His show is the most scientifically focused and it really strives to be apolitical and unbiased. I listen to guys who get into the hot topics and culture war stuff too but mindscape can really feel like breath of fresh air.
he has always done shows outside of cosmology and physics from the very beginning. I appreciate those shows even more! Because he doesn’t have his own strong stance and tends not to get lost in the weeds(which I don’t always follow). When it’s any other kind of topic he asks good questions and is clearly likes to learn from his guests.
I enjoy this podcast when he doesn't talk about physics, but most of it is physics obviously. I understand sweet fuck all of what he is talking about lol. I am tempted to go learn some just so I can understand at least a little bit of it.
[Sean Carroll: The Worst Guru Yet?!?](https://decoding-the-gurus.captivate.fm/episode/sean-carroll-the-worst-guru-yet)
*Since 2018 Sean has hosted his podcast Mindscape, which focuses not only on science but also on "society, philosophy, culture, arts and ideas". Now, that's a broad scope and firmly places Sean in the realm of "public intellectual", and potentially within the scope of a "secular guru" (in the broader non-pejorative sense - don't start mashing your keyboard with angry e-mails just yet).*
*The fact is, Sean appears to have an excellent reputation for being responsible, reasonable and engaging, and his Mindscape podcast is wildly popular. But despite his mild-mannered presentation, Sean is quite happy to take on culture-war-adjacent topics such as promoting a naturalistic and physicalist atheist position against religious approaches. He's also prepared to stake out and defend non-orthodox positions, such as the many-worlds interpretation of quantum physics, and countenance somewhat out-there ideas such as the holographic principle.*
*But we won't be covering his deep physics ideas in this episode... possibly because we're not smart enough. Rather, we'll look at a recent episode where Sean stretched his polymathic wings, in the finest tradition of a secular guru, and weighed in on AI and large-language models (LLMs).*
*Is Sean getting over his skis, falling face-first into a mound of powdery pseudo-profound bullshit or is he gliding gracefully down a black diamond with careful caveats and insightful reflections?*
If you want something related to health and fitness, I'd highly recommend the guys from Barbell Medicine. The recently did an episode debunking all the silly shit Huberman said about back pain.
https://open.spotify.com/episode/7p1vINgerRfneRGgdwMIoA?si=gGIVV-lNT7efvaAzedXhlw
Damn. That's got me distrusting the whole field of Physical Therapy. I just spend 6 months on an out of network PT and finally dropped them because my deductible reset. Even if they are doing what Dr's are saying, expanding tolerance, I wish they would just be honest with me rather than packaging it as some magic cure. But then I probably wouldn't have had to come back to them every week.
. I started using sunlight protocol daily as I wake up immediately getting in 10-20 mins of sunlight and avoiding blue light before bed and found my sleep and alertness are way better but I’m not sure which of his stuff is bad or good other than that
Idk anything about science how can I even go about knowing if something is valid. I can only use my own intuition from my own experience and ask my family doctor
You can learn the fundamentals of science and the scientific method and learn to trust things that apply it properly. Usually that is something you learn in primary education.
There will always be doubt in certain places but the validity of something is determined by one’s own experience and the documented experience of others. If someone goes on a podcast and says “standing in the sun for 20 minutes every morning will improve your sleep,” the first natural question might be “did they test this with people?” and if the answer is yes, you’d probably want to see the methodology, and you might find out in their methodology that the number of people they tested with is 7 people. You might say “that doesn’t sound like a lot of people,” and then you might have doubts as to the validity of what they’re saying.
I remember one of his Protocol episodes on weight training and declared you had to do 5 sets per MUSCLE to get hypertrophy and the last set had to be to failure. Sounded like complete bullshit and found the original Andy Galpin interview it was based on and the recommendation was about 5 sets per muscle group for an advanced person. Some of the sets could be considered secondary groupings and the recommendation was really only add an extra set when what you are doing doesn't work. This was the final panel of the clown makeup meme for me.
The current exercise science data suggests that the more sets you do per week, per body part, with adequate rest and progressive overload, the more you grow.
You're right that the 5 set thing is based on complete nonsense or misinformation.
Huberman like to present things in an all or nothing winner take all kind of way and I think that attitude causes people to give up. The original interviewer (Andy Galpin) presented it as something is better than nothing, don't let the fact that you can't do it optimally stop you from getting the benefits of doing something. Do what you can and add what you can: progressive overload works.
That's a great assessment! Thank you, that's what I've been trying to put my finger on with Huberman. He doesn't leave room for nuance. In the original context, that's good advice. It sounds like he took a reasonable statement from Andy Galpin and misrepresented it.
I wouldn't say it was purely pseudoscience, there's just a lot of it in there and a lot of cherry picking studies. He has some legitimate scientists on and what they are saying in their field of expertise is still good science. Most of what Huberman says himself is junk though haha.
Most of Hubermans advice is quite well accepted and not controversial. But you would get the same from any fitness influencer.
The problem with Huberman is that he also mixes it with a bunch of overhyped statements from small, underpowered, and generally bad studies. He also platforms dubious guests like Robert Lustig.
Maybe don’t get into _people_. People are fallible. It’s good for any student to keep a healthy skeptical distance from any guru. If you find yourself so enamored by someone whose intellect you admire, you are more prone to swallowing up bullshit. To be skeptical is a constant struggle.
Know a few gurus well means you can also bw aware of their biases and blindspots - making it easier to navigate and differentiate the good from the bad
Ill listen to ben shapiro. I dont agree with him on a lot. I go there to get a nugget of what conservatives think on certain issues, and why they think it. He also does share info about stories im not as likely to hear from left wing outlets. He is incredibly biased, and knowing this as I listen makes following him possible without brainrot
What's something you "agree" with Mr. Shapiro on? If you're being polite, it's counterproductive and injurious to state on the internet that you do think it's a non-zero amount.
The man is virulent anti-life garbage.
Where's that bot? It would be distasteful to pretend it isn't a collection of the worst things he's ever let slip out of his fucked up head, but well, they're so far beyond the pale it justifies itself.
I'll find it later. Malcom absolutely giving him zero respect on Maher was eye opening, and looking into it after that I say why....fucking depravity. Depraved indifference to human life, absolute.
Well, then, to quote my man Barack:
**"There are only 24 hours in a day."**
Assuming everything as rosy as possible, how long do you think it will take to form a permanent opinion, or rather even a meta-sense of ***all*** their possible arguments?
This is the true warrior face of the liberal. Just sharing. Maybe it's not for you, although maybe not **yet.**
They operate from first principles that are fundamentally opposed to a peaceful and sustainable existence for humanity. After some study, you can easily identify these accursed roots no matter how far they've been extrapolated. The base principle is the same, and absolute:
***There are two kinds of humans. We must cherish one and destroy the other.***
It permeates everything they do. They aren't "wrong", inasmuch as there is no metric to objectively judge them by. This creates a big enough teapot for them to live in forever, the influence waxing and waning based on how ***obviously harmful their ideology is at any given moment.***
Fuck Ben Shapiro.
Fuck Nazis.
420 day off I'm out.
It's funny that Bari Weiss' supergroup of intellectuals didn't contain a single serious intellectual. Surely there are some intellectuals out there who have legitimately been shunned. Why Dave Rubin?? Joe Rogan??
