Jamie Wheal: Right to Respond

Just bingeing episodes. This Jamie guy is a real prick. I swear he’s on meth. He just goes 100mph and cuts off Chris and Matt every chance he gets. I wish Chris would just say “ioh fuck off!” But that would not help matters. I know Chris wants to

Julie

I rejoined the patreon specifically to watch the video version of this episode because I simply had to see the guys' faces when listening to Jamie's excessively florid word salad monologues in his (deeply strange and definitley not real) transatlantic accent

Samantha Rae

bloviations without Matt and Chris's tempering effect. What an irritating little popinjay.

Christie McCormick

This guy is a paid speaker? Yikes. I can't imagine having to listen to his self-important

Christie McCormick

Jazz is just whenever I'm making it up

Curtis Kofoed

Fair enough you two were too busily engaged in the sense making flow to notice haha ;)

SHOUNAK SARKAR

Yeah, I am a fan of well-used profanity but performative overuse not so much. But TBH neither Matt nor I noticed them much in the moment.

Christopher Kavanagh

Oh you know ;)

Christopher Kavanagh

Interesting!

Christopher Kavanagh

No problem. I actually felt bad for not pushing back there. The video seemed very reasonable to me! Will add a link in the show notes.

Christopher Kavanagh

I am a man of the people. I bleed just like you.

Christopher Kavanagh

Don't undersell Prof. Browne we do ok!

Christopher Kavanagh

lol!

SHOUNAK SARKAR

He uses "fuck" to show he's just a regular joe a man of the people a tough guy who turns around the folding chair and straddles it as he tells it like it is off the cuff to the suits at goldman sachs.

Bob Gower

He more than anyone, knows that it doesn’t mean shit ;)

Guruspod 2

Ah well, this is his chance to respond - we already said our piece in the original episode

Guruspod 2

Hey guys, interesting and unintentionally entertaining episode! Props to Jamie Wheal for coming on the podcast to have a discussion (he's in select company), but I must say that his performance here wasn't all that different from the Sensemaking epic on Rebel Wisdom. The long array of wordsalads he strung together to discuss his psychedelic experiences were verbose and impressive, but ultimately nonsensical. Jamie seems likable but still problematic IMO. You can see it in how he was defending the Weinstein brothers, Joe Rogan and many others for "just asking questions". So even though the overuse of metaphors & nonsencial rhetoric in sensemaking doesn't seem to have any political valence on the surface, their skepticism of Game A and reflexive distrust of institutions can easily lead to a highly conspiratorial worldview. Also not sure why Jamie feels the need to insert a "fuck" into every sentence? That was bizarre and unnecessarily profane lol. Another observation, all the sensemakers have this peculiar soft spoken way of speaking. Looking forward to the Musk episode btw!

SHOUNAK SARKAR

I’m afraid that this “fucking academic refugee” violates the rules of right to reply within reason…

elcid

Yes yes. That was Nese of Psymposia. She’s brilliant. Thanks again for what you do. It is grounding and important for a lot of us.

Douglas Rushkoff

Lol, love him insulting Conspirituality pod-- they put in more work into one podcast than he does for an entire book

Alex Nelson

After 2 hrs of sensemaker verbiage, a blank comment was a refreshing change!

Artemis Green

Ha ha. My phone made this blank comment without me knowing it.

Richard Husband

Richard Husband

In Jamie's world (game A no less) everything and everyone is corrupted and/or compromised except him and his friends. Also game A has been very good to these people but it hasn't recognized them as the geniuses they are so on to game B. When he said that an EEG was not to be believed only what he felt about his own heart it was almost slipped by me. Well, I'm paraphrasing...

Richard Husband

Wow! I can't help thinking that Jamie's main takeaway from the DTG of Sensemaking was that he was a less impressive maker of sense than Jordan and Daniel and he had to make up for it by going on a never-ending jazz solo. What a plonker!

