Eric Weinstein schools Terrence Howard in the subtle art of Guru-osity

[@MikeBaudistel]

I like that Terrence Howard says he "grew up watching Neil deGrasse Tyson". Howard is 51 years old. Tyson didn't become a public figure until around 2009, following the demoting of Pluto. Howard would have been 36 years old at the time.

[@drts6955]

I feel like he was around afore that but I may be misremembering

[@sirerwin5881]

He was around,all rhe way back to the 80s

[@Costa_Conn]

Ah but you are ignoring the effect of the trans-gender element 117, first made in 2009. This event contracted the frequency of time, meaning Howard was actually 12 y.o. when he first heard NDT.

[@coreyander286]

I remember him in the early 2000s on some documentaries, but he wasn't even a fraction as famous as he was circa 2009.

[@markgobrien9791]

@@sirerwin5881 According to wikipedia deGrasse Tyson was writing essays appearing from 1995 - 2005. His TV career began in 2006. Howard was born in 1969 and would have been 29 when Tyson began to have some public exposure. Tyson got his PhD in astrophysics in 1991 when Howard would have been 22.

[@rv706]

Eric Weinstein, the right person to remind the general public that if you don't understand Yang-Mills connections on SU(n)-principal bundles, then you can't talk about the Standard Model bosonic QFT on Lorentzian 4-manifolds.

[@jake-thomas-tobiason]

Of course! Why didn't I see that connection before?! This has HUGE implications for Reinhardt's Bosonic Reference theory.

[@ally11488]

@@Medusas_Barber I was literally trying to postulate the grand matrix of tonic wine at that stage.

[@TheDaigoro75]

But you haven’t considered the Platonic solids, or the solid meatballs these guys are popping out

[@helburr]

He should host the next Cosmos instalment

[@helburr]

@@Medusas_Barber Both are legitimate, though double L is more common in American English

[@andybaldman]

Terrence is to Eric, what Eric is to real physicists.

[@ItachiUchiha11111]

😂😂😂😂

[@k-3402]

Brilliant, lmao

[@AfroGaz71]

Except he's not. Weinstein is a legit scientist. He's just critical of the institutions. He's still well respected by his peers. Your dislike of him is simply down to who he's friendly with. So it really just boils down to garden variety envy. Try and be a better person than that. It's an ugly look.

[@Alice-the-seal]

Hahaha

[@AfroGaz71]

@@andybaldman Brian Keating, Sabine Hofstetter, and Sir Roger Penrose have spoken in high regard for Eric, but who tf are those nobodies.😂 Best look to some random KZbin comments on such complex matters. 😂

[@ezhb1nj]

Joe Rogan is proof that there's more money in making people stupider than in making them smarter.

[@scoon2117]

Joe has early onset dementia or something for having all of the buffoons on, how naive can one man be?

[@1robinjr]

Grifters yes anding each other is always so hard to watch yet so impossible to not watch. If jordan peterson had been there crying it would have been so perfect.

[@drts6955]

Would've been hot

[@picahudsoniaunflocked5426]

@@drts6955 hot tears?

[@drts6955]

@@picahudsoniaunflocked5426 smoking hot

[@PJM273]

Eric: I'm here to remind everyone all the experts and institutions are lying to you and closed to new ideas - follow me! Terrance: Oh, great, so I might be onto something? Eric: No, you're batshit wrong I'm just here to remind everyone all the experts and institutions are lying to you... follow me.

[@a.N.....]

He didn't say anything on that podcast about that though. He politely tore down the guru edifice Terry was standing on.

[@RedPatriarch]

@@a.N..... Yeah people love to hate Eric, i just assume most of them are too lazy to actually listen to him

[@PJM273]

@@RedPatriarch What's your favorite thing Eric has ever said/contributed?

[@AfroGaz71]

His criticism of the institutions have validity. Institutions don't like the idea of change and tend to ignore the or hide their flaws. Just ask the Catholic church and the Vatican! 😬

[@RedPatriarch]

@AfroGaz71 there's no point, the guy doesn't actually care and he will never engage with anything Eric has ever said

[@D.S.handle]

A new video and a podcast so close together! You are spoiling us, guys.

[@grejx1]

Eric: 'i want to steel man your arguments' Eric: 'your ideas are horseshit'

[@danielboucher5989]

He’s not wrong haha. There is no steel man for 1x1=3

[@2wm]

Fucking crystals. How do they work?

[@kidheyful]

i see you. great reference. I"m guessing you're in your mid to late 30s??

[@a.N.....]

That's a good guess

[@35kwils]

@@kidheyful 🧲

[@3brenm]

Magnets wasn't it? Or were there two similar lines?

[@picahudsoniaunflocked5426]

I am one with the Juggalos.

[@friendalex7384]

As an academic, my bloodlust knows no bounds

[@Constantinch]

When I saw the guest list for the JRE I instantly thought of Decoding the Gurus. It's like Joe wanted them to cover this.

[@43bg1]

The realization I had during this is that Eric is much closer to Terrence than to a real scientist. He does know more, and he is correct about a lot of the basic math and physics that Terrence is just clueless about, but he's still fundamentally a crank who believes in his own theory above everything else.

[@AfroGaz71]

He's respected by his peers. He only gets grief because of his criticism of the institutions and his friendship with Rogan. It comes of more like professional jealousy imo.

