Triggernometry Episode released
Added 2023-10-03 08:53:16 +0000 UTCNew episode is out.
We are with the Triggernomety boys... and we are sorry for that but hopefully you can see why!
Comments, Feedback, Complaints... all welcome!
Comments
Just popping in on this month-old post to say I just clicked on a youtube video titled "Eric Weinstein Is Tired Of Not Being Islamophobic". It starts with the announcement from a producer that he's about to roll footage of Eric on "Triggernometry" and the two hosts cannot contain their immediate laughter upon hearing the incredibly juvenile, wannabe-badass name of Konstantin and Sideshow Francis' podcast. Sometimes we spend so much time with the gurus that it's helpful to be reminded of how unserious they are to outsiders. Like, YES, we are joking about them in great detail, but we have to give them lots of time and energy in order to do that. And breaking down so many of their rhetorical moves, piece-by-piece can condition part of our brains (Ok, maybe just mine) into assigning a serious label to their efforts. Maybe because the threat they pose IS a serious one, but it's still nice to get a reality check from outsiders - "They're called WHAT? PFFFFFFFFF..."
JustTheWorstEver
2023-11-02 16:07:51 +0000 UTCI really enjoyed the early days of Sam's podcast when he was alone or would have a very unique type of guest on, like the woman who escaped her Westboro Baptist cult family. Then slowly, the kvetch became strong, and more frequent. And every episode started with him defending some rhetorical blunder he had made the previous week on Twitter, and then came arguments with Russell Brand and more frequent culture war guests, and Sam's exasperation with all those Trump lovers that can't understand his opposition. Just giving so much airtime to people and conflict that wasn't healthy. I think all other IDW figures truly want to be wealthy and popular for the things they say, and so they'll say whatever it takes to keep those metrics rising, even as their base might dwindle, getting poached by more extreme figures or bailing on them after getting worn out by outrage bait on every episode. But Sam really seems like he's in the game to show more people how right he is in his thinking, and how simple these issues can become if you just reason the way he does, and how everyone is constantly misunderstanding his points and using them against him unfairly. (btw, YEAH SAM, that's what they do, so stop talking to them.)
JustTheWorstEver
2023-10-06 17:07:50 +0000 UTCHe's so close to putting 2 and 2 together, but instead of "They never cared about me and truly don't now, they just see me as potentially useful," he comes up with "I'm finally worthy in their eyes and now I'm their brother. They just had to SEE ME for real for it to happen."
JustTheWorstEver
2023-10-06 17:00:16 +0000 UTCYeah imagine genuinely thinking that speech was profound or even persuasive to people who don’t already agree with Kissin. Maybe the least persuasive piece of political argument I’ve heard in years.
Curtis Kofoed
2023-10-06 13:33:20 +0000 UTCI realised I was still subscribed to Triggernometry - so i unsubscribed ....I used to like some of the interviews, and I think they have become more and more indulgent of themselves and their guests as they have gone on, completely ignoring audience capture risks. I mentioned on the EUROTIME galaxy brain super rave that I kind of de-radicalised s a result of DTG, which is a story I would be more than willing to share in due course...but Triggernoms was a show i listen to /watched a lot in the beforetimes. I would say this wouldn't I since I'm not longer a fan but I think they have gotten a lot worse, mainly because K's massive ego and F's limpet-like attachment to something he has basically no input into have gotten swallowed by various discourse tsunamis.. Anyway, as i was going to unsubscribe I saw the latest video was an interview with Laurence Fox seemingly commiserating about how GB News doesn't care about free speech ...and all the comments were about how Ava Evans hates men and wants men to die. Fox and people like him use Triggernometry to launder their ideas , bringing their grievance-mongering A game to imply condonation of the identity-based harassment of people that disagree with them.
Diane Morrison
2023-10-05 17:31:24 +0000 UTCnot sure it's a great idea to remove morality from politics
Matt
2023-10-05 11:18:07 +0000 UTCWow. An edit button. Revolutionary.