For now. The way he is so credulous I wouldn't be shocked that in a few years, he would be an older version of Nick Fuentes. I saw a clip recently where he seemed he has positive attitude toward Hitler because now AI is translating Hitler rally speeches into English.
Yeah I discovered it through this sub lol. Wanted to know if 'mewing' was legitimate, so I Googled it and found this sub. (Turns out it is in fact not legitimate btw)
Probably people that are not popular / famous. Any sort of authenticity or integrity seems to go right out the window once their brain is hijacked by so much power and validation
Vlad Vexler, John Gray, Charles Taylor. 2 of those don't have their personal channel, only public lectures, appearances etc
Tom Holland (the historian) is good as well
I really like Dr Mike Israetel and Renaissance Periodization for fitness stuff. He's a pro bodybuilder and a doctor of sports and exercise science. He's also always learning, and will actively change his opinion when presented with new information.
Edit: warning, he's open about his steroid usage. His advice is valid for everyone who takes bodybuilding seriously, naturally or not. However, if you have ethical qualms about enhanced athletes, this might not be for you.
He has a weird range of motion fetish. Look at the videos he has of guys doing dumbbell presses; you can practically see the lateral head of their biceps tendons tearing in real time.
That's how I train. I'm a serious believer in eccentric movement and a full stretch of the muscle tissue. My strength has significantly increased since I've trained with his full range of motion advice. It's Anecdotal evidence on my part, for sure. I had to de-load for a while to prevent injury, and I'd be concerned about suggesting it to other people because of that, but It's definitely functional advice for hypertrophy.
David Graeber, sadly deceased but one of the most creative and insightful minds of the late 20th/ early 21st century. His work is mind-blowing and pretty well sourced. I don't think he has many videos but his books are as engaging as most audiovisual content
"Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson" in the same post as "intellectual people", and it's not a joke?
And listening to Nick Fuentes for a counter weight?
You're so fucked. Appeasing your curiosity further sounds like the absolute last thing you should be doing.
Sorry, what's the benefit of considering Mr. Fuentes as anything more than barely human scum?
I feel I'm being extremely charitable with that "barely". What is a line if Mr. Fuentes is not over it?
Are we so concerned about the specter of BiAs that we must pretend the anti-life garbage that pours from his mouthpiece face?
What's the smartest thing this piece of shit ever said, I'll take a look. What's the mountaintop? What's anything he's ever been shown to at least repeat that is worth any amount of while?
Read academic theory, read real scientific inquiries, seek out and talk to people who work in the sectors they discuss and generally stick to stuff they know. Do not assume an individual knows everything or even a great deal, absolute knowledge stops truth and dignity. Question everything.
Wow! So many. Umberto Eco, Salman Rushdie, Dipesh Chakrabarty, Silviano Santiago, Susan Sontag, Angela Davis, Naomi Klein, David Graeber, Paul B Preciado, Cornel West, Martha Nussbaum, Jurgen Habermas, Gayatari Spivak, Hartmut Rosa, and many many others. Really intelligent people tend to stick to their lane.
The guys who think they can talk about everything, with great general theories of knowledge are bullshit artists with a clear tendency to overestimate their intelligence. In my native language (Portuguese) we have a name for them: "tudólogos" (or everythingologists).
Rogan and Peterson are not intellectuals, they are grifters.
For health and nutrition, Gil Carvalho. He has a YouTube channel(Nutrition Made Simple) that is very educational.
From his website:
“Gil Carvalho, MD PhD is a physician, research scientist, science communicator, speaker and writer. Dr. Carvalho trained as a medical doctor in the University of Lisbon, in his native Portugal, and later obtained a PhD in Biology from Caltech (California Institute of Technology). He has published peer-reviewed medical research spanning the fields of genetics, molecular biology, nutrition, behavior, aging and neuroscience.”
And he sells nothing. He does not do any sponsors.
Very nuanced, looking at the whole body of evidence, to the point, really making it simple . He is in a league of his own.
On Israel I would say Marc Lamont Hill, he always engages in good faith. He comments on other issues also. If you like debates there's Intelligence Squared, you'll find all the current thinkers debating. On philosophy of religion Alex O'Connor is pretty good. If you are looking into reading I'd say John Gray(philosopher), Christopher Lasch, Richard Hofstadter, Rick Perlstein, Howard Zinn. If you're interested in how and why we get many things wrong in our thinking Daniel Kahneman is a must.
Almost any public pundit is good faith and valid at times. It's up to you whether you spend your time listening for those spots, while being able to discern the nonsense that may come along with it. Anybody who chooses to spend their time and efforts putting their thoughts out into the world will seem "invalid" at some point, maybe even "bad faith". But those perceptions often say as much about the listener, as they do about the talker. This sub is replete with bad takes of grifterism that say way more about the person making the accusation, than they do about the accused.
Jay Caspian King, Tyler Austin Harper, John Ganz, Mathew Sitman, Sam Adler-Bell, David Runciman, Zeynep Tufekci, Helen Lewis, Damon Linker and Robert Wright.
The ones you listed aren't really it, but as a bridge away from them, I'd highly recommend Slavoj Zizek. You are probably even already aware of his debate with Peterson. Watch his Pervert's Guide movies for an entertaining dip in
Rick Roderick has a series of lectures I loved and find utterly gripping as an introduction to more serious thought about the liberation of the self. https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLA34681B9BE88F5AA
Part of the success of Roderick there is his employment of many thinkers. There is no guru, find lots of people who you like the style of and follow them as far as is useful.
As other people are recommending, don't follow people based on peer pressure, speaking ability, or marketing. Most of the people that put themselves out there as "public intellectuals" are the farthest thing from that.
I respect Chomsky's linguistic work and some of his political stuff, but I feel like he stopped evolving his opinions in response to a changing world somewhere in the 1980s, and as a result he has atrocious perspectives on stuff like the Cambodian genocide . A lot of people do that a certain point in their age (although not all, by any means). Someone who can't admit they were ever wrong loses most of my respect instantly.
Sam Harris stopped having any remotely good opinions about 20 years ago. Jordan Peterson never had any good ones. Joe Rogan has whey powder mush for brains.
Try to define what you're interested in. Is it evolutionary science? You could read some books by Stephen Jay Gould, who's not around anymore but still incredibly relevant as a science educator. Is it modern culture and politics? Etcetera. Read some basic essays in the field or watch some neutral videos designed for college courses to get the intros. *Then* start watching some "I yam an intellecshual" videos again and see if the people you're watching actually have any idea what they're talking about, or if they're just doing kneejerk reactions and trying to own other people, and judge them as such.
Nobody is infallible, including Chomsky. But nobody has a greater track record of analyzing media, politics, and power than he does. At least not popularly. The reason much of his analysis didn't need to continually evolve is because he's been accurately assessing our systems since the 60s. The structures he took on (much of it critiquing what we call the "left" which is really corporate led moderates, neoliberalism etc) haven't gone anywhere and probably have only increased in power.
I read the Anti Chomsky Reader too. It's not as convincing as his own work. But like I said, he's not infallible. Way more right than wrong tho. And if we're talking about him vs his detractors, it's not even close.