[@eetuhalonen9902]

​@@AfroGaz71His peers are podcasters. He isn't an academic. He doesn't teach, do research or publish papers.

[@AfroGaz71]

@@eetuhalonen9902 it's a qualification. It doesn't go away just because he's currently not in the system. It's much like a Dr doesn't lose the title because they are not currently practicing. This is simply partisan hackery to say otherwise. Which is fine, but should not be taken as a serious critique. Also, he has been involved in debates such as "The trouble with String Theory" with Brian Greene, Sir Roger Penrose, and Tasneem Zehra Husain. So I would say he's in good company. On the critical side, I would say he over values his own position and ideas, and has a touch of narcissism which at times can be seen in his rather esoteric explanations to simple concepts. I think that's why he rubs some people up the wrong way. NDT, is another who has a similar line of communication, only he tends to talk down to people, and talks to people like they're simpletons. Whereas Eric can tend to want to let you know how clever he is by introducing said esoteric language. This is par for the course with some scientists. Especially those in the public eye, where image is King.

[@AfroGaz71]

@@eetuhalonen9902 it's a qualification. It doesn't go away just because he's currently not in the system. It's much like a Dr doesn't lose the title because they are not currently practicing. It is simply partisanship to say otherwise. Which is fine, but should not be taken as a serious critique. Also, he has been involved in debates such as "The trouble with String Theory" with Brian Greene, Sir Roger Penrose, and Tasneem Zehra Husain. So I would say he's in the good company of his peers On the critical side, I would say he over values his own position and ideas, and has a touch of narcissism which at times can be seen in his rather esoteric explanations to simple concepts. I think that's why he rubs some people up the wrong way. NDT, is another who has a similar line of communication, only he tends to talk down to people, and talks to people like they're simple minded. Whereas Eric can tend to want to let you know how clever he is by introducing said esoteric language. This is par for the course with some scientists. Especially those in the public eye, where image is King

[@ImperatorSomnium]

Hahahaha The title could not be more precise 😂

[@HkFinn83]

Brilliantly played by Weinstein, he came across as (relatively) professorial and competent. A lot of repair of his image after the damage from his ‘life the universe and everything’ shenanigans

[@trackfan504]

Listened to a few reactionary interchanges about the JRE, EW and TH circle jerk; this podcast tops it 👏

[@mausperson5854]

Weinstein, was incredibly charitable with his time and not nearly as dismissive as you guys would make it seem. Eric didn't try and sell his pet theories. He also pulled no punches in pointing out that Howard is misusing specialist terminology, misunderstanding particular theoretical axioms and most important that he ought to be humble in presenting his hypotheses for good or I'll, instead of 'teaching' when he speaks on topics he is not even a student of. Hopefully it was a fruitful exercise in both bringing Terrence and his unlettered fan base down to earth without killing their enthusiasm for heterodox exploration.

[@ally11488]

No, that only happened when someone like Flint Dibble exposed Hancock on Rogan.

[@43bg1]

“Incredibly charitable with his time”?! He’s a podcaster, he goes on podcasts. He’s been on Rogan a half dozen times. This is what he does.

[@Mikepo587]

As opposed to work working tenure and getting paid what? I can’t talk anything bad about somebody of her in through your nose was talking about and if not what should I do continue to go forward and paid for making the best out of everything you can . He’s lying he’s lying and somebody disproven by anybody finding anything he said it’s so ghastly wrong you don’t like his personality these guys are probably worse and I don’t even show it take it easy everybody….

[@cameronbuff3704]

eric was not just charitable, he literally pandered to not offend people, Terrence continually made false claims, and instead of saying no you are wrong, eric proceeds by not just steel manning but actually over interpreting Terrence's claims and giving him the biggest leg up, later on in the podcast eric brings up relativities principle formular and terrence didnt have a fucking clue what the fuck he was even looking at

[@____uncompetative]

@@cameronbuff37041 x 1 = 2 if you redefine x to be multiply-accumulate and initialise the accumulator to 1. What's great is this is a superset of regular TIMES where you just have a zeroed accumulator. Hence TIMES[L, R] = A + (L x R)

[@831Billy]

I heard this originally on Patreon. How nice it is to see this visual version. Watching Chris and Matt crack up while they are playing the clips is 😮😮priceless. Matt made the best comment (35:15?) saying something about we shouldn’t mess with Terence’s mental illness. How is it that The Joe Rogan Experience is the number one podcast in the world? These guys are 1000x better! Cheers to Matt and Chris for making my day. And also a nod to editor Andy for his amazing work!! -love from 🇨🇦

[@ggunnelspct]

I keep on repeating: do Ayn Rand.

[@quietreason8679]

I'd watch / listen to that. I study political science and some of my fellow students seem to revere Rand's books almost religiously. She's of course more of a political figure, but I think it's fair to say that she's to libertarians what Chomsky is to progressive leftists and they covered him.

[@blackholesun3569]

Yes please

[@duskonanyavarld1786]

Chomskys biggest work is in universal grammar, There are other channels that have been critical to Ayn Rand.

[@ggunnelspct]

@@duskonanyavarld1786 : Who mentioned Chomsky? Anyway, I would like to see their analysis of Rand.

[@duskonanyavarld1786]

@@ggunnelspct If you read the replies Chomsky is mentioned.