Sean Carmody

This guy knocked out the entire english thesaurus within 10 minutes while saying little more than "psychedelics are awesome, man"

Alex Nelson

I can take exception with a lot. Radiating narcissism isn’t always bad, except that yeah, it is. The meaningless word salad, the bro critique, the wide eyed stare into nothingness - it’s all very auto erotic. Jamie probably has a course on elevating masturbation to a optimized flow state of rapturous self love - a modern takedown of “the joy of sex” experienced through rigorous trials of the Kama Sutra - the lived experience of higher order bro-hemians. No - no thank you. The point Jamie takes to task about his Goldman (or whatever) riff on taking down the evils of post modern neo liberalism - yeah did you stand in front of seal team six and say the same? No - you flaunt that experience as as if the blind adoration of a highly trained kill squad is something that you find totally no objection too - nothing to see here, just finding flow! Jamie takes the money and hides behind his hot takes like “psychedelics are information technology! Do you get high? No? Why the fuck not! You’re not doing it right!” “What’s it? Living life!” And the nasty bit about “we’re on the same side!” Yes.. yes Chris and Matt are definitely out promoting and platforming misinformation and hawking this eastern baked pseudo science self help finding consciousness outside (or inside?) of conciseness. When of course Jamie meant “I’m one of the good gurus! Those other guys- hacks! Imitators! Dangers to all! By my book! H/T to Jamie - he’s figured out how to turn getting high, talking fast and having lots of sex into a nice stack of coin with no obligations and no strings attached.

Jason Trock

The guy came off as so pretentious it was almost satire. But satire shouldn't be so exhausting...

Zvi Pardes

It's interesting because "minor", "modal", and "7th" are all terms a musician might use to describe certain things in jazz, but in that order they don't make any sense. So he clearly has some awareness of the jargon, but doesn't actually know what the words mean - and I'm guessing that's the case in many other domains he touches on as well...

Ryan Goss

You have to listen to the original song though, to get it.

Treebee

Song by British band Blur. Someone took it and put it to clips of Russell Brand talking in an interview and it fit so well, it went viral. I'm American but I had a British boyfriend who showed me this and it's hilarious: https://youtu.be/8B_Evl1fiLA

Treebee

I have the urge to shout "Parklife!" after everything he says ;)

Treebee

Was just joking but it’s more amazing to me that these guys have such a thin skin that anyone that pokes fun at their insufferable verbose mess they just crack.

Chris Snyder

Actually made a note in the chat to point that out but conversation moved on and felt weird to circle back. Flagged it to the conspirituality guys and they said no worries.

Christopher Kavanagh

There's so much going on here in this article, its fascinating. BTW which one of you commented on it as 'Anton' a year ago? https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/jamie-wheal-guru-techno-optimism/

Barrett

Of course we wouldn’t,would we? Sheesh

Rod Hodges

When I heard “thought leaders” I wanted to vomit.

Rod Hodges

I hear ya. He talked real fast and used a lot of jargon like “substrate” for example that a lot of these guys use. I’ll listen on a slower speed.

Rod Hodges

Plus his use of “fucking” this or “fucking” that was really hard for me to take. And who are the “thought leaders” he’s talking about? That phrase sounds pretty suspect.

Rod Hodges

I guess I haven't listened to enough episodes yet because I didn't realize they criticize a wall of books background. It can indeed come off as quite pretentious. Look at my vast library! I've probably read and I own more books than you! Recently on a livestream the guru-esque right wing blogger Vox Day accidentally jostled his camera, and what had looked like his extensive library behind him was revealed to be a couple shelves in a corner, with some shelves dedicated to knick-knacks. He scrambled to reposition the camera but the truth had been revealed!

