Is Eric Weinstein a Crackpot?

What does Eric Weinstein do? He rambles about every subject, positing awkward contrarian points of view, mixing in politics, physics (not just any physics but "theory of everything" physics), mathematics, Jeffery Epstein, BLM, beefs about higher education (specifically Harvard)-- ALL within the same long discussions/monologues.

Does that mean he's a crackpot? Well, he's definitely an outsider. He tends towards obfuscation and using turgid, roundabout rhetoric to say simple things. He will also sometimes throw out PHD level arcane mathematics vocab when he's talking to a general audience without trying to explain what he's actually saying. He devises acronyms like "DISC" and just uses them like everyone already knows what they mean.

The thing I simply don't understand is how come he can get so much exposure? He was on Lex Fridman twice (maybe 3 times?), Joe Rogan, and has had relatively healthy traffic on his podcast. The backstory is he cofounded something called the "intellectual dark web". Looking closer that just appears to be a loose coalition of vaguely libertarian folks that are neither intellectual, nor "dark" (they all have high profiles and don't have secret identities), nor really "a web" because its a relatively small number of people.

What has he _actually_ done? He's PHD from Harvard, so certainly he's smart. He's been working a day-job as a managing director for a Peter Theil money thing, so he's probably wealthy. Other than that, he appears to be a good cocktail party conversationalist, with probably more people laughing at him than with him (the guy is utterly humorless). Does that make him a crackpot? He's not worthy of the attention he gets, IMHO, and that makes the question moot.

The summary I quote below represents the paranoid or less-successful-than-they-want-to-be professor. There are many at all levels of success and career development have literally devoted their lives to ideas they think will change the world if implemented. I've heard of people "scooping" ideas, decade long blockades on ideas, etc. People fail to cite the right people. Is that because they don't want to share glory or because it's not easy to keep up with research? The phrase "success has many fathers failure is an orphan" comes to mind.

----- he thinks his ideas are very important;

he thinks he doesn’t get as much credit as he deserves (especially for those important ideas);

he interprets in unflattering, even dark, terms the motivations of people who seem to keep him (or his relatives) from getting credit;

he strains to see pattern where it may not exist.

Everyone you disagree with is not 'alt-right'. It's impossible to have an intellectual discussion if it's just the race to the bottom of name-calling.

The author's attempt to hide behind such a thin vanner, does little to hide his bullying behaviours from all but those poor fools who are clueless to manipulation. Also he takes aim at those who can see the manipulation but are too cowardly to stand up for what they percive is a bully, he also trumpet call's to all those who can see what's he's up to, which is putting a mark on Weinstien, painting an unrealistic portrait of a weak man so those cowards who relish banding together to exploit the weak come out the woodwork.

One of the most amusing part's is at the end paragraph where in a final flourish and bow of his grubby soul's performance, he relishes scraping and pleading to us the audience that he is good person and how dare someone mention crackpot obviously gloryfieing in his deception of us, Don't count yet chickens sunshine.

Truth is he spent much time plotting and planning everyword because he gets a tingle being a sh#t stirrer. Truth is he has no control over these urges to get a tingle because his mind has been given no time to build resiliunce because he has lead himself down a path where all the processing power left to his brain is allocated to keeping his fantasy alive, trying to shoehorn truth into the narrative is beyond his grasp anymore The emotionaly disfigured phyce of the author is so blinded by its own misinformed Glee that its sly persona and style will go unnoticed and the mark he has put on Weinstien will be his downfall.

           Your brain can only process so many emotions at once and if you have a strong uncontrolable emotion, like fantasying a make-believe world where you are not seen as the creepy pathetic little runt that you are, then your brain will not have time to critique said fantasy and you will become more separated from reality as your own primal urges lead you to gaslight yourself, cutting yourself off forever from the portrait you protray to others.

Now I will do you an enormous favour if you read this, I cannot release you from the years of toxic neurochemicals your ego has pumped and screwed your brain with ( maybe pray for a buddest path and hope for another lifetime or 10 to make ammends) but I can release you from this fantasy. You are not surviving on your cretinous underhanded ingenuity , but on the patience and kindness of everyone around you, like a begger who pretends he is a billionaire who doesn't carry money, but we feed you without telling you we know your a lier. I once watched an incident where Saint Ray was shouted at, he humbly took it in good grace, I asked him why he did not argue back and he told me God would not be happy at him if he did.

    I too have strong emotional urges, for peace, for fairness, for joy, but recently a new powerful urge is surfacing in me, an urge to tell the truth born from a realisation that our kindness is now doing much harm, I'm being mindful that it should not blindside me, but in all honesty feel similar to Raymond, I feel like God would be unhappy with me if I didn't, so to you who wrote this, do you know you have laid bare your pathetic emotional landscape for all to see and from now on people will only use, avoid pray for or pity you. If you think I'm mistaking it is only proof of what a misguided poor deluded fool you have become

" Do you have the intelegence to understand how others perceive you through their eyes"

Now who cares if this piece of... calls Weinstien a crackpot, I like crackots, met a few and had good times with most. The author is trying to manipulate us, by fear, by evil and many methods displayed throughout the article, are we who read HN really going to pretend this is ok? that their is nothing wrong with this? This is not an arena for bull baiting and has lowered tone and standard of HN considerably

He’s a smart, gifted orator, who fancies himself a misunderstood academic. Yet, this self-proclaimed outsider status is still just a chip on his shoulder. He has the resources and reach to bankroll his own research and get even with his old physics department, He _could_ put his money where his mouth is. But doesn’t. Why?

The answer is because he’s ten times the businessman than public intellectual. Playing Mr. Schizo on normie podcasts with the rest of the Dark Web Gang, is better business than actually trying to solve anything you’re bitching about. There is nothing outsider or punk rock about running in the same circles as Peter Thiel, no matter how much DMT you smoke.

The amount of acronyms for arcane theories and processes he “coined” himself reminds me of when Michael Scott declares bankruptcy out of a window. And his “audio essays” where he practically interviews himself reminds me of those gibberish podcasts designed to help listeners go to bed.

Weinstein is neither complicated or important. He’s been dancing on the knifes edge of quack pottery / People Who Should Be Taken Seriously™ for a while now. At some point in the future, another Epstein-tier banana peel will settle this once and for all.