[@Inflorescensse]

It’s like Guru’er on Guru’er up in here.

[@Lee-bv6iv]

Oh, no. I'm meant to be getting ready for work!

[@philhunt168]

It's like listening to a bunch of 13 yr olds doing acid for the first time.

[@jordanthomas4379]

Katt Williams read 196 books in the time it took you to film this episode.

[@johngrywalski1128]

Weinsplaining at its best

[@andybaldman]

Funny to see Eric experience someone the exact way most of us experience Eric.

[@Tripple_Threatt92]

Maybe you but if you look into some of his claims their is legitimacy. If you look into how economists measure the CPI for example, it is very obviously not correct. It requires more complex calculus & involved changing consumer preferences over time

[@andybaldman]

@@Tripple_Threatt92 Fallacy. Just because there is truth in some of the things he says, that doesn't mean all, or even most of what he says is correct. This is a technique used by many grifters, Eric included. Pepper what you say with bits of truth, which makes your BS seem more believable.

[@firstnamesurname6550]

Interesting ... Did you experience Eddie Witten, too??

[@AfroGaz71]

There's a slight difference you overlook. Whereas Terrance is giving out word salad, Eric does make sense to his peers. You just aren't educated enough in his field of expertise to understand, which is ok. He does get somewhat esoteric, but he's usually correct in his assertion.

[@Sn0wfeverR]

​@@AfroGaz71 Eric's peers (not community) think his theory is hogwash. The burden of proof is on Eric and he has shown none of it.

[@MrJennyisis]

'A victim of being mental' ... love how DTG call a spade a spade

[@matthewmulkeen]

Classic crank material, thank you! I'm subscribing.

[@Gertrude_Why]

You two have become one of my favourite channels on KZbin now. Thanks for calling out the nonsense.

[@SibolSensei]

This is the least contributing and most unnecessary comment ever, but I want to say it anyway: you guys are the best. I always feel closer to reality after listening to you guys.

[@mausperson5854]

Are you suggesting Weinstein isn't credentialed? I've only gone so far as honours and know how cut throat academia is.

[@cameronbuff3704]

eric regularly cries that academia has shunned him and his ideas, whilst also using his PHD as a authority point? you cant have it both ways, eric was more concerned with not offending anyone than he was actually correcting terrence

[@mausperson5854]

@@cameronbuff3704 he told him that 90 some percent of his ideas are bollocks and constantly reminded him to stop 'teaching' when he talks about fields he doesn't understand and terminology he is mutilating theoretically and pronouncing pathetically. I'm failing to see how he humoured him when he praised nothing more than the aesthetics of his models and the potential for a mathematical error to have consequences in drone engineering. Would have been a short podcast if he had've been any more terse with the guy.

[@Dan-yh8qp]

So glad you’re doing this one. Very excited to watch. Thanks in advance!

[@chompers5568]

This channel is going to blow up..but i cant help but notice that both guys have filters working over time.

[@razzle_dazzle]

Their podcast has already blown up!

[@andylebusque2643]

Best content on KZbin. Even as a layman these cooked individuals always came across as BS. I have watched so many good science videos and it always makes sense even if I don't have the training they do.

[@DrWeird-zw5dc]

Terrence "the new kid on the block" Howard lols

[@thecosmos-lt9yg]

Two is a composite number and not prime? Says no mathematics textbook ever.

[@picahudsoniaunflocked5426]

Literally what is Rick Rubin doing hanging out with these stooges.

[@Beachcomber95]

I came to a similar conclusion. Eric using Terence as a tool to push his own agenda.

[@nicklinc1]

Exactly this

[@RedPatriarch]

@@Beachcomber95 that agenda being?

[@Blueshirt38]

@@RedPatriarch His agenda is to push the idea that "science" is a corrupt industry, and all of the people at the top refuse to allow people with a "unique genius" like Terrence Howard to have their theories heard, so you should instead listen to the outsiders and rebels against this industry like... the Weinstein brothers. My response to that is to quote Dave Farina: "Science isn't dogma, you're just stupid."

[@eetuhalonen9902]

​@@RedPatriarchAttention which can be translated to money.

[@chimbrazo5435]

Before watching your video- my take is eric was too soft on terrance. eric DID debunk and expose terrance; but he also made terrance look way smarter than he is. eric should’ve completely destroyed terrance but he babied him instead… keen to see what the decoders think 🤔

[@sylviarogier1]

Howard is insanely hilarious . . . or hilariously insane. Joe is just the curious dumb guy in the middle. Eric is a smart guy, a good talker, but totally annoying, not missing an opportunity to express his grievance toward "big physics". Loved your reaction to the three of them.

[@veveysan]

Part of Terrence Howard's problem is that he pivots from "1x1=2 is the real basis for understanding the universe, and what you've been taught is a lie" to "1x1=2 is just a metaphor" and back again. Similarly, "This knowledge was revealed to me" and "this came from my research." Very inconsistent. Not meant to dismiss Eric Weinstein's issues. Some of the ancient knowledge / new age people criticize Terrence for not citing his sources, other than Walter Russell and a couple of others. No credit to hermetic philosophy or the electric universe theory. Thanks for the accent. It helps me get in touch with my long forgotten Northern Irish roots.