Kgar
2023-10-05 04:13:00 +0000 UTCIt almost sounds like they’re pranking us. They can’t be that far gone, can they? “….never flew on private plane until cancelled”
Kgar
2023-10-05 04:12:14 +0000 UTCMy unsupported theory of why Sam Harris constantly is on podcasts that constantly annoy him is that he is addicted to being a kvetcher.
Giovanni
2023-10-05 04:03:18 +0000 UTCLearning about what actually happened with the UNICEF student group contract was illuminating because I could see how exaggeration and simplification were both used to create a more dramatic and divisive story than the real one.
Linda Sears
2023-10-04 23:46:08 +0000 UTCOmg this was hilarious. Konstantin is so damaged. Yes Matt, thank you K for your honesty. We all really needed a laugh.
Kgar
2023-10-04 23:41:47 +0000 UTC"The world is gonna be fixed shortly I think, with so many people lending a hand."
Maarten Wesselius
2023-10-04 15:02:20 +0000 UTC@Decoder(s) (Chris?): Glad about the exchange. You say that it is “okay” to judge people for certain things. This implies a moral framework: Is it okay to judge people (for certain things)? What I wanted to point out is not that you guys are bad for judging people. Please try to read this outside of a moral framework. (And excuse my dry writing style. I’m not a native English speaker.) My problem with moralizing is not that it is bad (and the person doing it is bad), which would be self-contradictory. Rather, moralizing seems to be counterproductive and harmful to achieving whatever you value. It mixes up the question of how the world can be improved with an emotionally based evaluation of people. If you want a world with more truthful communication (as you both seem to value a lot), the action of judging people for untruthfulness is itself in a sense not merely truthful. Its content seems to promote truthfulness, while doing (performing) something other than speaking truth: a value judgement. The question is: When you recognize that what your doing has harmful consequences, why do it? You write that those people are “adults”, implying that they deserve the judgement because they have the ability to see what they’re doing is bad but do it anyway. But they clearly do not understand it or simply don’t share your values of what adults are supposed to be like. And they are not likely to change as a result of being judged. So, this is like a kind of paradoxical (imagined) relationship, in which you are affected by the other person and want them to change but address them like they are intrinsically bad. Is an environment that threatens your social standing through moralizing an inviting place for personal transformation? Hard to believe. One misunderstanding seems to be concerning the alternative to moralizing. You write of “sympathy for their suffering on a human level”. That is not what I would emphasize though. Sure, empathizing is necessary to connect on the human level, but so is recognizing harmful behavior. The more relevant alternative I see is shifting the perspective from individual people and their traits to the wider context they are embedded in. I know that you do that, too, and speak about the dynamics and incentives that the gurus are affected by and that they cannot made responsible for. But you tend to return to the personal judgement (see the point about the gurometer) instead of choosing this less personal perspective as your main point to come back to. Part of a wider, less judgmental perspective could also be to reflect on your emotions towards the gurus (crawling of skin, frustration etc.) and recognize how they – while understandable reactions to one’s values being undermined – lead us to abandon the more helpful perspective, in which people’s agency and responsibility aren’t overemphasized. I know you don’t claim that the gurometer is a scientific instrument and are being ironic about it. But it does some work in the world. I wrote in the reply to Linda that your moralizing approach is clearly visible in the construction of the gurometer and the rankings: people are presented in a decontextualized manner and being evaluated and judged as more or less bad. As a graphic structure and through the names for the items, it reinforces a moral framework. I’m wondering whether you guys wouldn’t agree that there are better types of devices to display the more impactful and important elements of the (guru) world, like, for instance, diagrams that show networks between organizations and people as well as resource flows. There are many better options I believe. To the narcissism point: To be clear: I don’t doubt the research at all. I’m just wishing for more nuance when using this heavily negatively connotated term. Matt speaks about narcissism like it is mostly delusionally high self-regard. In my experience, performing high self-regard is just one strategy to deal with a deep feeling of inadequacy. Vulnerability and grandiosity come together. Also, from what I’ve heard, narcissistic disorders can be linked to PTSD etc., which means people's nervous systems do not support good reasoning and self-reflection. Again, it’s not about pity and relativizing harm, but about non-judgmental, more precise communication that promotes deep understanding of oneself and the world. Maybe this is a mistake to write those things here, semi-publicly. I am open to discussing this in other channels, too, if you find that valuable.