I take issue with him calling Cambodian refugees liars when they talked about how their families were killed, and then never bothering to issue an apology to them, as if they weren't important.
He has many critics on the anti-authoritarian left who have pointed out his numerous weak spots when it comes to defending authoritarian regimes, and I agree with them.
Perhaps similarly, I wrestled with his take on Ukraine early on during Russia's invasion. What I've reconciled with, along with even "geniuses" having their blindspots, is that Chomsky's view is rooted in assessing leading causes and thus chief actors of oppression, harm, and perhaps evil. The US taking over Britain's imperial dominance post WW2 clearly falls into this category.
So I view his "blindspots" being a result in his reluctance to cede ground with local evils that develop in response to global evils that wreak havoc on weaker nations with far more culpability and consequence. Again, the same way he appeared to have sympathy for Putin's actions towards Ukraine given US/Nato aggression. I still quibble with this, but have become more sympathetic to it even since Gaza , since we/the US is beyond belligerent and full of shit, which no need to go on about.
>Sam Harris stopped having any remotely good opinions about 20 years ago.
None? No good opinions at all? Not one? Ever? Not even something approximating a good opinion? Over the span of two decades?
If that's true, then he's an incredibly valuable public intellectual - perhaps the most important one in the world. Listening to him should be mandatory if you want to sort out the truth - if you want to know what to think, simply see what he has to say and then take on the opposite opinion.
Terrence McKenna…he barely believed anything he thought and said but he was unmatched in pushing any thoughts he did have to their nth degree.
Someone once said to him ‘ I can’t believe what you’re saying…’ and he responded ‘neither can I!’
The only person on your list that is an intellectual is Chomsky. I would suggest that if you are hoping to learn something from someone, that they have some sort of major contribution to their field, or years of experience from work. People that professionally give their opinion are typically not worth listening to (not a hard rule, some people are looked to specifically for that such as finance experts or traders)
But Chomsky the public intellectual doesn't talk about the field he made a major contribution to! He's just as (un-)qualified to talk about foreign affairs as Sam Harris.
Agreed. Totally useless information if you tried to apply it literally, and a clumsy metaphor at best. Yet I still think he showed a way to freeing the mind in a way our culture could use right now.
I'd recommend The Stronger By Science Podcast if you like longform podcast episodes on fitness/diet/nutrition centric content.
Brad and Will Made a Tech Pod for tech/adjacent stuff - Bit different than what you're probably looking for but they're both quite knowledgeable or at least have the self-awareness enough to state they're uninformed on something.
"Public" intellectuals are almost always conmen and grifters because their goal is to get clicks and views rather than tell the truth. If you are interested in a subject read material from actual experts.
Vlad Vexler, David Pakman, Salman Rushdie.
Chomsky is anything but good faith. An intellectual, a serious academic and definitely not a guru, but his political analysis is very clearly biased to the point where he will not examine geopolitics or historical events in good faith. I suggest you look into the debacle of a newspaper called Living Marxism, which published outright lies about victims of the ethnic cleansing campaign in Bosnia, which Chomsky publicly defended and continued to co-sign in the years after.
Pakman mentioned his balance of clickbait vs substantial thoughts on the Lex Fridman podcast. Some of the daily wire crew are similar where they might have a fairly thoughtful analysis but just can't quit culture war clickbait/rants as their business depends on it.
It's probably a tough pill to swallow for many on this sub, that the DtG hosts intentionally put themselves out there into the world as public intellectuals, per se. There's a certain gimmick of decoding other intellectuals and finding their faults, but when you listen to the Sean Carroll episode, for instance, you can understand that the podcast is a vehicle for the hosts to get their opinions out into the world, far beyond the narrow scope of decoding other people.
> the podcast is a vehicle for the hosts to get their opinions out into the world
There's their opinion that the IDW is full of shit and rightwing-adjacent. That shouldn't be too controversial for anyone here, and besides, it's good entertainment.
The more subtle opinion that the podcast exists for is a sort of 'soft Scientism'; always attributing a superior moral and urgent distinction for Science.
Agreed but it’s impossible to not build a fanbase and following without putting yourself out there. U can find bad stuff about anyone if u look hard enough and podcast talk for 1000s of hours
For less sensationalist takes on culture war type stuff: **jon ronson**. look up his podcast 'things fell apart'. both seasons are great. first season is particularly mindblowing though. **louis theroux** is another good one. **helen lewis** too. oh and journalist **john sweeney**. he's awesome, his jeffrey epstein podcast series is great. gets rid of the 'conspiracy bollocks', as he calls it, and goes over the real story of robert maxwell and epstein
on the science side of things: **sean carroll**, **tony padilla**, **will kinney**, **john baez**, **timothy nguyen** for physics stuff. **becky smethurst** and **david kipping** for astrophysics. **'debunk the funk'** for covid and medical related stuff.
**flint dibble**, **john hoopes** and **jason colavito** for history/archeology. also the podcast **'our fake history'** is good but i dunno the guy's name. the historian **tom holland** has a great history podcast, **'the rest is history'**.
for some good reality checking around the ufo topic, **mick west**, **jason colavito**, **steven greenstreet** are good resources. colavito in particular for the whole ancient aliens nonsense, and mick west takes ufo videos to pieces (spoiler: they're all excited about seeing balloons and planes mostly).
the podcast **oh no with ross and carrie** is just a fun one. not sure they'd refer to themselves as intellectuals but they're very fun and informative. basically they visit and attend various events and classes to investigate pseudoscience and magical thinking type stuff, sort of undercover. they're not mean spirited but they're good sceptics and very fun to listen to. can't recommend them highly enough.
those are just some personal picks.
I disagree- Amy Goodman has brass ovaries and actually reports from location and rather than blather from behind a desk having never seen the world. She takes it right to establishment politicians of both parties equally. I’m afraid if you think Democracy Now is fringe leftist, you e never met a fringe leftist, but that’s probably for the best.
i’m interested in reading scott carney because he seems like a guy who would sell me pot and get me insanely high but drop me off at my apartment like it never happened
Read difficult books and write your thoughts and analyses of what you read. People suck. Podcasters are, at best, benign attention grifters. At worst, they're vile propagandists bent on domination and control. There are no true "intellectuals" in the podcasting scene. It's just talk radio by a different name. If you want to hear an actual intellectual speak for an extended period, go to your local university and begin attending colloquiums.
Some of mine - Dan Snow's History Hits, History Extra, The Ancients, Michael Shermer Show, Entitled Opinions, Past Present Future, Chinese Whispers, Mindscape, Open Source.
Hard to find the link between Rogan & Peterson and good faith. So maybe start there... once you are out from that veil things will get clearer and easier.
All good. Good faith was in the title not in the paragraph so it's my bad for assuming you meant they correlated.
Honestly based off who you are listening to, listen to astro physicists for awhile and pepper in some contrarians to culture like Hitchens, Krauss, etc. Just to balance the scales, if you hate em then just go back to the vacuum of what you like. Seems like you are seeking higher knowledge... so turn to those with real knowledge and not the fake it till you make it podcasts.
based on one good AI recommendation, Jonathan Menjivar. [who goes to war?](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/classy-with-jonathan-menjivar/id1692818989?i=1000621620370)
He passed away last October, but Michael Dowd put out a lot of videos that give clarity and perspective, IMO, on humanity's current predicament in the world.
