Rogan loves to marvel at the mysteriousness of giant lion killing apes or an isolated population of massive wolves.
When the wolf expert told him those massive wolves were actually ordinary wolves, you could see disappointment in his eyes. And those giant chimp/gorilla hybrids? They are eastern chimpanzees with the peculiar habit of making nests on the ground. The proof that these Bili apes hunt lions? One chimp was observed eating a dead leopard. Vultures do the same thing...
It's much more exciting to imagine alternatives. And therein lies the problem. This constant need for magic means Rogan is drawn towards conspiracies. Even when Rogan is made aware that something he was enthusiastic about was not true he'll say things like "man, I really wanted that to be true."
I've been thinking about the idea that anything said through the vehicle of comedy should be beyond reproach or critique. On the one hand, I don't think this is completely true. I think about Daniele Everett's concept of culture. To him culture is formed by constant feedback loops between everyone in that culture. It's dynamic and even if it's not changing, these feedback loops are still firing at 100% to maintain the present form. A comedian on stage isn't just telling jokes. He's participating, perhaps at a higher intensity, in the propagation of these inputs and outputs of information. So in that sense, a joke is not just a joke. Comedians are conveying what they deem as trivial, acceptable, and taboo elements of culture. With enough time this feedback reshapes culture for better or worse. These shifts can have real world impacts even if it is "just a joke."
More specifically to comedy, this topic always makes me think of Ricky Gervais and George Carlin. Ricky likes to hammer trans people (as do many comedians). I've never understood this fixation. The trans community certainly isn't oppressing comedians and it feels like comedians are choosing to punch down. It reminds me of George Carlin stating that traditionally comedians have always targeted people in power and people that have abused their power. They punched up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8yV8xUorQ8
Ricky's response to that line of thinking is "who decides which way is up and which way is down." It's a pretty genius and immediately disarming response. I started wondering if George's assertion was true. I found a book called Fools Are Everywhere: The Court Jester around the World. This 400 page behemoth cost me $40. At some point I'll sit down and read it. Everyone's making claims about the history of comedy, and its place in society, but I bet most people's knowledge starts fading beyond 100 years ago. Although, I wouldn't bet against Carlin.
Wow. Really interesting thoughts. I imagine Gervais would say that his purpose isn't to ridicule trans people per se, but to ridicule the cultural forces that require that everyone agree that "trans women are women," which is obviously not true -- but to acknowledge that someone born in a man's body can never be EXACTLY the same as someone born in a woman's body is deemed "trans phobic" by these forces. So, clearly punching up, from that framing.
I think you're spot on with your theory of cultural feedback loops, but I wonder how it works when "cultures" are leaking into one another. Maybe this is part of the problem we're facing. When Lady Gaga is huge in Brazil, what culture is reinforcing what?
Lastly, I think your insight into Rogan's appetite for wonder is so true. I'm sure we all have it to some extent, but he lives to be amazed. I've felt the energy drop when something he wants to be true is exposed as untrue. Palpable disappointment.
I get that sentiment, I even share it to an extent. When I'm asked what my pronouns are, my immediate reaction is "what the fuck, it should be obvious." The part that I honestly don't understand is the need to engage in the conversation and hammer the point home when a simple eye roll is as much energy as I would burn on the topic. Don't get me wrong, I get why right wingers hammer away at the point. It's a vehicle to demand conformity to their version of cultural norms. But for the rest of us, unless we are participating in women's sports or maybe actually believe that the children are being corrupted, there's no reason to bat an eye (other than the fact that some people can get loud and annoying defending the issue). The amount of people it directly affects is trivial compared to other diseases, situations, and travesties. When people start talking about mind viruses etc. to me it's kind of a tell that it's less about the biology of humans and more about cultural beliefs. I get all that, I just don't get how it became such a popular topic for mainstream and seemingly non-political comedians. It's a little strange.
On Ricky Gervais in particular, I think he just likes to push buttons but also I've realized that he has something going on where he needs a punching bag by his side. He always manages to find someone in his orbit that he can assign the position. In the early days it was Robin Ince.
And when Robin went away Ricky found Karl Pilkington. Both of them are intelligent guys but they were everyday people that Ricky could constantly heckle.