[@jacobgsutton]

nightmare blunt rotation

[@GlobeHackers]

You guys are always at your best when on the Weinstein case. Having a "serious" discussion with Eric with Terrence says everything you need to know about Eric's narcissism and Joe's podcast. What's wrong with me? I'm stuck in a model with an old TV with televangelists on every channel. "...or is he?" LOL

[@gilbertcuevas9483]

It was white-knuckle, crackpot on crackpot action!

[@boristaskov5516]

Just to mention - here cause of Timothy Nguyen, great recommendation.

[@themrch4oskol206]

This one will be interesting. To me both seem like nutjobs with a theory of everything, only that Weinstein has formal education. I appreciate that Weinstein was quite honest with Terrence, although I think he should have pushed more, that his theories are not "grounded" and he really needs to study the subjects in question.

[@marusis4453]

Eric is out there, but i still love him.

[@JamesVytas]

I thought you made some convincing observations about that discussion and each persons respective rhetoric but I’m not convinced by your conclusions about Eric’s intentions specifically. I see his appearance as an attempt to engage with dynamics of info distribution in today’s world. Censorship through dismissal is perfectly acceptable in physics conference, but whether scientists like it or not Terrence Howard has every right to engage the public on his speakers corner platform and will reach a lot of people potentially. Therefore, as a tactic, Eric has engaged with that space because it cannot obviously be ignored and it seems much more productive. Neil Degrassi Tyson is professor trying to tell the crowd to be quiet while Eric is hearing them out because there is no chance of silencing them merely the attempt to dissuade them of their dillusions.

[@terrywhelan1]

Great discovery: Polymath Howard has discovered that 14 + 3 equals -1, based on the phases of Uranus. Weinstein and Keating are excited.

[@picahudsoniaunflocked5426]

I think Eric asking for an "ayahuasca-chino" was a backhanded put down to make himself feel superior to everyone in the room too. EDIT: him asking Joe about his saucer/mushroom art during the crystal cave quest was also a passive aggressive way to put down his supposed friend. (to be clear, I think all 3 of these men are bad people + worse charlatans).

[@markgobrien9791]

What nerve! Doesn''t he realise that only jordan peterson knows everything?!

[@AnthonyMonaghan]

Talk about a clown car...

[@stenergut9661]

eric has bigger fish yo fry than debunking terrence. he is out to gain clout and followers among terrences fanbase. hence he cant really go hard and piss them off. tyson didnt want to read into erics "theory" so eric is salty.

[@blackholesun3569]

So good 😌☺️ Very satisfying. Eric is hilarious...please keep watching him 🙏

[@harshitgarg1432]

I don't know if I would call Terrence Howard a guru. He genuinely seems delusional to me.

[@cwcarson]

Howard is the one that has been led astray by gurus.

[@harshitgarg1432]

@@cwcarson I don't think so. Gurus are not out there talking about how 1×1=2

[@cwcarson]

@@harshitgarg1432 He has been learning alternative physics/chemistry theories and having to develop a mathematical understanding to fit.

[@rexfordmorgan7552]

Money in academia disappeared in the 1970s…… what in the actual fuck. He said this out loud….

[@jbj926]

Imagine if Chris got as many citations has his KZbin views. It makes sense now lmao

[@TimeGhost7]

A person who feels a difficulty in being accepted intelectualy (reasoning he hasn't the backing of institution) is interested to talk to a guy even further out of mainstream to see where they overlap, to be modulated by a big audience judgeing the conversation. I don't feel Eric's affability/control balance was too off. It's easy to ignore affability if your response to Terance is ridicule, but a firm hand in talking to Terrance, can be understood. This channel has ridicule for both, as too far strayed from/against the academic path. Gurufication to me is audience capture (with single hosts) and Eric doesn't do that much currently. (I know he'd retain an audience if he started back up the portal but his audiance is not currently growing.) So I personaly judge this video that this audience enjoys making fun of Eric (and Terrance). Being quite different to one's own way of backstopping their thinking, can provoke humour so fair enough. He's not everyone's cup of tea. I quite like Eric myself however, although it's been a while since I checked in with his thinking. (I didn't watch this convo for example.)

[@tennisgolf-iu5pf]

This is amazing.

[@oqihouqiop]

The ethics of Academics got worse after the 70s????? That is hilarious

[@picahudsoniaunflocked5426]

Howard's a wife-mauler but it's still gross to see Weinstein mess with his mental illness at 34:24 with the "levels of beer" bullshit.

[@monkerud2108]

Another thing about physics and other subjects, that a normal non mafia person, real or imagined, doesn't easily appriciate is the much greater contrast between faliure and success, if you view yourself as this great man of history.. Im working on theory that if correct will be very consequential, but i don't see it as being in competition with other people evem though there is a real element in that, i see it as my effort to explore and work on ideas i think are interesting and important, if i saw my reputation or standing as primary in a somewhat unhealthy way, i could easily imagine how i could develop a series of complexes related to it, in a way i could not imagine if what i was doing was some less ambitious work. That is definitely something real, but i think that in the end it has more to do with what kind of person you are and how you view yourself and others, as to whether you develop these elaborate spiteful views of people, and various complexes associated with that, than at what level of ambition or quality your work is at. Idk i agree that a lot of strangeness is appearing on screen, but im kinda skeptical about the self awareness invonved that you imply is there, i suspect that a lot of it simply involves authentic faceplanting, landing in these strange turns of phrase not necessarily as a calculated way to get clout or appear a certain way for the audience, more so a mix of that and how such a person has built their personality. Something like that anyway, i don't really spend a lot of time reading into these things, i was kind of angry at joe for letting a man sit there and broadcast his illness to the world, that isn't good for anybody, but im at least okey with eric thrading lightly, even if he has his quirks that you analyse here, i think he did a decent job of walking him down at least a little bit, but a podcast is not really a therapy session, so i have mixed feelings, i don't really care that much about howards ideas, they will never be a problem for science, and for most people they wont even be more than a meme, im more concern about crazy people on and off the show being endulged and pushed inti thinking in a way that is unhealthy to them, i see that as the primary issue, this guru stuff is funny but i don't think its really that consequential.

