Joe Rogan On Shapiro's Show

[Zombie]

I agree with this for the most part. It can be an indicator of intelligence, but is by no means the only way. Scoring 176 on the LSAT is not achieved by someone who's only pretend smart who talks fast.

I'll dumb down my point and make it more simple.

People: Ben Shapiro is fake smart and dumb.

Reality: He's smarter and more successful than you. 100%

People: *Roll their eyes* He's so dumb.


I don't think Shapiro is the bar for intellectuals, but it's laughable when people call him dumb.

To be clear, I never said Shapiro is dumb. Just that he isn't the brilliant intellectual so many people are convinced he is.

I judge people not on what school they went to or how good at tests they are, but on the strength of their arguments and the conclusions they come to based on how they see the world. Shapiro fails badly on both counts.

 

[Eminence]

I try to resist the urge to call people dumb (emotions get the best of me sometimes, but we're mostly pretty average out here y'know?) and most tests really just measure one skill - memory - it's valuable, but it's not the only thing. Useful for trivia night down at the bar though.

 

[Archie Moses]

To be clear, I never said Shapiro is dumb. Just that he isn't the brilliant intellectual so many people are convinced he is.

I judge people not on what school they went to or how good at tests they are, but on the strength of their arguments and the conclusions they come to based on how they see the world. Shapiro fails badly on both counts.

I agree with your first sentence. Agsin, I don't think he's the bar for intellectuals, but I do think he's smarter than 99% of people out there. The guy knows a lot of stuff.

I disagree with Shapiro on some of his arguments too. That said, he makes solid arguments more often than he makes poor arguments. I'm sure we're both influenced by biases. You probably see AOC great arguments and conclusions while I may see the ones she makes that aren't so great.

Which political figure do you consider to make strong arguments and conclusions, btw?

 

[Zombie]

I agree with your first sentence. Agsin, I don't think he's the bar for intellectuals, but I do think he's smarter than 99% of people out there. The guy knows a lot of stuff.

I disagree with Shapiro on some of his arguments too. That said, he makes solid arguments more often than he makes poor arguments. I'm sure we're both influenced by biases. You probably see AOC great arguments and conclusions while I may see the ones she makes that aren't so great.

Which political figure do you consider to make strong arguments and conclusions, btw?

I don't think AOC is right about everything either. Of course I find myself agreeing with a lot of what she believes politically.

As for your second question, I think Elizabeth Warren is a good example of someone who is both well educated and good at supporting her positions. As far as political pundits go Ta Nehesi Coates is someone I would consider an intellectual heavyweight.

Natalie Wynn of ContraPoints is another individual who I think is very good at crafting and supporting her positions. In her videos she takes a socratic approach and represents multiple points of views to analyze a particular issue. Rather than seeking to "destroy" the other point of view, she attempts to understand it. I highly recommend her youtube channel.

 

[Archie Moses]

Lol.

Watch this and you'll see the difference of intelligence between Shapiro and his counterparts.

This was hard to watch. Gawd damn it.

 

[One Brow]

I guarantee he'd tested (or would test) higher than you on the ACT, LSAT, IQ, SAT, or any other intelligence test. You guys sound intimidated or jealous. 176, yo.

Why? It's not like he got a 180 on the LSAT. My understanding is that the test is approximately bell-shaped, 150 mean, 10 s.d. So, you'd still expect 3-4 people out of a thousand to get that score. It's not all that amazing.

I do agree that Shapiro is smart. I think he understands exactly the ways that he misleads, misstates, mischaracterizes, and deceives people. Usually, there is some combination of greed and wishful thinking behind this; smart people are much better at rationalizing their lies than those less smart.

 

[Eminence]

Warren is a pretty good current example of consistent and well-stated arguments. I'm not sure I could name a politician I consider an intellectual in my lifetime. For my money Chomsky is still the definitive leftist thinker of our time. George Monbiot is a guy I like too.

 

[Zombie]

Lol.

Watch this and you'll see the difference of intelligence between Shapiro and his counterparts.

This was hard to watch. Gawd damn it.

What difference would that be? What made it hard to watch?

 

[Archie Moses]

I don't think AOC is right about everything either. Of course I find myself agreeing with a lot of what she believes politically.

As for your second question, I think Elizabeth Warren is a good example of someone who is both well educated and good at supporting her positions. As far as political pundits go Ta Nehesi Coates is someone I would consider an intellectual heavyweight.

Natalie Wynn of ContraPoints is another individual who I think is very good at crafting and supporting her positions. In her videos she takes a socratic approach and represents multiple points of views to analyze a particular issue. Rather than seeking to "destroy" the other point of view, she attempts to understand it. I highly recommend her youtube channel.

I don't know much about any of them so I'll definitely start paying closer attention.

Thanks

 

[Archie Moses]

So, you'd still expect 3-4 people out of a thousand to get that score. It's not all that amazing.

Wait, are you seriously saying that scoring in the .04% on the LSAT isn't that amazing? Mmmkay. . I must be odd then cause that sounds impressive af to me.



I feel like this is the comment section on Sportscenter's post where the average guy is talking **** and saying whatever feat was posted isn't all that amazing.

There's an intelligence understanding that other people can be intelligent with or without your approval.

 

[infection]

What do y’all think of Jimmy Dore?