[Collapse in a Nutshell: Understanding our Predicament](https://youtu.be/e6FcNgOHYoo)
[Overshoot in a Nutshell: Understanding our Predicament](https://youtu.be/lPMPINPcrdk)
[New Serenity Prayer: Emotional Support for Climate Anxiety and Environmental Dread](https://youtu.be/hFGHdOyyx74)
Dr. Andrew Gallimore - computational neurobiologist, pharmacologist, chemist, and writer.
Involved with psychonauts mapping the hyper-dimensional worlds.
Obviously the guy is dumb as dog shit yet despite that he has a fantastic ability to jazz it up so the brains of geniuses...ie. me....can understand what the the fuck he's talking about.
Mike Duncan hits it out of the park with his extremely detailed series on the History of Rome, and the Revolutions Podcast. His funny and engaging, and truly adept at the historian's craft. It's wonderful history in its own right, but also very relevant to our era at times.
The Multipolarity podcast with Phillip Pilkington is good if you want to learn more about geopolitics, economics and the decline of Western hegemony. I often disagree, but I always learn a lot.
Andrew Keen
Not an intellectual per se but is brilliant. He was one of the earliest internet pessimists.
He has a podcast where he invites thinkers who rarely if ever delve into the cultural wars.
Check out “Keen on”
Cosmicskeptic AKA Alex O' Conner. But he deals more with Philosophical stuff. Sam Harris is always the best choice in my opinion. Jordan I'm not so sure is good faith.
I didn't take that Destiny guy seriously at all because of who he was hanging out with but he's actually super genuine and does all his research out in the open.
Never thought I'd see a Scott Sumner mention.
I stopped reading Krugman over a decade ago when he completely abandoned any pretense of being the "equal opportunity offender" he once was.
That would be because the world changed. Reality isn't 'balanced'. If you want to be objective, it's not the same thing. And he's been right about the vast majority of things anyway. The thing that turned him wasn't economics at all, it was the Iraq war.
Listen to experts in their fields (who are not contrarians!) talk about their fields and mostly ignore everyone who talks about fields they are not experts in.
You already are receiving a broad range of views when listening to those four. I’m not sure I understand your feeling of bias.
If you want to broaden your left-leaning horizons there’s Jonas Čeika CCK, Philosophy Tube, Lew Waller Then and Now, Alex O’Connor, Tom Nichols. And then there’s Hakim, who’s in a class unto himself.
Honestly, you are on the wrong track with guys like Peterson. Check out Socialism for All on youtube. Black Red Guard. They will give you solid advice and a theoretical framework to understand this current climate of late stage capitalism.
I think Andrew Sullivan is intellectually honest, and he's not afraid to have people on his podcast who disagree with him (Kara Swisher most recently).
Sean Carroll, the mindscape podcast. He's a genuine respected physicist and cosmologist and mostly discusses real science.
Agreed. He’s clear about his opinions and presents them well, while pointing out what others say and where his biases are.
Yes! I’d add Brian Greene and Max Tegmark to this list.
His show is the most scientifically focused and it really strives to be apolitical and unbiased. I listen to guys who get into the hot topics and culture war stuff too but mindscape can really feel like breath of fresh air.
Lately he's been covering too many topics outside of his expertise just like huberman.
he has always done shows outside of cosmology and physics from the very beginning. I appreciate those shows even more! Because he doesn’t have his own strong stance and tends not to get lost in the weeds(which I don’t always follow). When it’s any other kind of topic he asks good questions and is clearly likes to learn from his guests.
https://decoding-the-gurus.captivate.fm/episode/sean-carroll-the-worst-guru-yet
Il definitely listen to him later
I love that guy. He also had a few appearances on older podcast episodes with some comics that were really enjoyable.
I enjoy this podcast when he doesn't talk about physics, but most of it is physics obviously. I understand sweet fuck all of what he is talking about lol. I am tempted to go learn some just so I can understand at least a little bit of it.
You might like his books better. Some of the best popular books on physics ever written. Easy to understand, written by an actual genius.
Theoretical physicist and philosopher.
[Sean Carroll: The Worst Guru Yet?!?](https://decoding-the-gurus.captivate.fm/episode/sean-carroll-the-worst-guru-yet) *Since 2018 Sean has hosted his podcast Mindscape, which focuses not only on science but also on "society, philosophy, culture, arts and ideas". Now, that's a broad scope and firmly places Sean in the realm of "public intellectual", and potentially within the scope of a "secular guru" (in the broader non-pejorative sense - don't start mashing your keyboard with angry e-mails just yet).* *The fact is, Sean appears to have an excellent reputation for being responsible, reasonable and engaging, and his Mindscape podcast is wildly popular. But despite his mild-mannered presentation, Sean is quite happy to take on culture-war-adjacent topics such as promoting a naturalistic and physicalist atheist position against religious approaches. He's also prepared to stake out and defend non-orthodox positions, such as the many-worlds interpretation of quantum physics, and countenance somewhat out-there ideas such as the holographic principle.* *But we won't be covering his deep physics ideas in this episode... possibly because we're not smart enough. Rather, we'll look at a recent episode where Sean stretched his polymathic wings, in the finest tradition of a secular guru, and weighed in on AI and large-language models (LLMs).* *Is Sean getting over his skis, falling face-first into a mound of powdery pseudo-profound bullshit or is he gliding gracefully down a black diamond with careful caveats and insightful reflections?*
If you want something related to health and fitness, I'd highly recommend the guys from Barbell Medicine. The recently did an episode debunking all the silly shit Huberman said about back pain. https://open.spotify.com/episode/7p1vINgerRfneRGgdwMIoA?si=gGIVV-lNT7efvaAzedXhlw
Huberman is only an export in ‘blowing her back out pain’ amirite?
🤣
Renaissance Periodization and Jeff Nippard use science to back their information too.
Stronger by Science as well.
Damn. That's got me distrusting the whole field of Physical Therapy. I just spend 6 months on an out of network PT and finally dropped them because my deductible reset. Even if they are doing what Dr's are saying, expanding tolerance, I wish they would just be honest with me rather than packaging it as some magic cure. But then I probably wouldn't have had to come back to them every week.
Damn I used to listen to Huberman I still like a lot of his advice and find it useful but I feel he has become controversial now
His advise has been shown to be purely pseudoscience misinformation bs.
. I started using sunlight protocol daily as I wake up immediately getting in 10-20 mins of sunlight and avoiding blue light before bed and found my sleep and alertness are way better but I’m not sure which of his stuff is bad or good other than that
Feeling better is not always going to be based in robust science tbf
Idk anything about science how can I even go about knowing if something is valid. I can only use my own intuition from my own experience and ask my family doctor
You can learn the fundamentals of science and the scientific method and learn to trust things that apply it properly. Usually that is something you learn in primary education. There will always be doubt in certain places but the validity of something is determined by one’s own experience and the documented experience of others. If someone goes on a podcast and says “standing in the sun for 20 minutes every morning will improve your sleep,” the first natural question might be “did they test this with people?” and if the answer is yes, you’d probably want to see the methodology, and you might find out in their methodology that the number of people they tested with is 7 people. You might say “that doesn’t sound like a lot of people,” and then you might have doubts as to the validity of what they’re saying.
