The death of a public intellectual

Who wanted Lex Fridman there, and how did they achieve getting him there?

(I've only a passing knowledge of who that is, and haven't heard of Eric Weinstein at all)

How do you propose we give more detailed explanations and information for proving everything for yourself? Should college last a few hundred years instead of 4?

Did college not teach you how to access and parse through research papers and books? If you want a more full explanation and to prove things for yourself, why didn't you do so? When you were told, from authority, about the american antarctic base, why didn't you prove its existence by taking a boat there (repeated ad-nauseam for each location in the world)

So I do this, a lot. Rogan is a good example I struggle with. I regularly go I wonder what Joe Rogan thinks about this, on subjects I know he doesn’t know shit about or is just plain wrong about. It isn’t relegated to just Rogan.

Musk was another awful one when you first get into him.

This has to be a form of non-sexual attraction I think. I’m not gay, but how is this not gay? Like, what the fuck, am I in love with these people?

I almost have to shake my head and snap out of it.

Edit:

I’ll add that I’ve gotten extremely good at filtering his guests but still weak to filtering him (it’s kinda like still having feelings for your first). Anytime he puts on a comedian I always go “yeah whatever, who cares what some random comedian thinks about ______”, but I wasn’t able to do that with Rogan. No sir, I listen with both ears as he describes like … nuclear fusion.

I think you'd class him as a fox, but perhaps he's more of a badger. Digs deep and wide into history to interpret the present and plot the future. Asks "what's similar and what's different, what's permanent and what's ephemeral?" Not afraid of being unpopular at the time. Some certainty is required when everyone is saying you're wrong, and is justified when ten years later they're saying that what you said ten years ago is obvious.

That said, while he's solid on geopolitics snd the larger systems we are subject to, I wouldn't listen to him about what's happening with dating or something like that.

Perhaps I'm reading too much into it, but it seems to me that the Author expects to find a human that is to be right on their subject matter, all the time, and never goes beyond that narrow scope.

It's quite possible to be right in a carefully enclosed area, but you have to expand that area as much as possible to make it applicable to the modern world. Thus, mistakes (and the experienced gained from them) are part of the territory.

I see the authors quest as one bound to be fruitless in the long run.

I curate my information sources, and I readily accept their flaws. I know that Peter Zeihan sometimes gets out over his skis intellectually, but that's a part of his schtick. I know the general biases, strengths and weaknesses of those I pay attention to. I give them authority with my attention, they didn't get it from anywhere else. I believe everyone should take similar care.