 

[JazzMan4Life]

I haven't received many responses to my first post and this thread has turned into a bit of a ****-show, but I would encourage you all to listen to the last 3 minutes of the OP video to get where I am coming from.

I enjoy the JRE podcast and was introduced to the 'Sunday Special' of Shapiro when I saw him interviewing Andrew Yang a Democratic nominee ---->

I would like to see more of this in-depth, long-form discussion and less of the garbage we see today.

 

[One Brow]

Wait, are you seriously saying that scoring in the .04% on the LSAT isn't that amazing? Mmmkay. . I must be odd then cause that sounds impressive af to me.

Actually, 0.3% - 0.4%, and no, not particularly amazing. Then again, I work every day with people like that (I currently work for WUStl School of Medicine).

There's an intelligence understanding that other people can be intelligent with or without your approval.

While my approval has no effect on the actual intelligence level of Shapiro, I did say, in the same post, that I also thought he was smart. So, I'm not sure what your point it here.

 

[candrew]

I haven't received many responses to my first post and this thread has turned into a bit of a ****-show, but I would encourage you all to listen to the last 3 minutes of the OP video to get where I am coming from.

I enjoy the JRE podcast and was introduced to the 'Sunday Special' of Shapiro when I saw him interviewing Andrew Yang a Democratic nominee ---->

I would like to see more of this in-depth, long-form discussion and less of the garbage we see today.

Right wing media has been very fair to Andrew Yang - either they don't take him seriously or they hope he'll become a third party candidate and take votes away from the democratic candidate (the latter of which he said he's not going to do). Regardless, credit where credit is due - Shapiro does an excellent job here.

I also enjoyed his interview with Sam Harris. In fact I think that's what Shapiro is trying to reinvent himself as - sort of a right leaning, non-secular Sam Harris.

 

[infection]

Right wing media has been very fair to Andrew Yang - either they don't take him seriously or they hope he'll become a third party candidate and take votes away from the democratic candidate (the latter of which he said he's not going to do). Regardless, credit where credit is due - Shapiro does an excellent job here.

I also enjoyed his interview with Sam Harris. In fact I think that's what Shapiro is trying to reinvent himself as - sort of a right leaning, non-secular Sam Harris.

I’m not sure about that. Both he and Tulsi Gabbard, though they may hold a lot of views that go significantly against any baseline right-wing dogma, they themselves aren’t hyper-partisan and haven’t really engaged in much us-vs.-them energizing of their perceived base. As such, they’ve been more willing to engage in discussion that doesn’t fall back on strong appeal to emotion. I’ve been familiar with both of them through Joe Rogan and held favorable views of them despite not agreeing with a number of their positions. My assumption is that their receptivity among the right probably mirrors a lot of my own thoughts.

 

[infection]

Also, Yang and Gabbard are outsiders. They’re not going to get any internal support or exposure, so they have to go to media that will speak with them, and are thus willing to go places such as Shapiro. Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren would have no use for talking to Shapiro or anyone right wing — their best strategy is energizing base.

 

[Archie Moses]

I’m not sure about that. Both he and Tulsi Gabbard, though they may hold a lot of views that go significantly against any baseline right-wing dogma, they themselves aren’t hyper-partisan and haven’t really engaged in much us-vs.-them energizing of their perceived base. As such, they’ve been more willing to engage in discussion that doesn’t fall back on strong appeal to emotion. I’ve been familiar with both of them through Joe Rogan and held favorable views of them despite not agreeing with a number of their positions. My assumption is that their receptivity among the right probably mirrors a lot of my own thoughts.

You should post more about politics. I enjoy reading your takes.

 

[fishonjazz]

You should post more about politics. I enjoy reading your takes.

@infection
Don't do it, it's a trap!

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[candrew]

I’m not sure about that. Both he and Tulsi Gabbard, though they may hold a lot of views that go significantly against any baseline right-wing dogma, they themselves aren’t hyper-partisan and haven’t really engaged in much us-vs.-them energizing of their perceived base. As such, they’ve been more willing to engage in discussion that doesn’t fall back on strong appeal to emotion. I’ve been familiar with both of them through Joe Rogan and held favorable views of them despite not agreeing with a number of their positions. My assumption is that their receptivity among the right probably mirrors a lot of my own thoughts.

That's not untrue, but at the same time if Yang was polling at 30% instead of 3% things would probably get less cordial.

 

[infection]

That's not untrue, but at the same time if Yang was polling at 30% instead of 3% things would probably get less cordial.

Maybe. Maybe not. I think anyone polling at 30% would have less incentive to go on Shapiro, or be as cordial with Shapiro (qualifying this with saying I haven’t seen it so I’ll take your word on cordial). That said, I think the bigger variable is that someone like Yang isn’t just getting up and inflexibly repeating talking points that lay out a typical group-think platform. As such, he’s willing to take positions that aren’t in line with established orthodoxy, so it gives common ground with conservatives (you can draw the same comparisons of why the view of John McCain is so drastically different now on the left than it was 10 years ago). You could call that confirmation bias, if you want, but there’s more to discuss with someone who isn’t intrenched in talking-point regurgitation (imagine how productive a discussion would be with Ted Cruz and a left-leaning interviewer). Perhaps Rand Paul would be a better example, where he’s taken a number of positions that aren’t congruent with Republican Party platform. If I recall, he had been interviewed by Stephen Colbert (could be off on who it was) and it was quite cordial.