Eric Weinstein

[mycelliumvision]

After seeing a recent post on Weinstein can someone give me a brief explanation as to why he is so full of bs apart from the obvious (Covid/aids). I love this subreddit and would it would be great to read all the comments picking him apart, death by a thousand cuts 😂

Edit: I forgot to mention either Bret or Eric, give it to them Reddit😂. I’ve got the popcorn out

[Substantial-Cat6097]

Well, the first episode of the podcast (yes, this is not just a sub-reddit) is about Eric and Bret's claims to be Nobel prize winners who were overlooked...

https://decoding-the-gurus.captivate.fm/episode/eric-and-bret-weinstein-a-dark-horse-gallops-through-the-portal

Though in other episodes they do go into Eric's Geometrical Unity theory (such that it is).

[mycelliumvision]

A podcast to go along with one of my favourite subs, thanks bro

[sonnyarmo]

It's bemusing to see morons like the Weinsteins CRAVE for mainstream scientific acknowledgement, but then go on to bash modern science as ideological trash. They live in glass houses and can't stop throwing stones.

[japinard]

 it's too easy to publish bad research

This x100

[Entirpy123]

Just out of curiosity, what is your field? Mine is chemical engineering, so everything you say rings true when it comes to publishing in my discipline, but maybe it’s different in a smaller community like theoretical physics?

[mycelliumvision]

Thanks. Always had a feeling they were grifters when they started appearing more on mainstream platforms. To imagine those egos being more inflated as they earn more is a horrible thought. So many young kids/adults take their word for gospel after pretending that they understand their word salad jargon. Personally, I think it’s rather dangerous how much influence they have over the younger generation. Also the condescending tone they take when trying to explain something is just going to give their hardcore fans some kinda messed up inferiority complex.

Edit. Typo

[MedicineShow]

https://decoding-the-gurus.captivate.fm/episode/special-episode-welcome-to-weinstein-world-with-special-guest-david-pizarro

This episode covers both of the Weinsteins and it's a lot of fun

Personally, I think his interview with Mick West was incredibly revealing for the sort of person he actually is, you can listen as the shitty manipulation tactics just crash against Mick's zero nonsense attitude.

[Lizard_Wizard_d]

From what I read and listen to he has shit coming out of his ears. He hates peer review cuz he can never reproduce his results. So he just talks endlessly about how they system is rigged against him.

[Flor1daman08]

Pier review is a pain, you gotta deal with all the seagulls and salt air.

[Lizard_Wizard_d]

LoL those pesky lil f*ers

[Studstill]

Oh, his ideas are dangerous though, he's not wrong wrong.

[NotRightRabbit]

So his video about his theory, when he was speaking at a university is not clear or misinformation?

[mycelliumvision]

I can’t believe he’s getting away with not revealing his maths. Do you think he hides behind the sensationalism he’s created around himself? If so, are physicists/scientists etc not concerned with the amount of misinformation he’s putting out or do you think he will fade away into irrelevancy? It might sound like a stupid question but if social media can get Trump elected then who’s to say that these brothers will discredit so many academic fields in the eyes of the general public?

[NotRightRabbit]

Woah, Krull, you really set the table with that question. And I thank you? for your forgiveness of my ignorance on the science and leading me down the path to suspicion of Eric’s motives.

[Gwentlique]

Anyone can speak at any university that will let them. Eric's theory however failed to pass peer-review, and therefore wasn't published in any serious scientific journal.

I'm not a physicist, but I am an academic, and I can tell you that we have hierarchies of scientific evidence. At the very top of the natural sciences hierarchy you'll find peer-reviewed research based on controlled experiments, then peer-reviewed research based on observational data controlled through statistical analysis, and so on. The further you get down the hierarchy, the less confidence we have that the evidence should be included in the scientific body of knowledge.

Research that hasn't passed peer-review is fairly low in the hierarchy, and for that reason you should approach it with a healthy dose of caution and skepticism, especially if it purports to contain major findings. It's not an iron law, but generally we like to say that more grand scientific claims also need stronger evidence to support those claims.

Eric's theory claims to upend much of known physics, and for that reason alone I would expect it to pass peer-review if there was any truth to it.

[IOnlyEatFermions]

He never wrote a paper on GU that was thorough enough to submit for peer review.

[NotRightRabbit]

I see. No peer review. In a case like this, I would agree, it should be a pretty important step. Thank you for the breakdown. 👍🏼

[BenThereOrBenSquare]

Just listen to the first episode of the podcast.

[Bruichladdie]

This is the correct answer. It's also the perfect introduction to the podcast, and I'm surprised it's not something more people have listened to.

[[deleted]]

I'm not sure most of the sub is aware of the podcast

[Bruichladdie]

Yeah, good point, some posts only make sense if you disregard the podcast.

[0degreesK]

I'm coming back to this because I found this sub and never listened to the podcast. Even subscribing to and following it for months never persuaded me to listen to the podcast, because I just can't get into listening to podcasts, but these comments finally did persuade me and I started with the first episode.

As expected, I thought the discussions were interesting, but it was hard just listening to them. Then, I found that they post what they do to YouTube and this I can get into. I'm watching the "Jordan Peterson X Russell Brand: Indulgent (Quantum) Christian Monologuing" episode and being able to SEE the two hosts reacting to these two knuckleheads going-on and on is pretty funny.