[@robertmurray4488]

I love the reference to Plato's cave that Bret makes. Tell me you know nothing about philosophy, without telling me you know nothing about philosophy.

[@RedPatriarch]

@robertmurray4488 is he not insinuating that Terrence is stuck inside the cave and making false interpretations of reality based on shadows? He is actively trying to give the best interpretation of Terrence's ideas and get repeatedly interrupted throughout the entire conversation by both Terrence and Joe

[@pistolen87]

I get that Decoding the gurus is about critiquing gurus, but I'm curious what you stand for?

[@andybaldman]

Exposing the tricks and techniques used by these types of people, to make more people aware and able to spot them.

[@Callum679]

@@andybaldman Ah yes, gurus to help us open our eyes and see through the madness of the gurus!

[@scipdiddly]

I like how Eric leaves quantum physics out of this conversation 🤭🤡

[@tommylakindasorta3068]

Watch the Joe Rogan Experience! Critics call it a "fantasy funhouse of projection!" Doesn't that sound like fun?

[@Ninnoa]

Instagram reels?

[@thomasscullion9449]

SO IS 1 PLUS 1 2 OR NOT?

[@jalsiddharth]

I'm new here but have you reached out to weinstein for an interview to ask why he says such ridiculous things on these podcasts? A big part of me feels its a ruse.

[@kooroshakl2680]

i have an electronic circuits professor who is on an adventure of making a perpetual motion machine terrence aint shit

[@librulcunspirisy]

Thanks 👍

[@monkerud2108]

I dont think being a crank makes you crazy, its enough to be wrong and arrogant about it without much competence. But i do think he has some issues lets say. Npd is a strange thing, and peoples use of the word narcissist seems tied to an idea more akin to a sociopathic tendency combined with a big ego, but actual npd people are usually a lot more deluded about themselves, to the point that they dont even necessarily notice that they are being a bad person in certain situations, terrible way to exist i think. I habe to admit i don't know enough about Terrance to diagnose him, or enough about his life to judge his character outside any potential mental illnesses, but it seems pretty textbook from what i know.

[@JamesVytas]

37:19 so Eric is like a cold reader.

[@monkerud2108]

Anyway, richard behiel has great videos if you are interested in having basic physics explained to you. Funny guy, good at presenting the ideas and math, if you don't want to fo as far as actual learning the subject, his videos are pretty cool.

[@garethsmith3036]

it should be guruery

[@earthexpanded]