Treebee

Last comment, he threw shade at the Conspirituality Pod guys! Chris & Matt you guys shouldn’t have let that slide so easily!! Haha

Chris Snyder

This was kind of what I expected haha. These guys live in a different world and I am a little frightened that it is leaking into the real world via the tech bro scene in Silicon Valley. These guys are all in the same “enlightened centrism” area of tech and has a creeping aspect of longtermisn that has a not so subtle aspect of scientific racism built into it, bordering on tech fascism. I think Chris & Matt should deep dive into this theology from an outsider (not American) perspective it would be a good listen. I am sure Chris might know about this subreddit & online space but the rational wiki, r/sneerclub shows the absolute insanity of these people like Scott Anderson and Curtis yarvin, who all seem to have ties to Peter Tiel. Anyway would be interesting because what I always thought of engineering brain seems to have a coherent (insane) philosophy behind it. Seems to be getting a little more mainstream press after the FTX meltdown. Anyway, after this rant would just be interesting to hear what Chris & Matt think of this philosophy in the tech world.

Chris Snyder

I had trouble understanding Jamie at first. He talked really fast and he said things that sounded mysterious. Was he talking nonsense and using lots of fast talk and multi-syllabic words to disguise it? But after listening over and over I now think he was making sense and Matt and Chris were smart to be able to follow him in real time.

Lucy

Final thought, when you guys edit, I'd very much like to hear what Chris and Matt were thinking during those two second pauses prior to speaking following a Silicon-Valley-at-Burning-Man style soliloquy.

Barrett

"Are either of you guys familiar with psychedelics from a first-person phenomenological perspective?" is a hell of a way to ask "Have either of you tried psychedelics?".

Daz

Given the steady stream of rhetorical flash grenades, you guys did well. I appreciate the attempt to engage by all involved. Having tried their neurotropic supplements, I've found them to have a high stimulant effect and I sometimes think that crew has just misunderstood being mentally amped for some kind of transcendent capacity.

Geoff Fitch

Whenever anyone jumps in with a minor modal 7th, I just lay back and strum my tom tom.

Geoff Fitch

Just starting this and right off the bat, as a jazz musician, I resent these pseudo-intellectuals comparing anything they do to jazz. (Also, a "minor modal 7th" is not a thing)

Ryan Goss

Agreed on the gratuitous fucks. It's distracting to me. I suppose it did have the effect on me of him seeming more impassioned or at times angry.

Daniel

I was awed by Jamie's ability to go on metaphor-laden verbal tears, like his closing comments. It made me seriously wonder if he's using drugs (methamphetamines?) or something. I don't know anyone who talks like that in my daily life.

Daniel

The covid-19 parts toward the end seem revealing to me. Anyone who doesn't understand why public health messages shifted over time (scientific knowledge grows over time and the virus itself changes) or that there are different measures of vaccine efficacy (e.g., infection, hospitalization, death) hasn't been paying much attention or doesn't have a great ability to evaluate evidence. His rather strident reaction to Chris' pushback about his covid-19 position was also interesting, as he really did mostly do a good job of seeming open-minded and politely listening to Chris and Matt before responding. I think Chris gave him the benefit of the doubt that he understands how wrong Bret is and just didn't want to publically disagree with a friend. However, it seems Jamie actually thinks Bret is right about a lot of things and just got too focused on ivermectin rather than adopting Jamie's conveniently vague scepticism about "the authorities". Overall, Jamie comes off to me like a perpetually excited undergrad who has studied some cool theories and watched some cool TED talks and wants to show off. Not sure he has much to add besides flowery (and dirty) language and a vague anti-establishment pose that his tech and finance bro clients like to adopt for their weekend retreats. The covid-19 parts toward the end seem revealing to me. Anyone who doesn't understand why public health messages shifted over time (scientific knowledge grows over time and the virus itself changes) or that there are different measures of vaccine efficacy (e.g., infection, hospitalization, death) hasn't been paying much attention or doesn't have a great ability to evaluate evidence. His rather strident reaction to Chris' pushback about his covid-19 position was also interesting, as he really did mostly do a good job of seeming open-minded and politely listening to Chris and Matt before responding. I think Chris gave him the benefit of the doubt that he understands how wrong Bret is and just didn't want to publically disagree with a friend. However, it seems Jamie actually thinks Bret is right about a lot of things and just got too focused on ivermectin rather than adopting Jamie's conveniently vague scepticism about "the authorities". Not sure he has much to add besides flowery (and dirty) language and a vague anti-establishment pose that his tech and finance bro clients like to adopt for their weekend retreats.