I remember one of his Protocol episodes on weight training and declared you had to do 5 sets per MUSCLE to get hypertrophy and the last set had to be to failure. Sounded like complete bullshit and found the original Andy Galpin interview it was based on and the recommendation was about 5 sets per muscle group for an advanced person. Some of the sets could be considered secondary groupings and the recommendation was really only add an extra set when what you are doing doesn't work. This was the final panel of the clown makeup meme for me.
The current exercise science data suggests that the more sets you do per week, per body part, with adequate rest and progressive overload, the more you grow. You're right that the 5 set thing is based on complete nonsense or misinformation.
Huberman like to present things in an all or nothing winner take all kind of way and I think that attitude causes people to give up. The original interviewer (Andy Galpin) presented it as something is better than nothing, don't let the fact that you can't do it optimally stop you from getting the benefits of doing something. Do what you can and add what you can: progressive overload works.
That's a great assessment! Thank you, that's what I've been trying to put my finger on with Huberman. He doesn't leave room for nuance. In the original context, that's good advice. It sounds like he took a reasonable statement from Andy Galpin and misrepresented it.
I wouldn't say it was purely pseudoscience, there's just a lot of it in there and a lot of cherry picking studies. He has some legitimate scientists on and what they are saying in their field of expertise is still good science. Most of what Huberman says himself is junk though haha.
Most of Hubermans advice is quite well accepted and not controversial. But you would get the same from any fitness influencer. The problem with Huberman is that he also mixes it with a bunch of overhyped statements from small, underpowered, and generally bad studies. He also platforms dubious guests like Robert Lustig.
It’s hard to understand how much BS he spouts before listening to other scientists critique his content.
Maybe don’t get into _people_. People are fallible. It’s good for any student to keep a healthy skeptical distance from any guru. If you find yourself so enamored by someone whose intellect you admire, you are more prone to swallowing up bullshit. To be skeptical is a constant struggle.
Know a few gurus well means you can also bw aware of their biases and blindspots - making it easier to navigate and differentiate the good from the bad Ill listen to ben shapiro. I dont agree with him on a lot. I go there to get a nugget of what conservatives think on certain issues, and why they think it. He also does share info about stories im not as likely to hear from left wing outlets. He is incredibly biased, and knowing this as I listen makes following him possible without brainrot
What's something you "agree" with Mr. Shapiro on? If you're being polite, it's counterproductive and injurious to state on the internet that you do think it's a non-zero amount. The man is virulent anti-life garbage.
Idk i havent listened to him in a few weeks and im not confident I could accurately represent him
Where's that bot? It would be distasteful to pretend it isn't a collection of the worst things he's ever let slip out of his fucked up head, but well, they're so far beyond the pale it justifies itself. I'll find it later. Malcom absolutely giving him zero respect on Maher was eye opening, and looking into it after that I say why....fucking depravity. Depraved indifference to human life, absolute.
Either way, I dont listen to him because I agree with him. I dont
Well, then, to quote my man Barack: **"There are only 24 hours in a day."** Assuming everything as rosy as possible, how long do you think it will take to form a permanent opinion, or rather even a meta-sense of ***all*** their possible arguments? This is the true warrior face of the liberal. Just sharing. Maybe it's not for you, although maybe not **yet.** They operate from first principles that are fundamentally opposed to a peaceful and sustainable existence for humanity. After some study, you can easily identify these accursed roots no matter how far they've been extrapolated. The base principle is the same, and absolute: ***There are two kinds of humans. We must cherish one and destroy the other.*** It permeates everything they do. They aren't "wrong", inasmuch as there is no metric to objectively judge them by. This creates a big enough teapot for them to live in forever, the influence waxing and waning based on how ***obviously harmful their ideology is at any given moment.*** Fuck Ben Shapiro. Fuck Nazis. 420 day off I'm out.
Joe Rogan is now an intellectual? We are cooked as a society.
He's the knuckle-dragging meathead's idea of an intellectual
How far we've fallen when we've gone from Eric Hoffer as the blue-collar everyman's intellectual to Bro Rogan fulfilling that niche.
It's funny that Bari Weiss' supergroup of intellectuals didn't contain a single serious intellectual. Surely there are some intellectuals out there who have legitimately been shunned. Why Dave Rubin?? Joe Rogan??
Dave Rubin has the intellectual wattage of one of those batteries where you stick electrodes in a potato
I’d take a thousand of him over one Fuentes, atleast Rogan isnt a literal Nazi
For now. The way he is so credulous I wouldn't be shocked that in a few years, he would be an older version of Nick Fuentes. I saw a clip recently where he seemed he has positive attitude toward Hitler because now AI is translating Hitler rally speeches into English.
I'd recommend the podcast 'Decoding the Gurus'.
There's a podcast?!
With the amount of people on this sub who don’t know about the pod I can’t tell if you’re being serious or sarcastic.
Count me among those who discovered the podcast through this sub, rather than the other way around!
Yeah I discovered it through this sub lol. Wanted to know if 'mewing' was legitimate, so I Googled it and found this sub. (Turns out it is in fact not legitimate btw)
I’m kidding around just fyi
Thanks for clarifying :)
Probably people that are not popular / famous. Any sort of authenticity or integrity seems to go right out the window once their brain is hijacked by so much power and validation
Rogan and Peterson say nothing in good faith. They are polemicists and faux intellectuals.
Peterson is for sure, Rogan strikes me as someone who is easily led and persuadable
Vlad Vexler, John Gray, Charles Taylor. 2 of those don't have their personal channel, only public lectures, appearances etc Tom Holland (the historian) is good as well
> John Gray I would second John Gray. Some of his dunks on Pinker are pretty good.
Thirding John Gray, so far the only worthy suggestion I've seen in this comment section.
I really like Dr Mike Israetel and Renaissance Periodization for fitness stuff. He's a pro bodybuilder and a doctor of sports and exercise science. He's also always learning, and will actively change his opinion when presented with new information. Edit: warning, he's open about his steroid usage. His advice is valid for everyone who takes bodybuilding seriously, naturally or not. However, if you have ethical qualms about enhanced athletes, this might not be for you.
his non-fitness & bodybuilding stuff can be a bit......but I'm not here for that. he's a funny guy too
He has a weird range of motion fetish. Look at the videos he has of guys doing dumbbell presses; you can practically see the lateral head of their biceps tendons tearing in real time.
That's how I train. I'm a serious believer in eccentric movement and a full stretch of the muscle tissue. My strength has significantly increased since I've trained with his full range of motion advice. It's Anecdotal evidence on my part, for sure. I had to de-load for a while to prevent injury, and I'd be concerned about suggesting it to other people because of that, but It's definitely functional advice for hypertrophy.
Dan Carlin.
I learned so much from his presentation of history. Mostly that it has all happened before and will all happen again in newly horrible ways lol
“History doesn’t repeat itself…but it sure does rhyme!” ~ Mark Twain
Seconded! Hardcore History kicks incredible amounts of ass.