Hey guys, good review. I agree with much of what you said, though I would recommend reducing the usage of the derogatory names "crank", "mental illness" and the like. These are simply unnecessary and not helpful in the process of people sharing ideas. It is clear that you guys do this loosely and it would behoove you to be more careful so as to not wrongly accuse anyone of something. This is ultimately a scientific discussion so it would be useful to treat it as such. There is no final theory in science so there is no reason to be resistant to the proposals of new models by displaying animosity towards people who are proposing them in belittlement or namecalling. Terrence especially has done nothing wrong in attempting to share ideas and no one has to listen to the episodes etc. or to believe what he claims. His wrongdoing is that he was famous already--which is not his fault and thus not a wrongdoing--and so his ideas reached the public sphere when they would otherwise not have had the merit to do so. He is clearly very inexperienced in the overall process of how science is done and why (frequently not attributing credit to the proper sources) but ultimately he has managed to do the only thing that is really necessary for any proposal to be actually considered--reached the general public. Mind you, I disagree with what he says. But I am happy for him that he was able to transmit his thoughts to his target audience of the general public so that he may speak and be heard and considered. Modern science has many methods of preventing people from sharing their ideas. The opposite of consideration, peer review has largely prevented new ideas from just simply being considered. We don't need to behave so emotionally while we do it. We can just let people share their ideas and others can choose to listen if they so desire or to leave alone those participating in such peacefully and not attack them for their behaviors. At this point, we have a backlog of ideas unconsidered of all kinds. Some barely thought through where the person is clearly mistaken and has done very little actual work on the ideas. Others where the people have spent years or a vast expanse of their lives actually developing ideas. Some of them are not void and empty of substance. Some of them have merit, and even if a single point is the only component of thousands made by someone's work that is actually incorporated into the collective perspective of reality, it can still help provide avenues to future breakthroughs from more precise understandings that account for the details that are being denied consideration by modern science. You guys decode the gurus. Well. I hereby proclaim to you that I, Steven M. Scully, am a guru as the discoverer of the theory of everything in 2014. My research has since branched into geology, chemistry, biology, Earth's history, human history, philosophy, and more. I have made thousands of unrecognized discoveries as a result of the initial breakthrough I unexpected had in 2014 while pondering possibilities I felt most logical and reasonable. I claim to have explained observations where science deviated from classical mechanics using classical mechanics only but by recognizing unrecognized nuances of the universe's nature that needed accounting for (much like when Ole Romer calculated the speed of light in 1676 when observations did not match predictions with regard to the timing of the orbits of the moon of Jupiter at various distances from Earth by realizing the speed of light was not infinite as previously assumed). I officially, and most definitely for the purpose of the need of attention to my research, challenge you to refute my claims with specificity while detailing them with specificity (or to acknowledge their merit). You see, because I am not a known researcher and am basically telling people they are all wrong who have the power to help bring my research earnest consideration with an open-mind and actual careful analysis. I understand fully that if my research has merit (it does--I am in fact the unacknowledged discoverer of the theory of everything for a decade who has rewritten several sciences while waiting for recognition) then the general public will force resistant deniers to actually respond on the merits and not enter into this game of namecalling and character degradation and behaving like children. It is worth noting we are children, really, regardless of age, but we can still choose to behave reasonably aka like adults. My book is available freely as a PDF on my website (see my youtube) and links to all my content are available on my website. I will not summarize my claims for you. They are too expansive and broad and to treat it as if my research can be casually approached would be inappropriate--it cannot be casually analyzed in minutes or even hours. I have thousands of hours of video content explaining my position in detail and demonstrating its validity time and again as it is further corroborated by subsequent realizations and considerations. It would be up to anyone desiring to explain why I am wrong to first summarize the details of my work to display they have a grasp on the breadth and detail of what I am proposing, and subsequently to explain why each point does not have merit. I make thousands of claims so it would be reasonable to not address them all, but it would benefit such a rebuttal to recognize the claims well enough to actually represent the concepts of the work with the particulars discussed and not to misrepresent what is being said due to spending too little time considering it. Refusal to acknowledge this request as reasonable and consider the potential would indicate you guys are after the clicks rather than the truth in a similar way to Eric. I don't know--I am not claiming you are. Are you?

[@jamesrowsell9346]

your comment is going to get lost in the winds of time and your pdf will be read by no one of any merit.

[@earthexpanded]

@@jamesrowsell9346 Meh it was said, and the record shows. ;)

[@kb-zi5gh]

My heartfelt advice to you is to speak to a mental health professional because the flatness of your voice and the grandiosity with which you view your life and achievements suggests you may be affected by schizophrenia or bipolar disorder.

[@lindsv]

You guys are too funny 🤣🤣

[@jam1087]

Yes, allow people like Terry to make fools of themselves for our entertainment,and society's benefit as well.

[@RedPatriarch]

Maybe I haven't watched enough of your guy's stuff but this had to be as bad faith of an interpretation of this conversation that you both could have made. Maybe you have done a breakdown of the dubious credentials and credibility of Eric Weinstein before but from a cursory glance at your channel I don't see one, if someone has a link I'd appreciate it. Almost every clip was picked out from a rather enjoyable conversation between two passionately interested individuals. Every interpretation of a clip was made with heavy confirmation bias and almost always was just an ad hominem or a disingenuous misinterpretation of what was being said Assuming that Eric was referring to himself when trying to compare someone saying 1x1=2 to an academic is like a pedestrian picking a fight with a mafioso is such an asinine conclusion to come to. With Eric's consistent stance on the cutthroat passive aggressive nature of academia i can almost assuredly conclude he was referencing any academic and not solely himself. It was a metaphorical statement and your conclusion only proves your biases and preconceptions as well as is one of many examples in this video that neither of you had any intention of "decoding" A single thing being said. I'm entirely open to have my mind changed about Eric as a person but the fact that he hasn't been a presence on the internet for the past couple years discredits the sentiment that Eric has alterior motives when it comes to his influence that I see consistently being spouted in this comment section. I hate when people say this shit, but genuinely do better.

[@coreyander286]

Try Decoding the Guru's "Special Interview: Interview with Tim Nguyen on Geometric Unity".

[@ggunnelspct]

What did Sam Harris do exactly?

[@richcurtis9485]

Brilliant guys...😂

[@NuAege2302]

Is the other host a medical doctor or psychologist to make that determination that Terrence got a mental problem? It is best to say you reject his ideas rather than that he is in a mental crisis. It is no surprise that you guys didn't play the part where they talk about people like you.

[@Sn0wfeverR]

Terrence is not a scientist or anything mildly associated and made crazy shit up. Do you apply the same standards to him?

[@carlosenriquegonzalez-isla6523]

Is he even a good actor or musician?

[@BrentWalker999]

Nope

[@irishrepub84]

Haughty

[@ooooooo679]

This makes me like Terrence, eric is cap all hail pine cone and jelly fish!

[@Tripple_Threatt92]

You guys repeatedly beat down strawmen. I almost never see you engage with the actual argument, some of the problem is your just watching clips and missing the between context. You obviously don’t know the history of academia before and after the mid 70s

[@horseman3222]

ahh... Eric... :D :D

[@chillabrew_glycolinstall]

Can you imagine if you were this upset about fauci or epstein or anything that was an actual threat to humanity???