Enchant-o-matic

Well... my own take (having not quite finished) is that Jamie Wheal knows how to switch on the Gish Gallop from time to time. What he says sounds superficially plausible regarding the problems of academia. However, I think you made a good point, Chris, that the problems in academia, and in fact with vaccine efficacy and Covid mitigation etc... are themselves often flagged up through better academic principles. For example, when Jamie splutters about how the vaccines have been reduced to an efficacy of 30%, how was this figure even arrived at? Was it through Bret and Heather's Dark Horse Reserach Lab? No, presumably it was from the very institutions that Jamie, Bret and Heather wag their fingers at. This is beside the fact that the 30% efficacy is better than 0%, and the fact that it may indeed be better than that when it comes to death and serious disease (an intervention that cuts death and serious disease by 30% is pretty damn good, is it not?)

Robert Andrews

I listened to the conversation twice, once on my usual 1.6x speed, and again slowing it down to 1.3x as I couldn't understand what Jamie was saying when he really got going. I've never really listened to his content, so have no preconceived notions about him. The one episode (making sense of sensemaking or whatever) he was kind of drowned out by the other two. He sure can use phrasing and metaphor which sounds profound and insightful, but doesn't really mean anything, and could be expressed far more clearly using regular language. It was an interesting conversation, with you two keeping his toes to the fire. He actually sounded reasonable for a good part of it, though there were times his general disregard for the status quo, particularly academia, became all too obvious. What I can't help wonder is why these big name clients of his pay him so much for his brand of nothing talking?

Jason Etheridge

Oh interesting to hear! I think I listened to your conversation with Jamie broke down on a critical YouTube video (they were very complimentary of you!).

Christopher Kavanagh

Thanks for the detailed feedback! Very interesting to hear.

Christopher Kavanagh

He even started off by saying that sensemaking is an awful term and why not just call it "Making Sense"? I wonder, though, if that's copyright Sam Harris?

brianshmrian

I appreciate that. I certainly hope the decoders would see me as more of a colleague or fan than their next subject….! This show has become my touchstone for sanity. They are linked in the second part of my article, too.

Douglas Rushkoff

The one thing I reckon may have been worth adding was where Jamie defends his lack of critical pushback to Bret in that it is something to do privately: pointing out there is a distinction between having a chat with your friends and intentionally creating content and thus a responsibility when doing the latter. A podcast interview isn't just a chat with a friend that happens to have a few people in earshot. If you aren't willing to publicly bag out your friends for their bad ideas, that seems fine. But you aren't required to make podcast content with them.

Barrett

It was an experience. I think his more genuine moments were when he was not indulging in the sensemaking flow. But then again I think the later parts of the podcast are a more accurate representation of his views about science/politics than the earlier comments.

Christopher Kavanagh

The “You ain’t seen shit till you licked a toad” was just beyond! And the implication being that Matt and Chris couldnt possibly understand his brilliance until having done so. So smug and ignorant! (And I have learned a lot through my own experiences but come on!) Also, it seemed to me he was trying very hard to get you guys to like him, and yet establish some sort of higher status… here’s how I’d critique your podcast and what you do! And when it was clear you’d bested any argument, he’d be like, oh let’s move on guys of course that’s what I WAS saying. And I didn’t hate him, but oh the unreasonable overuse of vocabulary and name dropping, and like of COURSE we all tell Brett he’s a dumbass behind the scenes, but our friendship… this little world of “thought leaders” aren’t we special? Don’t get mad because we use our platforms to support our friends and overlook critiquing them! And right after you praised him for not being so thin skinned he went straight to translucent! Oh those assholes who didn’t like me! LOL I actually learned something listening to this because when I get into these discussions I tend to get so exasperated, so thanks for the tips on remaining evenhanded and firm. Love the show so much!