Christoph
2023-10-04 12:16:19 +0000 UTC@ linda Appreciate the engagement. What do you mean by third rail? It's hard to write about those things without becoming part of moral communication :). I guess my point is not only about pushing people into camps etc but also about what focusing on the quality of people does to your understanding of the problems they represent and of society. I get that it is easy to be outraged about what those people do. No judgement from me there ;). But imo one of the issues with the reaction to Trump for example is and was a reliance on the idea that people will not support such an obviously immoral person. But people simply had different morals. Moralizing the political process means choosing not to frame politics not around issues and problems but around people. It leads to a reduced ability to view the people on the other side as open to change because it attributes something to them as a person. But people's behavior does heavily depend on their context. Changing the context opens possibilities for other behavior. Not a new point I know, but important nonetheless. On the narcissism point: My sense is (cannot point to examples here) that especially Matt refers to the science but they also use it more loosely. The problem lies in the moral connotations of the term, which needs careful handling and clarity. The more I think about it, the clearer it becomes: The gurometer and the ranking of its results are moral devices. I find it important to point that out, because it allows for the question what other devices would lead to less moralizing. To me as a sociologist (now it's out!), e.g. network graphs of the relationships between people and organizations come to mind, especially ones that incorporate resource flows. There will be some differences between nodes in this network but they wouldn't be framed within a ranking but resulting from and influencing social processes. Just an idea ;) [edited i.e. to e.g.]
Christoph
2023-10-04 09:05:29 +0000 UTCI think of it like, "Francis, you make such excellent tea, you know. I really think you should go and make one of your excellent teas for both of us now! Chop chop, the sky is no longer the limit!"
Robert Andrews
2023-10-04 05:55:15 +0000 UTCAs an American fan of yours, I hope you understand how special it is that when I hear Konstantin speak to Francis in terms of "The people wouldn't know this, but I usher you along, perhaps more strongly than I should sometimes..." I just hear David Lister saying to Arnold Rimmer "You're a sad weasel of a man, aren't yeh?" in my head. And it applies to both of these miserable douchebags.
JustTheWorstEver
2023-10-04 03:10:42 +0000 UTCI think a key to understanding Konstantin's sense of accomplishment is that he probably sees the culture "war" as a real war and not just click-bait. I personally think the culture war preys upon some bug in human nature where people are addicted to feeling outraged. But for people who see the culture war as a true battle of ideas, the feeling of accomplishment for affecting the discourse makes sense.
brianshmrian
2023-10-04 00:53:18 +0000 UTCWorking from the band analogy, is Francis the Ringo of the band? Or is he the Bez? Or maybe the band is actually Right Said Fred, and this podcast is akin to the Fairbrass Brothers declaring that there is no limit to their success following "I'm Too Sexy!" Time will tell if Triggernometry become the next Beatles, OR if they are forced to become anti-vaxxers to regain some kind of relevance with people who dimly remember them.
Robert Andrews
2023-10-03 23:51:57 +0000 UTCMassive tools are these two. 🤦♂️It's all I've got to say about that. But great work Chris and Matt. I just hope you are getting the necessary support required after putting this episode together: some things just can't be unlistened to.
LaserRange
2023-10-03 20:22:22 +0000 UTCA lot has been said about what a cringe midwit kissin is, but Frances makes him look like an absolute genius lol
Curtis Kofoed
2023-10-03 18:54:33 +0000 UTCThanks for the episode! I enjoyed listening to the decoding as well as to the updates on what's happening in the gurusphere. So glad that I can get a whiff of things here, without engaging with the original materials you deal with...
Roland Weber
2023-10-03 16:39:44 +0000 UTCCouldn’t finish it. I got as far as the “ever since I was a kid” bit. These guys are absolutely lifelong losers that have found a way to cash in on being cynical contrarian weirdos. They confuse popularity with actual value, no wonder KK is glowing with joy for his newfound attention. Weirdos.
