Difference between revisions of "19: Bret Weinstein - The Prediction and the DISC"

'''Eric:''' And every time I try to say this is completely wrong, you miss— you don't catch the ball that's being thrown to you, which is you're not understanding what you're up against. He doesn't take you seriously because you don't have a list of publications that speaks to who it is that you actually are, or what you've done, or where you've been, and as a result, you continue to be the good guy, who is very well spoken, very thoughtful, says very interesting things, and constantly gives away power to other people.

'''Bret:''' That would feel bad to most people, because they would feel like, “What am I doing wrong? Why does nobody else understand this point?” To you and me, that feels good. It is to know that you have achieved something, you have discovered something, and that nobody else can even recognize it, gives you some sort of sense of how far ahead you might be. The question is what to do with those things, and there, I think the question is if I went through something with— I said something intemperate to the new atheists, and suddenly Steven Pinker, Jerry Coyne, Michael Shermer, Richard Dawkins, and Neil Shubin came at me all at once, not on the topic that I had caused offence– on a totally different topic. They had picked something off my YouTube channel. Jerry Coyne had claimed to have debunked it. He was wrong, but nonetheless it provided fodder for them to attack. Their point was that I didn't understand natural selection and that, to the extent I might believe I knew something that other people didn't know, the right thing to do was to submit it to a journal and go through peer review. I pointed out to them that peer review was not Richard Dawkins style, and that he in fact advanced the ball for the field, substantially, but has barely published a paper. That backed them off that course, and their tune changed to, “Well, how about a book then? That's what Dawkins did.” And to me that's a win. The idea— I'm not against peer review. I want peers to review my work, but I don't want it snuffed out in private. And so, to the extent that that little battle was the result of them underestimating me and not knowing that something was going to come back that was cogent and responsive to the world as it actually is, and having them back off their position and say, “Yes, actually a book would be a fine thing.” That was positive movement from my perspective. They underestimated me, and they had to back down. So I can't regret that too much. To me, on a different timescale, I believe I'm making progress toward a goal that you and I agree is the right one, but I'm not sure that coming at it, guns blazing is the way to go.

'''Eric:''' Well, I'm happy to stop the interview right here and right now, because that's adorable, and it's sweet, and it's incredibly patient, and it's it's a beautiful sentiment, but I also feel like I sat through all of the wars and battles to get your ideas into the world, and I'm not funding that program.

'''Eric:''' Right. The point is you're not part of the Super Club. Don't get confused. You're just, some guys stood up.  

'''Eric:''' Okay, so my point is I don't have time for your fairy tale about a healthy and kind and sweet

'''Eric:''' I really, you've got your own podcast. It's called The Dark Horse, right? The Dark Horse podcast. I think this is a great place for you to explore, gradual change, incremental progression, turning minds around, opening hearts, all this stuff. This isn't your podcast.