KMD

In an attempt to not rehash what’s already been well commented on, Jamie’s reference to ‘you’re just mad that we’re all friends’ and his corresponding explanation suggesting the possibility that he does disagree with the crazy ideas of his friends …. But only behind closed doors, was the pinnacle for me. Even then, he wouldn’t actually address the volume of damage people like Bret Weinstein did with pro-Ivermectin, anti-vaccination positions. There’s just no accountability any direction

Jarrod Sanderson

These guys certainly have big feelings.

Jennydiver

Oh bless your hearts, I'm struggling to get through even his self introduction......good lord, the lack of insight.

Jennydiver

I listened to the original episode again and I didn't understand anything a second time. The funny thing about this follow-up interview is that it's now a 50/50 experience where Chris or Matt would ask a question, a clear one which I understood, and Jamie would say words and they would float through my ears leaving no meaning at all. So half of this I understand, and half of this is like actually tripping. And hearing him talk about taking drugs reminded me of all the people I've met with this exact problem before. The words are crystal, the meaning is lost, as if in a dream. I've done a lot of acid and mushrooms and club drugs and I just don't have evidence personally that they are the cause, I have a feeling the lack of sense comes first and the open mind stuff comes later.

Erin Dougherty

Never stop doing them. They are amongst my favourite episodes and they give us a unique insight into human nature. Pure entertainment every time.

Tasty3141

I had much higher hopes for Jamie wheal when he was the quieter one on the sense making episode, damn he was frustrating haha. The exchange about psychedelics was the perfect summary of how he is just trying way too hard “Do you have experience with psychedelics from a first person phenomenological perspective?” “Uhhh do you mean to ask if we’ve tried them?” Lmfao

Heath Lancaster

Jamie “I’ve fucking got so many fucking books I need a fucking ladder” Wheal.

Heather Geverding

"But are you...experienced? BLEEP BLOOP WAWAWA"

Allan Malcolm McPherson

That was pretty impressive. Reminded me of Konstantin.

Christopher Kavanagh

I have more substantial thoughts but man, the way Jamie mixes 'fuck' into his sentences is kinda grating, it reminds me of an preteen with pretenses of edginess. Especially when mixed into the rapid-fire and oft unnecessary jargon. "...be Bayesian as fuck about it" <- oof I've gotta say - the end was pretty perfect. Inviting you to get into the flowing river where you stop criticising gurus and aim to get over the rough spots in a dialectic to make jazz was a really good reminder of the context of this whole episode. It also reminded me of something i see among academics, typically prominent profs with a controversial theory that faces pushback. "the sooner everyone stops criticising my pet theory, the sooner we can all build upon it and figure out all the ways it will benefit the world" kinda thing

Barrett

You let him have the last word. Now you can't say anything, or he'll have another "right to respond"

Kat

Fair enough, Jamie gets credit for finding Konstantin’s bar lying on the ground, then slithering over it and congratulating himself on his unstoppable bar vanquishing technique.

Rasterisk

Woh! Maybe you guys shouldn’t bother with right of replies. I mean, they’re funny but….sheesh!

Simon Patience

Have you experienced drugs from a first hand phenomenological perspective?

Curtis Kofoed

Imagine he’s your guide on Everest and you’re trying to get a clear answer to a life and death question

Curtis Kofoed

This mf is incapable of speaking clearly. I got a nosebleed at this exchange: “do either of you have experience with psychedelics from a first hand phenomenological perspective?” “You mean to ask if we’ve done psychedelics?”