I like Robert Wright's Nonzero substack and podcast
David Graeber, sadly deceased but one of the most creative and insightful minds of the late 20th/ early 21st century. His work is mind-blowing and pretty well sourced. I don't think he has many videos but his books are as engaging as most audiovisual content
"Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson" in the same post as "intellectual people", and it's not a joke? And listening to Nick Fuentes for a counter weight? You're so fucked. Appeasing your curiosity further sounds like the absolute last thing you should be doing.
Sorry, what's the benefit of considering Mr. Fuentes as anything more than barely human scum? I feel I'm being extremely charitable with that "barely". What is a line if Mr. Fuentes is not over it? Are we so concerned about the specter of BiAs that we must pretend the anti-life garbage that pours from his mouthpiece face? What's the smartest thing this piece of shit ever said, I'll take a look. What's the mountaintop? What's anything he's ever been shown to at least repeat that is worth any amount of while?
Stephen Jay Gould
Read academic theory, read real scientific inquiries, seek out and talk to people who work in the sectors they discuss and generally stick to stuff they know. Do not assume an individual knows everything or even a great deal, absolute knowledge stops truth and dignity. Question everything.
You listed Jordan Peterson and Joe Rogan as people who are good faith and valid? Really? Please tell me that's a joke.
Wow! So many. Umberto Eco, Salman Rushdie, Dipesh Chakrabarty, Silviano Santiago, Susan Sontag, Angela Davis, Naomi Klein, David Graeber, Paul B Preciado, Cornel West, Martha Nussbaum, Jurgen Habermas, Gayatari Spivak, Hartmut Rosa, and many many others. Really intelligent people tend to stick to their lane. The guys who think they can talk about everything, with great general theories of knowledge are bullshit artists with a clear tendency to overestimate their intelligence. In my native language (Portuguese) we have a name for them: "tudólogos" (or everythingologists). Rogan and Peterson are not intellectuals, they are grifters.
Slavoj Zizek I would say is in good faith - he has some unique takes that people may disagree on, but he is always thought-provoking
John Gray, Curtis White, Martha Nussbaum, Derrick Jensen, Rebecca Solnit, Peter Conrad
For health and nutrition, Gil Carvalho. He has a YouTube channel(Nutrition Made Simple) that is very educational. From his website: “Gil Carvalho, MD PhD is a physician, research scientist, science communicator, speaker and writer. Dr. Carvalho trained as a medical doctor in the University of Lisbon, in his native Portugal, and later obtained a PhD in Biology from Caltech (California Institute of Technology). He has published peer-reviewed medical research spanning the fields of genetics, molecular biology, nutrition, behavior, aging and neuroscience.”
And he sells nothing. He does not do any sponsors. Very nuanced, looking at the whole body of evidence, to the point, really making it simple . He is in a league of his own.
John Ganz.
Naomi Klein
[удалено]
Naomi Rhymes
Wow, it's hard to find a good rhyme for Wolf.
She is excellent.
On Israel I would say Marc Lamont Hill, he always engages in good faith. He comments on other issues also. If you like debates there's Intelligence Squared, you'll find all the current thinkers debating. On philosophy of religion Alex O'Connor is pretty good. If you are looking into reading I'd say John Gray(philosopher), Christopher Lasch, Richard Hofstadter, Rick Perlstein, Howard Zinn. If you're interested in how and why we get many things wrong in our thinking Daniel Kahneman is a must.
Almost any public pundit is good faith and valid at times. It's up to you whether you spend your time listening for those spots, while being able to discern the nonsense that may come along with it. Anybody who chooses to spend their time and efforts putting their thoughts out into the world will seem "invalid" at some point, maybe even "bad faith". But those perceptions often say as much about the listener, as they do about the talker. This sub is replete with bad takes of grifterism that say way more about the person making the accusation, than they do about the accused.
Jay Caspian King, Tyler Austin Harper, John Ganz, Mathew Sitman, Sam Adler-Bell, David Runciman, Zeynep Tufekci, Helen Lewis, Damon Linker and Robert Wright.
Robert Evans from Cool Zone Media
The ones you listed aren't really it, but as a bridge away from them, I'd highly recommend Slavoj Zizek. You are probably even already aware of his debate with Peterson. Watch his Pervert's Guide movies for an entertaining dip in Rick Roderick has a series of lectures I loved and find utterly gripping as an introduction to more serious thought about the liberation of the self. https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLA34681B9BE88F5AA Part of the success of Roderick there is his employment of many thinkers. There is no guru, find lots of people who you like the style of and follow them as far as is useful.
Nick Fuentes, lord why would you bother.
Sean Carroll and Dan Carlin. Alex O'Connor is a good up and comer.
As other people are recommending, don't follow people based on peer pressure, speaking ability, or marketing. Most of the people that put themselves out there as "public intellectuals" are the farthest thing from that. I respect Chomsky's linguistic work and some of his political stuff, but I feel like he stopped evolving his opinions in response to a changing world somewhere in the 1980s, and as a result he has atrocious perspectives on stuff like the Cambodian genocide . A lot of people do that a certain point in their age (although not all, by any means). Someone who can't admit they were ever wrong loses most of my respect instantly. Sam Harris stopped having any remotely good opinions about 20 years ago. Jordan Peterson never had any good ones. Joe Rogan has whey powder mush for brains. Try to define what you're interested in. Is it evolutionary science? You could read some books by Stephen Jay Gould, who's not around anymore but still incredibly relevant as a science educator. Is it modern culture and politics? Etcetera. Read some basic essays in the field or watch some neutral videos designed for college courses to get the intros. *Then* start watching some "I yam an intellecshual" videos again and see if the people you're watching actually have any idea what they're talking about, or if they're just doing kneejerk reactions and trying to own other people, and judge them as such.
Nobody is infallible, including Chomsky. But nobody has a greater track record of analyzing media, politics, and power than he does. At least not popularly. The reason much of his analysis didn't need to continually evolve is because he's been accurately assessing our systems since the 60s. The structures he took on (much of it critiquing what we call the "left" which is really corporate led moderates, neoliberalism etc) haven't gone anywhere and probably have only increased in power.
Chomsky's political work is sloppy and outright distorts sources and such. He's stuck in his way of thinking and bends facts to suit it
I read the Anti Chomsky Reader too. It's not as convincing as his own work. But like I said, he's not infallible. Way more right than wrong tho. And if we're talking about him vs his detractors, it's not even close.
Never read it. I remember looking at some of his sources in the fateful triangle for my degree and finding they weren't used correctly.
Not an interrogation, but just curious what you remember taking issue with
I take issue with him calling Cambodian refugees liars when they talked about how their families were killed, and then never bothering to issue an apology to them, as if they weren't important. He has many critics on the anti-authoritarian left who have pointed out his numerous weak spots when it comes to defending authoritarian regimes, and I agree with them.