[@coreyander286]

Fauci has saved thousands, if not millions of lives. It's a Shakespearean tragedy that Fauci of all people is seen as a heinous villain by millions.

[@BrentWalker999]

Lol lmao

[@Mikepo587]

It does take a lot of work I’ll tell you that I know a boxing channel said 35,000 subscribers I’ve run into them and they don’t care about the money to do it for fun and I know people with a few million that won’t do it for work and they are actually making decent money by Phillips take it easy if you are in the field on you should be doing something else

[@patheticpear2897]

Plays a clip with Howard saying 1 x 1 = 2 is a metaphor and then continually mocks him for thinking 1 x 1 = 2.

[@coreyander286]

Hey any Joe Rogan fans who read this, tell Joe Rogan to bring Decoding the Gurus onto the JRE. They will get so owned.

[@BrentWalker999]

By whom?

[@willarmendariz7663]

He didn't school anyone on shit. I heard nothing from Eric to discredit Howard's work besides ridicule, which is what the weaker mind succumbs to when defeated in an argument.

[@BrentWalker999]

Lol what!

[@Tripple_Threatt92]

I like how you guys don’t understand Eric’s theory’s or Opinions but your sure their wrong. Look into the CPI, it requires changing consumer preferences and changing weights. This is not how the CPI is currently measured. I know people don’t like doing work but actually try & understand what people think. Not just base it off how people sound

[@decodingthegurus]

Actually, we have covered Eric's conspiratorial claims about the CPI and the Boskin commission several times on the podcast. You can listen to a discussion about it specifically with Dan Gilbert here: decoding-the-gurus.captivate.fm/episode/special-episode-entering-the-portal-.

[@Tripple_Threatt92]

@@decodingthegurus watched the whole thing, good conversation. Eric has since come out with a 69page paper on gauge theory that im still trying to understand. It is far to say many physicists don’t engage with it, as they do not with other theories outside of string theory. The guy in the podcast doesn’t address it but the fact the market basket does not change over time is a problem with CPI. The way inflation is presented is flawed as well, the aggregation without showing how sectors like food or housing increase individually is misleading but I’m not sure if I should blame the media for that more. You guess also don’t like the fact that he is poetic, flowery & uses lots of metaphors. Personal preference I guess. Not everyone who is poetic is a charlatan. Your guest also does not like Peter thiel, Peter at least steel man’s people when making points

[@eetuhalonen9902]

​​@@Tripple_Threatt92It's not true that the basket of goods for calculating CPI doesn't change. For example look at this: www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/articles/ukconsumerpriceinflationbasketofgoodsandservices/2024 "In 2024, 16 items have been added to the basket for the Consumer Prices Index including owner occupiers’ housing costs (CPIH) and 15 items have been removed out of a total of 744 items." Economists are well aware of the difficulties of calculating CPI and inflation and have spent a lot of time and effort to come up with inprovements and adjustments.

[@Slim3398]

Seems like this is just two guys who hate Eric. What’s the point of making fun of him?

[@coreyander286]

The point of making fun of him is that he's wrong and dumb.

[@ctsirkass]

Shit, I had no idea Eric was such a low-weight in the field. I always thought, maybe because of his Jewish name, that he is a first-class, top-uni professor. How you referred to him made me go check the wikipedia page for him. Yeap, he is a bit of a fraud. Too bad.

[@____uncompetative]

Eric Weinstein has a PhD in Mathematical Physics from Harvard University. He left academia in disgust when credit for one of his best ideas was stolen by Edward Witten. He pursued a very successful career in finance and spent many years as the Managing Director of Peter Thiel's hedge fund. During the past 40 years he has been working on his own _Unified Field Theory_ in his spare time. This is a huge endeavour for one person to undertake. The methodology he follows does not lock out his work in progress idea eventually becoming a final _Theory of Everything._ However, it would be erroneous to claim he has a _TOE_ right now. There is probably five years more work needed to get to a final version of his paper.

[@Mikepo587]

Why do you guys hate him so much it’s not the first time I’ve heard that about physics what’s wrong with what he said cause he’s scamming money other people is he hurting anybody if he’s a nut bar is a nut bar but sounds like he’s normal enough to me and people say that he is real physicist but they don’t like his ideas so what but that string theory I’ve heard that on a lot of different places yes one particular comedy show but a lot of other places so why is that I don’t know clubby can’t get into nothing wrong but if it’s not moving forward why don’t these higher education colleges let people try something different or you continue hating on this man for no reason! That’s why I only watch a movie critics and no they’re not racist like everybody says DEI stuff does nowadays another plan is only depressed people what somebody’s gonna do something bad to them selves comedian bad movies that I don’t get it but I was in that stuff like this bothers me so cool dude and if you don’t like them don’t listen to

[@TheStacanova]

This is my first encounter with your KZbin channel. Do you listen back to your shows? I’m only 13 minutes in & you’ve already insulted Joe Rogan, Rogan listeners, Terrance Howard, Eric Weinstein, Bret Weinstein, “maga-Trumpy people” whoever & whatever they are? I mean, you do it in a “nicer” sounding way, but in a way, that’s even more disingenuous. I mean this as constructive criticism from a listener perspective. Like I said, I have no idea who you guys are, however, I am familiar with Academia and my guess is, you’re probably Faculty, but not tenured Professors at prestigious universities? I suspect you may have trouble with providing a succinct definition of what a “Woman” is? I may look up your Bio’s after I post this comment, to see if I’m right about any of my guesses or completely wrong?