Curtis Kofoed

What was it like to go from third person observers of sensemaking to being sucked through a vortex into the first person experience with Jamie waiting for your response to one of his paragraph sentences? I was grateful to maintain the subject-object duality, leaving the conversation safely as an object in my headphones.

brianshmrian

Ah, I try to refrain from pulling out the lawyer card, but here we go... I mean, I and many others missed many of our classes at law school because we needed to work to support ourselves and our lecturers refused to record their lectures. It sucked, but we hit the books and made the best of it. My grades, though not extraordinary, were good. Perhaps that's why the comment annoys me so much. I did it out of necessity and I still look back with regret that I couldn't have a 'normal' academic experience, even if my career has worked out well. But I would never use it to argue that I'm a genius. A lot of us did it. And I hate using people use their law degree for status/bragging rights, particularly if you didn't bother to show up just because you didn't feel like it. The comments about lawyers learning how to be a lawyer on the job are true, but it is also true that I am better at my particular job because my university had a focus on the area of law that I practice. There's one particular class that I had to skip that I did feel it when I briefly practiced in that sub-field - nothing fatal but I just had to work harder and longer to drill the concepts into my brain. So it's both/and, not either/or, I think.

Artemis Green

I truly regret listening to that whole episode. He’s probably a lovely person, but I can’t handle all that self-satisfied word salad. I’m exhausted and feel like this cost me IQ points I can’t afford to lose.

potatowire

I love the dynamic of Jamie bringing up COVID and then 3 minutes later asking why they're talking about COVID. "That was a riff"

Nick Brouwer

This pretentious hack had me bristling at “academic refugee” and pondering fight or flight by the time he tried “but yes-ish” on Chris. 🚫 Thanks for the solid pushback, guys—don’t know how the hell you do it but it’s always fun listening.

Rasterisk

You wouldn’t understand

TheRealEricWeinstein

Ben Shapiro did something like this and he BOMBED as an actual lawyer. Some people are just good at doing tests. But that skill has little value in the actual workplace. Especially if you don't have a work ethic and an ability to persist with the boring stuff. To me it says more about the problems with how universities assess students. Rather than proving his smarts.

Emma

It reminds me of in the 90s where some girly shows like 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' were having fun with dialogue mixing up more academic language with silly Valley girl slang. But I think that was just meant to be fun. And this is like the modern guy version of that. Mixing up really OTT high faluting language with frequent and aggressive swearing. It's really distinctive to these particular super rich dude bro influencer types. Maybe to try and be relatable to their audience of more low education young men. But its so gross and also sort of fake. Like I'm just a dude like you, who happens to have a billion dollar company.

Emma

Well that was bizarre

TheRealEricWeinstein

You have to release the video the world.

Jørgen

I'm really gonna try to stick it out with this one, but, as others have noted, it's a challenge. I wanted to like Jamie. Out of the gate, his pillorying of the sensemakers got my Omega Rule fully engaged, but it is an exercise in tedium to listen to him. I would be shocked to encounter someone in real life if they tried to communicate with me in this rhetorical style, but at least I could attempt to minimize my time spent engaging with them. Matt and Chris are stuck in a scheduled Zoom meeting with Jamie lol. Idk - I think all these guys just need to get a little stoned and watch/rewatch Cosmos. In my mind, Sagan has already successfully elucidated the kind of heuristics we should be looking to engage with more and more over time and isolated a lot of our less useful/destructive tendencies as individuals and societies. And he did it all with a kind of clear & eloquent brevity that the sensemakers could only dream of and without having to chase down some grand theory of group coherence that is apparently governed by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Edit: Managed to finish. My opinion of Jamie really fluctuated throughout the second half of the episode. It seemed like there were moments where he was so close to being potentially conciliatory before he'd get really defensive and suddenly mount a passionate tirade against universities or the failings of science or COVID vaccines and then be unwilling to acknowledge Chris or Matt's counters/alternate perspectives to those tangents before resorting to saying "Why are you guys even talking about Bret and Heather?" or "Why are you guys so focused on the COVID vaccine?" AFTER he was the one who had explicitly invoked those things in his prior comments. It wasn't Kisin levels of dirty pool rhetorically, but it was frustrating nonetheless. Kudos to Matt and Chris. I think you both did a great job articulating your issues with the Sensemaking/IDW alternative intellectual ecosystem. A highlight moment was definitely Chris calling out the hypocrisy of that community's purported ethos of willingness to engage in tough conversations and holding up that willingness as the pinnacle of intellectual virtuousness, but then immediately writing virtually all criticism off as bad faith, and then contrasting that kind of culture with what occurs in academia was about as rock solid a case as you can make against the superficiality of these characters' authority. Just look at the degree to which Bret was personally offended when faced with what was ultimately pretty mild, yet firm criticisms from Wright on his podcast. He threw a tantrum and ruled out further conversations because his feeling were hurt and yet he wants everyone to take it as gospel that he has more intellectually rigorous heuristics than all of academia? Give me a fucking break. Overall, interesting, if relatively frustrating, conversation. Props to Jamie for coming on and generally being a good sport (though he got a bit snippy here and there). I think he just needs to back off his thesaurus, the adderall, and the psilocybin for a bit.