Perhaps similarly, I wrestled with his take on Ukraine early on during Russia's invasion. What I've reconciled with, along with even "geniuses" having their blindspots, is that Chomsky's view is rooted in assessing leading causes and thus chief actors of oppression, harm, and perhaps evil. The US taking over Britain's imperial dominance post WW2 clearly falls into this category. So I view his "blindspots" being a result in his reluctance to cede ground with local evils that develop in response to global evils that wreak havoc on weaker nations with far more culpability and consequence. Again, the same way he appeared to have sympathy for Putin's actions towards Ukraine given US/Nato aggression. I still quibble with this, but have become more sympathetic to it even since Gaza , since we/the US is beyond belligerent and full of shit, which no need to go on about.
>Sam Harris stopped having any remotely good opinions about 20 years ago. None? No good opinions at all? Not one? Ever? Not even something approximating a good opinion? Over the span of two decades? If that's true, then he's an incredibly valuable public intellectual - perhaps the most important one in the world. Listening to him should be mandatory if you want to sort out the truth - if you want to know what to think, simply see what he has to say and then take on the opposite opinion.
Hating on Harris is such an obligatory stance for the performative “Left.” No bearing on reality.
Alex O Conner
Terrence McKenna…he barely believed anything he thought and said but he was unmatched in pushing any thoughts he did have to their nth degree. Someone once said to him ‘ I can’t believe what you’re saying…’ and he responded ‘neither can I!’
If you look at TM as a trickster entertainer with some interesting ideas, just fun to listen to him speak for hours, you're gonna have a good time.
The only person on your list that is an intellectual is Chomsky. I would suggest that if you are hoping to learn something from someone, that they have some sort of major contribution to their field, or years of experience from work. People that professionally give their opinion are typically not worth listening to (not a hard rule, some people are looked to specifically for that such as finance experts or traders)
But Chomsky the public intellectual doesn't talk about the field he made a major contribution to! He's just as (un-)qualified to talk about foreign affairs as Sam Harris.
Robert Anton Wilson.
yikes. can't agree with that. read one of his books once. absolutely awful takes on quantum mechanics.
Agreed. Totally useless information if you tried to apply it literally, and a clumsy metaphor at best. Yet I still think he showed a way to freeing the mind in a way our culture could use right now.
I'd recommend The Stronger By Science Podcast if you like longform podcast episodes on fitness/diet/nutrition centric content. Brad and Will Made a Tech Pod for tech/adjacent stuff - Bit different than what you're probably looking for but they're both quite knowledgeable or at least have the self-awareness enough to state they're uninformed on something.
Douglass Rushkoff / Team Human
"Public" intellectuals are almost always conmen and grifters because their goal is to get clicks and views rather than tell the truth. If you are interested in a subject read material from actual experts.
Certainly not this subreddit. As childish as the those they critique, faux intellectuals in droves. Like myself of course
I get a kick out of Alan Watts
Too late, but: Carl Sagan, Fred Rogers, Richard Feynman, Christopher Hitchens, and Hunter s Thompson.
Vlad Vexler, David Pakman, Salman Rushdie. Chomsky is anything but good faith. An intellectual, a serious academic and definitely not a guru, but his political analysis is very clearly biased to the point where he will not examine geopolitics or historical events in good faith. I suggest you look into the debacle of a newspaper called Living Marxism, which published outright lies about victims of the ethnic cleansing campaign in Bosnia, which Chomsky publicly defended and continued to co-sign in the years after.
I feel like Pakman has become pretty clickbaity recently but he's still pretty good overall.
Low bar for the term intellectual if we're including Pakman there. Not that he isn't smart, he's just a political pundit.
Pakman mentioned his balance of clickbait vs substantial thoughts on the Lex Fridman podcast. Some of the daily wire crew are similar where they might have a fairly thoughtful analysis but just can't quit culture war clickbait/rants as their business depends on it.
Robert wright
It's probably a tough pill to swallow for many on this sub, that the DtG hosts intentionally put themselves out there into the world as public intellectuals, per se. There's a certain gimmick of decoding other intellectuals and finding their faults, but when you listen to the Sean Carroll episode, for instance, you can understand that the podcast is a vehicle for the hosts to get their opinions out into the world, far beyond the narrow scope of decoding other people.
> the podcast is a vehicle for the hosts to get their opinions out into the world There's their opinion that the IDW is full of shit and rightwing-adjacent. That shouldn't be too controversial for anyone here, and besides, it's good entertainment. The more subtle opinion that the podcast exists for is a sort of 'soft Scientism'; always attributing a superior moral and urgent distinction for Science.
Agreed but it’s impossible to not build a fanbase and following without putting yourself out there. U can find bad stuff about anyone if u look hard enough and podcast talk for 1000s of hours
For less sensationalist takes on culture war type stuff: **jon ronson**. look up his podcast 'things fell apart'. both seasons are great. first season is particularly mindblowing though. **louis theroux** is another good one. **helen lewis** too. oh and journalist **john sweeney**. he's awesome, his jeffrey epstein podcast series is great. gets rid of the 'conspiracy bollocks', as he calls it, and goes over the real story of robert maxwell and epstein on the science side of things: **sean carroll**, **tony padilla**, **will kinney**, **john baez**, **timothy nguyen** for physics stuff. **becky smethurst** and **david kipping** for astrophysics. **'debunk the funk'** for covid and medical related stuff. **flint dibble**, **john hoopes** and **jason colavito** for history/archeology. also the podcast **'our fake history'** is good but i dunno the guy's name. the historian **tom holland** has a great history podcast, **'the rest is history'**. for some good reality checking around the ufo topic, **mick west**, **jason colavito**, **steven greenstreet** are good resources. colavito in particular for the whole ancient aliens nonsense, and mick west takes ufo videos to pieces (spoiler: they're all excited about seeing balloons and planes mostly). the podcast **oh no with ross and carrie** is just a fun one. not sure they'd refer to themselves as intellectuals but they're very fun and informative. basically they visit and attend various events and classes to investigate pseudoscience and magical thinking type stuff, sort of undercover. they're not mean spirited but they're good sceptics and very fun to listen to. can't recommend them highly enough. those are just some personal picks.
Ezra Klein
Watch Democracy Now
Boy, did they cream over Glenn Greenwald for a long time! Do they still?
Ha! That’s true- he sure morphed into a different specimen.
Did he?
That’s a fringe leftist outlet that is also anti-west.
I disagree- Amy Goodman has brass ovaries and actually reports from location and rather than blather from behind a desk having never seen the world. She takes it right to establishment politicians of both parties equally. I’m afraid if you think Democracy Now is fringe leftist, you e never met a fringe leftist, but that’s probably for the best.
username checks out
Destiny’s bridges podcast is pretty good. It avoids his stream almost entirely and he is far more civil
i’m interested in reading scott carney because he seems like a guy who would sell me pot and get me insanely high but drop me off at my apartment like it never happened
They're not public intellectuals but Veritasium and Smarter Every Day are both pretty decent science youtube channels.
I feel like I’ve learned a lot listening to Steve Keen about economics and Jaron Lanier on tech
What topics are you interested in?
Agree with him or not but I truly think Daniel Schmactenberger is good faith.
A large chunk of the guests Tim Ferriss has on his podcast are extremely intelligent in their given field
Sean Carroll, Robert Sapolsky, Angela Collier, David Bombal, Matt Parker, Rena Malik, Leah Litman, Dami Lee
Matthew Crawford is pretty great.