It's similar to how the Russian Tsar Nicholas and his wife Alexandra needed a con man mystic to feel safe so when the people ran Monsieur Philippe out of town Tsar and his missus reeled in Rasputin. I'm sure Ricky would despise that comparison but it's what pops into my mind.
Comedian Gary Shandling must have seen through Ricky's nonsense early because when he was a guest on Ricky's old show he created probably one of the most cringeworthy awkward situations to purposely knock Ricky down a peg.
When I first saw the video I thought Gary was an asshole. But after seeing all the Robin Ince and Karl Pilkington videos I realize he was brilliantly trolling Ricky and showing him what it was like to be on the other end of the equation.
Great conversation, and I definitely like Jeff's cut of his jib.
Like I wrote in that other Substack piece you wrote, to pretend Rogan is still the same podcaster who's only interested in having a conversation with the likes of Trump and Musk (like the ones he has with his comedian buddies in the back of a comedy club) is like believing Mick Jagger is still wearing the same jeans he used to buy when he was a poor singer in the UK. They may look the same when you look him perform in front of an audience of 50,000 fans, but that's a $2000 dollar deluxe denim pair of jeans hand dyed and sold exclusively in Italy, son.
And I'm sure everyone could have had a nice little half-an-hour chat with Hitler, if you stuck to talking about how cool German Shepherds are, and skipped the Jews and the Russian front.
Great episode. Jeff is a warrior. I really appreciate the discussion about meeting the audience’s “wants”. I believe that to be a fundamentally religious question.
There are three aspects to a work of art. The inspiration, the artist, and the audience. I believe there is some balance to be found there. Doing art to meet the perceived audience demands leads to a echo chambery type of work (i.e. John Oliver). If the artist has too much power then you get cult leaders. If the inspiration or “narrative” has too much power then you get something like Salafi Islam or fundamentalist Mormons.
Chris played this song a while back and I think it is on point about this topic.
Really enjoyed this one. Nice a hear a conversation with a very smart guy who is a nuanced thinker with a healthy amount of uncertainty.
Great conversation!!! I want to challenge Chris’s version of the Peter Gabriel story. In my experience, every time I’ve thought, ‘That person surely thought I was an idiot in that moment,’ it turned out not to be true when I asked them later. But ironically, on some occasions when I didn’t think I came off badly, I did. And whenever people say to me, ‘Oh my God, you must have thought I was an idiot when I said that,’ I usually didn’t think that at all. I think that especially when it comes to people we don’t know well we have no idea how they perceive us. Or is it just me and other people actually have the ability to accurately guess what someone they just met thinks of them? I really believe it’s all just stories we make up in our heads.
I'm waiting for Peter Gabriel to write a song about the idiot he sat next to at TED....
😂😂😂
Great conversation. One of the ones that tests my mind and forces me to sit and think for 10-15 minutes after the episode.
I sat there racking my brain for what exactly I was resistant to, and I couldn’t place it.
I was annoyed at how Jeff said “Joe was into Covid-Home-Remedy’s”. I highly doubt Jeff listened to any of those pods and got that impression from the media attack that was thrown Joes way b/c the pharmaceutical companies that fund those media companies didn’t like that Joe had on guests that were attempting to disseminate the cloud of confusion around COVID.
But, Jeff is a great guy. This was a great conversation. And I really enjoy his perspective. So why do I care about his view on that particular thing?
I guess I feel like it was Big Pharma, Big Corporate Media, and Censorship vs. Joe Rogan (and him having guests like Robert Malone on when no one else would and he was banned on Twitter for saying the virus leaked from a lab, when that has been proven to be a fact at this moment). And then, when someone discounts that, I guess that’s why it annoys me.
I feel deeply passionate about conversation. I want people to understand each other. To make things simpler than they probably are: there is good and evil in this world -> good people should be able to understand where the other is coming from because ultimately the good want the same thing -> to be happy, to love, and to have a good life for themselves and those they cherish. Somehow, the powers that be have done a great job clouding this arena of discourse.
Thanks for your comment. Very thoughtful. However, to my knowledge, it has not “been proven” that the virus leaked from the lab. I’ve read strong arguments on both sides of that issue as late as this past week. It’s still a very open question.
Okay, may not be “proven as fact”, but clearly the most likely hypothesis. In gambling terms I’d put it at -5000.
