Joe Rogan, Parody of the Open Mind
True confidence in ones beliefs derives from a willingness to expose those beliefs to challenge. When no one is willing to expose their beliefs to challenge (and this is manifestly true for any belief which is presented in podcast form), then it is necessasrily the case the the confidence in those beliefs is false. The problem is that basically all beliefs that people consume are consumed from bad faith persuasive essays with single authors.<p>In the regime of persuasive essays, the winners are decided much more capriciously. Why do people follow Joe Rogan? I can only speculate, but I believe that the following effects contribute significantly:<p>1) Joe expresses challenges to mainstream beliefs that are commonly wondered, but infrequently asked. These challenges have high heuristic weight. However infrequently these beliefs are asked, they are answered less frequently. There are lots of questions that people are afraid to ask which have sophisticated answers. Furthermore, and I can&#x27;t stress this enough, some of these beliefs are <i>wrong</i>, and the reason that challenges are socially unacceptable is because of how much we want the belief to be true.<p>2) Joe has a mock adversarial style. Interviews feel like arguments, but are actually more analogous to a con-artists relationship with a shill. Unfortunately for humanity, we are very bad at recognizing the difference between an interview and an argument. Even in the rare event that Rogan challenges his interviewee in good faith, the creative mind behind the challenge is still merely one man, and that man is Joe Rogan, to boot. Not the most seasoned skeptic to have walked the earth by a long shot. The man claims to believe in Ivermectin as a treatment for Covid...<p>3) Joe is anti-establishment. I don&#x27;t think this is a bad thing, I happen to be fairly anti-establishment. But anti-establishment beliefs do not have the kind of readily accessible counterexamples that establishment beliefs have. I can&#x27;t point to the cities of tents for the homeless as an argument against basic income like I can for &lt;current policy&gt;. If you make an obscure anti-establishment claim, there is not likely to be a wealth of available counterarguments for the people listening to draw on.<p>4) The author&#x27;s point. Joe at least claims to subscribe to a different regime. Where free thought and argument prevail over censorship and restricted platforms. I think that, like most people privileged with large, restrictive platforms, Joe probably wouldn&#x27;t believe this is he knew that it meant opening his podcast to in-line commentary, but I think he <i>believes</i> he believe it, and that he claims to believe it is probably enough for most people.