[@coreyander286]

All the people you listed are worthy of criticism and mockery. "MAGA-Trumpy people" support a guy who lost an election by millions of votes and responded with, "stop the count", "hey Georgian election officials, just find me 11,000 made-up votes so I get it", and the fake elector scheme. Rogan and the Weinsteins support Trump, and also believe in UFOs shaped like Tic-Tacs.

[@Tripple_Threatt92]

We do t understand Eric’s theory, therefore it’s wrong & he comes off like an asshole💀

[@someoneelse1979]

If you came out of this podcast feeling like Eric is a crank then I'm sorry, you just weren't listening properly. Eric has a real PhD, in real mathematical physics from real Harvard university. His expertise is in a field that isn't settled science, and his peers and colleagues are acting as if it is settled science. That's the core of his frustration and he is completely right. Honestly it's depressing how people deal with Eric Weinstein in the wider scientific community. He states himself that he could well be wrong. The problem is nobody is willing to entertain any theory that isn't string theory, and all he's doing in this podcast is providing an example of how to fairly criticize someone else's ideas without resorting to attacking someone's character or motives.

[@decodingthegurus]

@@someoneelse1979No Eric is not correct, nor is this our first exposure to Eric and his theories. But if you find him persuasive more power to you! 💪

[@someoneelse1979]

@@decodingthegurus How is "Eric is not correct" a criticism of anything I just said when my statement contained the phrase he could well be wrong? This is what I mean when i said "just not listening properly". I SAID Eric isn't a crank, but you HEARD I find his theories persuasive. You aren't being fair in this situation.

[@themrch4oskol206]

I think he clearly sounds like a crank, when listening closely to what he is saying. He paints academia broadly in a way that is foreign to most academics. He invokes broad and deep levels of corruption and while sure academia is full of quid pro quo, that can be seen as corruption, it does not manifest in the way and severity he implies. A PhD + 1 postdoc might seem like a qualification to the general public, but in the world of academia it is not. It basically means you did your phd and went to one university afterwards. You never even approached the politics of tenure track postitions or the inner workings of journals and how they work on the inside. There is a saying that I often find rings true "If everyone is the ass hole, then you are it."

[@someoneelse1979]

@@themrch4oskol206 Here's what I'd say to that. Everything you just said is fair, but it doesn't apply to this situation. You hit on something really important in this comment that I think will help me explain my point of view. the gap between "general public" and "PhD+1 post doc" is absolutely huge when it comes to specialist knowledge, and it could be argued that the gap between "Phd+1 post doc" and actual working academic is equally huge. The problem is their is another gap after that. The gap between our working academic and the extreme outliers in science or any other field. I'm talking Albert Einstein, Lionel Messi, Magnus Carlsen etc. It just so happens that our extreme outliers often find themselves in fields related to theoretical physics for obvious reasons. The problem occurs when a system like peer review works perfectly well in the middle but at the extreme ends it breaks down. It is not equipped to function when their isn't anyone in existence that is capable of honestly reviewing your work, and nobody on the outside can even check the validity of any criticism made. It's like a German autobahn. It works perfectly well without a speed limit so long as we don't develop cars that are capable 600mph. It's not that everyone is an asshole. It's that the greatest of all time of any given field is treated with such reverence that they cannot be questioned. It's not that Eric feels everyone is being an asshole, its exactly the opposite in fact. everyone is being far too polite. All Eric is advocating for is for one of these outliers to come on the JRE with him, and make him look like Terrance Howard looked in this podcast.

[@emery427]

The Decoding the Gurus guys aren't trying to critic peoples ideas, it more about having a laugh at people that they think take themselves too seriously.

[@hunterseufert8066]

Hmmm. You two seem a little clueless.

[@iansane1928]

Please provide quotes of what was "clueless."

[@necroslikerock]

Nice try, Eric

[@hunterseufert8066]

@@iansane1928 Well, when you make a comparison of Terrance to Eric by saying that Eric is "a man himself not shy about claiming to have invented revolutionary theories of everything or being silenced by physics" you reveal yourself as a clown. This is the most ludicrously uncharitable characterization of an academic pushing his theories, that they appear to be bitter academics piling on other academics.

[@iansane1928]

@@hunterseufert8066 for one, Eric Weinstein is not an academic. By his own admission, he is not an academic. Did you watch the Joe Rogan episode? Mr. Weinstein clearly stated in the episode that he is NOT an academic. Also, just look at his career. After he got his degree, he has primarily worked as a financial analyst and podcaster. Nothing in his career, after receiving his doctorate, has been in academia whatsoever. Let's put that aside. Mr. Weinstein first claimed he had his theory of everything back in like 2013 or 2014 if I'm remembering correctly. He refused to release any papers for peer review. He finally released his paper in 2021 and it was ripped to shreds by academic physicists. Can you point to a single example of a well respected physicist approving of Eric's physics work or theories? Please show me if you have it. I'm open to having my mind changed.

[@Tripple_Threatt92]

I love how you guys assume mal intent from Rogan & Eric. Even tho you Don’t know them. This might be projection

[@jimmytamati4676]

You guys are stressed ....Get over it...Your starting to talk bull shit.