And, early in 2020 it was demonized and seen as not even worthy of investigation as if the odds were +10000 and anyone who publicly discusses it should be stripped of their right to do so.
Even now, I guarantee there are people who will read my comment as scoff, roll their eyes, and come to many other conclusions about me that they are certain of. That’s what saddens me. I am a rational guy and I’m simply sharing what i believe to be the truth based on the facts presented to me.
I guess that’s kind of the problem? That I’m the one diagnosing truth whereas truth should be an objective element of reality? Or not? I don’t know.
But I do know this - I refuse to outsource my thinking to “experts”. I have personal experience that has unequivocally shown that to be foolish for any thinking intelligent being (doctors telling me I “needed surgery”). But at the same time, I need individuals with expertise to convey information to me - that’s the benefit of division of labor.
There is some middle ground there.
There is also some need for objective truth.
But at the same time, we know so little about this reality. We could be living in a simulation (go ahead, scoff!). Take enough psychedelic substance and you will know exactly what I mean.
Like you said in this episode:
“Admire those who seek the truth, but be weary of those who claim to have found it.”
So, is objective truth a good thing? Is it something to be admired? Or is it a belief like everything else, just waiting to be proved incorrect?
Do we need truth to have rational discussion?
Idk, just spitballing. Feels good to get it down on “paper” and out of my head though.
I often hear Rogan being praised for how "curious" he is. I think it's true but I also think It's become one of his biggest weaknesses. More specifically he loves to be in a state of wonder. The problem is, to wonder about something requires, almost by definition, a minimal amount of information about the subject. As a person gains knowledge on a subject the magic begins to melt away. Rogan loves to marvel at the mysteriousness of giant lion killing apes or an isolated population of massive wolves.
When the wolf expert told him those massive wolves were actually ordinary wolves, you could see disappointment in his eyes. And those giant chimp/gorilla hybrids? They are eastern chimpanzees with the peculiar habit of making nests on the ground. The proof that these Bili apes hunt lions? One chimp was observed eating a dead leopard. Vultures do the same thing...
It's much more exciting to imagine alternatives. And therein lies the problem. This constant need for magic means Rogan is drawn towards conspiracies. Even when Rogan is made aware that something he was enthusiastic about was not true he'll say things like "man, I really wanted that to be true."
I've been thinking about the idea that anything said through the vehicle of comedy should be beyond reproach or critique. On the one hand, I don't think this is completely true. I think about Daniele Everett's concept of culture. To him culture is formed by constant feedback loops between everyone in that culture. It's dynamic and even if it's not changing, these feedback loops are still firing at 100% to maintain the present form. A comedian on stage isn't just telling jokes. He's participating, perhaps at a higher intensity, in the propagation of these inputs and outputs of information. So in that sense, a joke is not just a joke. Comedians are conveying what they deem as trivial, acceptable, and taboo elements of culture. With enough time this feedback reshapes culture for better or worse. These shifts can have real world impacts even if it is "just a joke."
More specifically to comedy, this topic always makes me think of Ricky Gervais and George Carlin. Ricky likes to hammer trans people (as do many comedians). I've never understood this fixation. The trans community certainly isn't oppressing comedians and it feels like comedians are choosing to punch down. It reminds me of George Carlin stating that traditionally comedians have always targeted people in power and people that have abused their power. They punched up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8yV8xUorQ8
Ricky's response to that line of thinking is "who decides which way is up and which way is down." It's a pretty genius and immediately disarming response. I started wondering if George's assertion was true. I found a book called Fools Are Everywhere: The Court Jester around the World. This 400 page behemoth cost me $40. At some point I'll sit down and read it. Everyone's making claims about the history of comedy, and its place in society, but I bet most people's knowledge starts fading beyond 100 years ago. Although, I wouldn't bet against Carlin.
Wow. Really interesting thoughts. I imagine Gervais would say that his purpose isn't to ridicule trans people per se, but to ridicule the cultural forces that require that everyone agree that "trans women are women," which is obviously not true -- but to acknowledge that someone born in a man's body can never be EXACTLY the same as someone born in a woman's body is deemed "trans phobic" by these forces. So, clearly punching up, from that framing.
I think you're spot on with your theory of cultural feedback loops, but I wonder how it works when "cultures" are leaking into one another. Maybe this is part of the problem we're facing. When Lady Gaga is huge in Brazil, what culture is reinforcing what?