Devin Poore

My feedback after surviving that: I didn't know Billy Madison was based on Jamie Wheal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpuRcmPnSTM

Mike Nelson

Thanks for sharing that link!!

James Lohner

He's one of the most earnest/interesting non-guru gurus imho (Douglas Rushkoff). I hope the decoders go easy on him. And that was one of his better monologues.

widget

“Are people like Jordan and Daniel well-positioned to evaluate the efficacy of hydroxychlorquine and other clinical research?” “Well they do have a nine figure nutritional supplement company…” 🙄

Scott

He seems to have blown his mind with Toad. But unfortunately he hasn't blown his enormous ego. That seems to be consistent across people who believe psychedelics are it.

Nina Davies

He’s certainly got a rich vocabulary and he’s rather proud of using it. Too bad in the midst of his usage he often can’t find the 🎯. As you said, interesting! Also, a waste time.

Tom McCool

What an insufferable twat.

Graham Clarke

I enjoyed it when Chris pointed out that Jamie gives talks to banks and corporations whilst Matt was using his work against the gambling business! Interesting that he mentioned Douglas Rushkoff too, as I've just read his critique of 'sensemakers'.... https://rushkoff.medium.com/whats-a-meta-for-part-two-e3bed1cf7ec4

Tina Matthews

This guy. 😩

Loki

I lost it at 17:45 when Matt was starting to get overwhelmed by the well-rehearsed tirade. His face is priceless! I also enjoy when the meaningless adjective fuck is added for supposed emphasis on a point.

Evan Bingham

This guy is doing parody. It is performance art, surely.... Quite unbelievable

Scott Stacey

Jamie was hiding his power level for a good while in agreeability, even from himself. Looks like it got a bit more heated in the second half. So far as these bullshit artists go, he doesn't seem like the worst guy. His Silicon Valley / Burning Man / heterodox sphere still appears to me completely oblivious to how it is homogeneous, incestuous, coercive, reactionary and retrograde. Incoherent to itself in particular. Its highly paid TED Talk squared keynotes give window dressing and big feelings, suppressive fire for tech bro politics. These can be traced to the richest men in the world securing natural monopolies on segments of our public sphere. This ideology is the revolutionary thinking of a military junta, of Pinochet murdering Allende. Not of a popular movement of emancipation, but technocratic/oligarchic control, great men (and AIs) of history leading the way. Alexander Dugin's neo-fascist metaphysical imperialism has some overlap with this that I'll be thinking about. I think it's telling when Jamie sort of sneers "No, I know you guys think you're rebels" -- the proper response, which Chris only sort of reached at, was "No, I know YOU guys think you're rebels!" It's delusional to believe Bret Weinstein, at least in the capacity of his influencer job, is a substantive human being over this assemblage of various interest groups and algorithmically produced/exploited desires of his target demo. The material incentives of "the system" are in an honest scientist becoming a professional contrarian selling penis enlargement brain pills. Jamie was listing categories including people who can only ever contradict a perceived establishment narrative. The same incentives also mean Bret's career ends the moment he starts talking about something that he's not allowed to. Even Trump was booed for telling people to get vaccined. How can Game B contain something like this? How can it not get rid of it? It seemed the question was of little interest to Jamie, because much like Konstantin Kisin he is not Bret Weinstein. My answer, anyway, is because Game B is created by this dysfunction, its incapability of conceptualizing the world. It doesn't oppose the problem, but exemplifies it. In the words of the IDW, sorry, ICP: <i>Water, fire, air and dirt Fucking magnets, how do they work? And I don't wanna talk to a scientist Y'all motherfuckers lying, and getting me pissed Solar eclipse, and vicious weather Fifteen thousand Juggalos together</i>