C. J
2023-10-03 15:46:49 +0000 UTCI am with you on the cringe that is Konstantin Kissin. Doing a flat culture war speech and talking about it as if he had defied the Nazi's personally ... god how little do these people have in their lives to be proud of? Feeling validated for that? Poor family.
Protagonist Science
2023-10-03 13:26:49 +0000 UTCYeah I’m with Linda here. I actually think it’s ok to morally judge people who, for example, place their desire for attention and conspiracy theories above the possibility of incorrectly recommending people to avoid vaccines OR stoke right wing populism to soothe their fragile insecurities. I can have sympathy for the suffering on a human level, but these are all adults. In regards Scott, he is definitely a human but his behaviour as a worm tongued viper is there for all to see. I’d happily rephrase to buck eejit. The psychology literature is pretty clear about how central narcissistic tendencies are to endorsement of conspiracy theories. And the measures they use are not that complicated. Mostly it’s self report scales. I just don’t think there’s much of a mystery about how central narcissistic tendencies are amongst the gurus.
Christopher Kavanagh
2023-10-03 12:53:32 +0000 UTCI’ll touch this third rail of moral judgment. Personally, I believe that moral judgment based on evidence is not problematic and using shaming language to point out bad behavior is not always the wrong thing to do. For example, many in the news media did not use the word “lie” in writing or talking about Trump’s behavior while in office. I understand your point that moral judgment and shaming can push people further into their camps, which is a real concern. At the same time, I wish more people had called Trump a narcissist early on since, from all accounts, his behavior is narcissistic. I have a narcissistic family member, who has created a great deal of harm around her, and I would also appreciate an interview with someone with expertise on this subject. To be fair to Matt and Chris, they emphasized in their gurometer episodes that they were not using the clinical definition of narcissism. I do agree that it is better not to use dehumanizing language as tempting as it may be.
Linda Sears
2023-10-03 12:40:31 +0000 UTCHey guys, this is more of general comment. As you point out in this episode, there is an underlying insecurity behind what many of the guru figures are doing. Getting approval through big view counts etc. online alleviates some of that unease and provides a sense of greater self-worth, as Konstantin clearly expresses. An Argument: The culture war is fueled by morality in the sense that the different sides do not simply disagree on certain topics but that the people on the other side are somewhat lacking as humans. This is not always explicit but simply implying people need to change makes it easy to view that as moral judgement. It is hard to not react when someone questions your value as a person, which is why moralizing is a tragic action: Shaming someone into doing something good creates either conflict or an implicit submission to the idea that it is okay to threaten people with social exclusion. It is easy to see how this leads to the formation of moral camps in a conflict. When someone has issues with their self-worth, they probably have internalized moral communication, viewing themselves as lacking in some regard and fearing for their place in society. And, as the guru behaviors indicate, they seek to gain external approval to soothe this existential pain. I really enjoy what you do here and I value your light-hearted way of promoting critical thinking. However, I sometimes found myself a bit torn between enjoying your takedowns of people who lie, deceive, confuse, manipulate and feeling a bit uneasy about the tone, the personal critiques, the style of communication that you often apply. I can express that more clearly now: You, too, engage in moralizing. For example, calling Scott Adams animals names like slimy snake (or something similar) questions his worth as a human. Through the whole umbrella of “gurudom” and the “gurometer”, you create a connection between all the figures that you put through the decodings. That means further that everyone you cover is implied to be more or less morally worthy, which creates a pressure to defend or submit. Also, you rely heavily on ‘narcissism’ as an explanation for guru behaviors, pointing to psychological research. To me, it clearly reads like a moral judgement though, especially as you don't elaborate much on the science. I would love it if you had an interview with someone who emphasis a non-judgmental, i.e. scientific approach to narcissism. That would go well with your emphasis on the scientific method etc. To sum up: I imagine you, Matt and Chris, do not want to participate in a game of moral judgement, in which you contribute to creating more moral pressure and fear of exclusion. I think it is possible to do your work and illuminate the problematic impacts of what certain public figures do without judging them morally.
Christoph
2023-10-03 11:16:33 +0000 UTC