Lastly, I think your insight into Rogan's appetite for wonder is so true. I'm sure we all have it to some extent, but he lives to be amazed. I've felt the energy drop when something he wants to be true is exposed as untrue. Palpable disappointment.
I get that sentiment, I even share it to an extent. When I'm asked what my pronouns are, my immediate reaction is "what the fuck, it should be obvious." The part that I honestly don't understand is the need to engage in the conversation and hammer the point home when a simple eye roll is as much energy as I would burn on the topic. Don't get me wrong, I get why right wingers hammer away at the point. It's a vehicle to demand conformity to their version of cultural norms. But for the rest of us, unless we are participating in women's sports or maybe actually believe that the children are being corrupted, there's no reason to bat an eye (other than the fact that some people can get loud and annoying defending the issue). The amount of people it directly affects is trivial compared to other diseases, situations, and travesties. When people start talking about mind viruses etc. to me it's kind of a tell that it's less about the biology of humans and more about cultural beliefs. I get all that, I just don't get how it became such a popular topic for mainstream and seemingly non-political comedians. It's a little strange.
On Ricky Gervais in particular, I think he just likes to push buttons but also I've realized that he has something going on where he needs a punching bag by his side. He always manages to find someone in his orbit that he can assign the position. In the early days it was Robin Ince.
https://youtu.be/Qn-SZQ9-blU?si=dJFYThqmJwJRuZqW
Robin actually has an interesting discussion about all of these topics:
https://youtu.be/-agpiKNDgO4?si=AhQnRcRoaUtdokav&t=5400
And when Robin went away Ricky found Karl Pilkington. Both of them are intelligent guys but they were everyday people that Ricky could constantly heckle.
It's similar to how the Russian Tsar Nicholas and his wife Alexandra needed a con man mystic to feel safe so when the people ran Monsieur Philippe out of town Tsar and his missus reeled in Rasputin. I'm sure Ricky would despise that comparison but it's what pops into my mind.
Comedian Gary Shandling must have seen through Ricky's nonsense early because when he was a guest on Ricky's old show he created probably one of the most cringeworthy awkward situations to purposely knock Ricky down a peg.
https://youtu.be/Qrg89rvtZ1k?si=FhJD5TQj-878hOKg
When I first saw the video I thought Gary was an asshole. But after seeing all the Robin Ince and Karl Pilkington videos I realize he was brilliantly trolling Ricky and showing him what it was like to be on the other end of the equation.
DC c c xc🙏
Great conversation, and I definitely like Jeff's cut of his jib.
Like I wrote in that other Substack piece you wrote, to pretend Rogan is still the same podcaster who's only interested in having a conversation with the likes of Trump and Musk (like the ones he has with his comedian buddies in the back of a comedy club) is like believing Mick Jagger is still wearing the same jeans he used to buy when he was a poor singer in the UK. They may look the same when you look him perform in front of an audience of 50,000 fans, but that's a $2000 dollar deluxe denim pair of jeans hand dyed and sold exclusively in Italy, son.
And I'm sure everyone could have had a nice little half-an-hour chat with Hitler, if you stuck to talking about how cool German Shepherds are, and skipped the Jews and the Russian front.
Greetings,
Tumacacori, AZ has my favorite Mexican food spot. Wisdoms Cafe is the name. Used to go with my grandparents who live in Green Valley, AZ.
Thanks, Megs. We'll try to check it out.
Doc Ryan, I don’t think you have recorded any video podcast interviews in a while. Any coming soon?
I record them, but stopped posting because very few people watched them.
Word
Great episode. Jeff is a warrior. I really appreciate the discussion about meeting the audience’s “wants”. I believe that to be a fundamentally religious question.
There are three aspects to a work of art. The inspiration, the artist, and the audience. I believe there is some balance to be found there. Doing art to meet the perceived audience demands leads to a echo chambery type of work (i.e. John Oliver). If the artist has too much power then you get cult leaders. If the inspiration or “narrative” has too much power then you get something like Salafi Islam or fundamentalist Mormons.
Chris played this song a while back and I think it is on point about this topic.
https://youtu.be/4I6J3S-RkHA?si=A--clv0H_ylNdHVx
Great pic, I haven’t listened yet but this guy looks like a warrior.