Exai

I am 20 minutes in, and I give up. I don’t know if the guy has any interesting thoughts buried underneath all these fancy sounding word salads. If he does, he is completely incapable of expressing them in a clear manner. So my guess is, he is trying to sound incredibly smart because he is not.

colormeskeptical

To cast a bit of shade on you at around the 1 hr 2 minute mark (I can't believe I am still listening, also this is really my last comment), I do think that Matt's holding up of academic criticism as the model for talking about complex issues is unrealistic. It's fine in that context but I just don't think it's a realistic way to expect people to interact outside it* because it is so bruising. What is less rigorous about looking for the good and the potential in what someone is doing while at the same time robustly critiquing/pulling apart/stress testing? Would a person's arguments worsen if reviewers devoted time to offering words of praise as well as criticism? Is academia better or worse off because people** who don't respond well to this mode of feedback walk away from the whole enterprise? *I did work for one law firm that was like this, but it was a kind of academic environment of its own, and frankly a lot of people left because of it. **People in the highly reputable survey I just did in my head of the approx. 10 people in my life who have done PhDs, all of whom chose not to pursue an academic career, all of whom commented to me on a negative and isolating environment (3 citing it as the primary reason for abandoning their plan to work in academia).

Artemis Green

Yeah they really like to drop references. Academics do it too but not like this.

Christopher Kavanagh

Ok last comment but what's with the random throwing in of unnecessary concepts (I-It and I-Thou are terms from the theology of Martin Buber. They would be baffling to anyone who hadn't studied Buber and irrelevant to anyone who had). Even the most hardcore wordcel is a shape rotator compared to this guy!

Artemis Green

I am fifty minutes in and holy moly, this is really hard to listen to.

mobitobi

"I have a PhD from Oxford, and look at me" - Chris, I didn't think it was possible to self-deprecate while referencing having a PhD from one of the best universities in the world, but you did it. Truly you are the anti-guru

Artemis Green

Oh man, pausing at 5.48 to comment on the Harvard law school story. Deciding you're not going to show up to law school because it's boring but you still want the fancy piece of paper is not impressive or something you point to as evidence of how clever you are. I'll refrain from making character comments but the mildest thing it tells me is that we shouldn't pay any attention to your legal quals. Many if not most of us would have preferred to be delving into the problem of evil or contemplating renaissance art rather than burying our heads in dry trusts cases. It's not a sign of genius.

Artemis Green

omg cant wait

F

10 mins in. Unbelievable. Please tell me you start to call out his gobbledygook… back to listening

Brainbiter

Dude was just jazz scatting in the last few minutes (1:55-end). A master of the craft. You gave him the space and he filled it no prob. 🎷🎺🎷

Jon B

Oh and the copious analogies.

J

Jamie seems unable to step out of the sense-making conversation mode. Using roundabout explanations with jargon (almost like a weird flex). Citing institutional degradation as reason to not trust *any* studies.

J

I was gonna say, he stridently denounces sensemaking as a solipsistic clusterfuck but then immediately launches into the jargon stratosphere with a rollicking flourish of nothingness, just to accuse Matt of not eating enough drugs

Kyle Wilson

Seth Armstrong