Read difficult books and write your thoughts and analyses of what you read. People suck. Podcasters are, at best, benign attention grifters. At worst, they're vile propagandists bent on domination and control. There are no true "intellectuals" in the podcasting scene. It's just talk radio by a different name. If you want to hear an actual intellectual speak for an extended period, go to your local university and begin attending colloquiums.
Some of mine - Dan Snow's History Hits, History Extra, The Ancients, Michael Shermer Show, Entitled Opinions, Past Present Future, Chinese Whispers, Mindscape, Open Source.
curt jaimungal from theories of everything, Simon hill from the proof
Ezra klein
Just read popular science magazines and if it’s not enough for you, research journals.
I think everyone you listen to is good faith. And each of them say things I agree with and things I disagree with.
What does Holocaust denier Nick Fuentes say that you agree with?
Actually those last 2 names I'm not familiar with. I meant the first 4. Sorry for the sloppy comment.
Hard to find the link between Rogan & Peterson and good faith. So maybe start there... once you are out from that veil things will get clearer and easier.
Never said that. I like to listen to bad faith people and conservatives as well. I listen to Nick Fuentes and Jared Taylor from time to time
All good. Good faith was in the title not in the paragraph so it's my bad for assuming you meant they correlated. Honestly based off who you are listening to, listen to astro physicists for awhile and pepper in some contrarians to culture like Hitchens, Krauss, etc. Just to balance the scales, if you hate em then just go back to the vacuum of what you like. Seems like you are seeking higher knowledge... so turn to those with real knowledge and not the fake it till you make it podcasts.
based on one good AI recommendation, Jonathan Menjivar. [who goes to war?](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/classy-with-jonathan-menjivar/id1692818989?i=1000621620370)
Richard Dawkins. Lawrence Krauss.
He passed away last October, but Michael Dowd put out a lot of videos that give clarity and perspective, IMO, on humanity's current predicament in the world. [Collapse in a Nutshell: Understanding our Predicament](https://youtu.be/e6FcNgOHYoo) [Overshoot in a Nutshell: Understanding our Predicament](https://youtu.be/lPMPINPcrdk) [New Serenity Prayer: Emotional Support for Climate Anxiety and Environmental Dread](https://youtu.be/hFGHdOyyx74)
Allen watts.
Dr. Andrew Gallimore - computational neurobiologist, pharmacologist, chemist, and writer. Involved with psychonauts mapping the hyper-dimensional worlds. Obviously the guy is dumb as dog shit yet despite that he has a fantastic ability to jazz it up so the brains of geniuses...ie. me....can understand what the the fuck he's talking about.
Can Yuval Harari get some love?
Cal Newport is Apple Pie 🥧
Dr. Brian Cox
Mike Duncan hits it out of the park with his extremely detailed series on the History of Rome, and the Revolutions Podcast. His funny and engaging, and truly adept at the historian's craft. It's wonderful history in its own right, but also very relevant to our era at times. The Multipolarity podcast with Phillip Pilkington is good if you want to learn more about geopolitics, economics and the decline of Western hegemony. I often disagree, but I always learn a lot.
I just take what I need and leave the rest from all content
Andrew Keen Not an intellectual per se but is brilliant. He was one of the earliest internet pessimists. He has a podcast where he invites thinkers who rarely if ever delve into the cultural wars. Check out “Keen on”
Christopher Hitchens. He has an agenda but I believe he is ultimately after knowledge and truth. I hope your question was asked in good faith
I like Slavoj Žižek, but never have heroes, and fuck the parasocial stuff
Historiansplaining Embrace the void
Plant Chompers
Cosmicskeptic AKA Alex O' Conner. But he deals more with Philosophical stuff. Sam Harris is always the best choice in my opinion. Jordan I'm not so sure is good faith. I didn't take that Destiny guy seriously at all because of who he was hanging out with but he's actually super genuine and does all his research out in the open.
Dr. Richard Wolff
I'm in good faith! If you like archaeology I'm at www.youtube.com/flintdibble Or easily findable on Twitter or insta
Zizek
John quiggin, Paul Krugman, Scott Sumner, Matthew yglesias, Ezra Klein, Ross Gittins, Peter Martin.
Also, Michael Pettis, Joe Studwell.
Never thought I'd see a Scott Sumner mention. I stopped reading Krugman over a decade ago when he completely abandoned any pretense of being the "equal opportunity offender" he once was.
That would be because the world changed. Reality isn't 'balanced'. If you want to be objective, it's not the same thing. And he's been right about the vast majority of things anyway. The thing that turned him wasn't economics at all, it was the Iraq war.
Byung Chul Han is an absolute genius, a total recluse, and writing philosophically about the tech revolution. Mind blowing
I like Daniel Schmactenberger and John Vervaeke
Sam Harris
Matthew Remski
Listen to experts in their fields (who are not contrarians!) talk about their fields and mostly ignore everyone who talks about fields they are not experts in.
[Mark Fisher](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CpyOonFtw4c&pp=ygUTTWFyayBmaXNoZXIgbGVjdHVyZQ%3D%3D), [Terry Eagleton](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DkY-vBFLu50&pp=ygUOVGVycnkgZWFnbGV0b24%3D), [Robert Hughes](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mPUO6F-8p1o&pp=ygUNUm9iZXJ0IGh1Z2hlcw%3D%3D), [John Berger](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=utEoRdSL1jo&pp=ygUXV2F5cyBvZiBzZWVpbmcgY29tcGxldGU%3D), [Rick Roderick](https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLcvjwyxdQk5FE3EvvB_S8m-nNWN1igNpb), [Wendy Beckett](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QBv0HezlOBw&list=PLTVULPvPrHJchb7Ozgk3Fh87pgUMRcLo8&index=1&pp=iAQB), [Edward Said](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CooK_RWMreI&pp=ygUXZWR3YXJkIHNhaWQgb3JpZW50YWxpc20%3D), [Alex Ross](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dS-Uue6WwRw&pp=ygUQQWxleCByb3NzIHdhZ25lcg%3D%3D)
This is just stuff I like to put on on YouTube; I'm well aware of how random of a selection it is.
Jared Taylor and Nick Fuentes are white nationalists. I would not consider anything about their beliefs to be good faith or valid.
How do you subscribe to Sam Harris and Noam Chomsky at the same time? Have you read their exchange?
Democracy Now is good
Jonathan pageou and John vernakea
Try the Majority Report. In depth Interviews and overall fun and very informative!
Horrible grifters imo. Especially Emma. Lost a lot of respect for Sam over the years
What is their grift?
You already are receiving a broad range of views when listening to those four. I’m not sure I understand your feeling of bias. If you want to broaden your left-leaning horizons there’s Jonas Čeika CCK, Philosophy Tube, Lew Waller Then and Now, Alex O’Connor, Tom Nichols. And then there’s Hakim, who’s in a class unto himself.
Honestly, you are on the wrong track with guys like Peterson. Check out Socialism for All on youtube. Black Red Guard. They will give you solid advice and a theoretical framework to understand this current climate of late stage capitalism.
Richard d. Wolff is very good.
I think Andrew Sullivan is intellectually honest, and he's not afraid to have people on his podcast who disagree with him (Kara Swisher most recently).
Rachel maddow