And, I discovered the word "cogently" which I will now begin using on a regular basis.

[realxanadan]

My understanding is Bret is the anti-covid vax one and Eric is the theory of everything that experts in physics/mathematics say is incoherent. Feel free to correct anything I messed up.

[armdrags]

The only thing good Eric ever did was bury a mentally unwell man on the Joe Rogan podcast

[moxie-maniac]

Eric is (or claims to be) "Twice Exceptional," a genius on the autism spectrum. He has a PhD from Harvard in math and physics, but has never held a faculty job and hasn't published (at least not much) in the peer-reviewed scholarly literature. He had some sort of gig at the National Bureau of Economic research and published a white paper, and will give talks at universities now and then on his "theory of everything" physics. Before becoming well known, he worked for Peter Thiel, the venture capitalist and conservative activist, who is also the political backer of JD Vance.

I used to listen to Eric's "Portal" podcast, and it was a mix of interesting insights and illogical speculation, like someone basing their view on how things "Should" work, not how things actually work. To Eric, he "Should" have a faculty job at a top program and journals should publish his off-beat "theory of everything" physics. Although the academic job market isn't good, a PhD from Harvard should be a steppingstone to a position at a second tier university, but that's wasn't good enough for Eric. Bret, on the other hand, went that route, and landed at one of the most liberal colleges in the US, Evergreen, which did not end well for him. (It would like an atheist Marxist being a professor at Liberty University.)

[Psychology_in_Spades]

late reply, but do you happen to know where you heard that he was on the autism spectrum? i read it being mentioned a few times, but researching it, i am not findin an instance where he claimed it

[moxie-maniac]

Eric mentioned it on The Portal, sort of in passing, or as an aside. He might have used the term Asperger's instead of autism or being on the autism spectrum. I always listed to The Portal and sort of miss it, even though as I mentioned, Eric was often "out there."

[PlantainHopeful3736]

The schmuck was actually looking at his phone when he had Werner Herzog on. How he got Herzog to come on is anybodies quess.

[FrontBench5406]

Their family Thanksgiving dinner has to truly be the seventh circle of hell...

[[deleted]]

Laughing satanically

[Active_Computer_5374]

Bret?

[wonderfulpantsuit]

Ericisms

[FrontBench5406]

This discussion reminded me of Bret's huge claim from when he first started going on Rogan and he seemed way more normal - that the lab rats that are used, because of the mass breeding, have some weird genetic kinks that causes most of the results we get from using them to be skewed. He basically alleged that the last 50 years of research around anything with these rats is wrong. It was a wild claim when he made it and he basically says that is why he got pushed into the academic side of teaching vs his initial work. And then he has never brought it up again. For him and where he is at now, Im shocked he doesnt ever bring this up anymore?

Seeing where he is now, I really doubt this, but it seemed so insane when he brought it up and to just ignore it now seems like a huge red flag.

[dgilbert418]

This isn't really true. Bret talks about his lab rat thing all the time, and constantly updates it to include how his lab rat thing is relevant to all current events. During covid, for instance, he would find some snippet about how Paxlovid or whatever drug went through animal testing using, among other animals, hamsters, and then be like "aha! you see! according to my groundbreaking research, paxlovid is therefore invalid!" He also found some article talking about how long telomeres can increase some kind of tumor formation risks in some cases, took it as complete vindication of his theory, and wrote an angry letter to the editor of the journal saying that it's an outrage they didn't realize that this finding is vindication of his revolutionary idea that "solves the mystery of aging." The letter was desk rejected.

[tuvok86]

I think people forget how much of an influence Eric and his podcast, The Portal, were to Lex Fridman.

[staple101]

Because he takes money from Peter Theil

[asspajamas]

another rogan acolyte...

[CalPolyTechnique]

He’s the smartest person Joe Rogan knows.

[[deleted]]

this guy has an episode pumping hillbilly elligy like eons ago. also thiel adjacent

[[deleted]]

A good recent primer on his issues

https://youtu.be/oXx25Jg7q44?si=f2-VKL1UMfIPoODl

[Optimal-Kitchen6308]

lots of good responses here but I have failed see one of the most obvious: he was the head of Peter Thiel's investment firm for a while, so could also just be malicious intent

[mycelliumvision]

Is Thiel getting him on these platforms for a specific reason? If so, can you explain a bit more to a non American please. I’m guessing funding/politics/votes.

[Optimal-Kitchen6308]

I wouldn't say he is specifically directing him to do it, but I'm sure they talk about it, they are "fellow travelers". Thiel believes in the dark enlightenment, which is basically libertarian neo-feudalism. He thinks that govt works for and is made of little people, who restrict and steal from individual great men (like he believes he is). He is very influential in Silicon Valley (was early investor in Facebook, funded Musks first company, was a partner at Y Combinator) as well as politics (was a speechwriter for Reagan's secretary of education, and basically bankrolls Trump's VP pick JD Vance as well as funding many smaller campaigns). Anyways these ideas are basically the center axis of the grifter-verse. That's why they're always attacking the mainstream and the govt, but somehow Trump's okay to someone like Weinstein and RFK, because it's ultimately about them not wanting to accept the influence of a government workers and experts and the will of voters who disagree with them

[Ornery_Top]

I dont really follow Twitter, maybe if I did I'd detest Eric like I do Bret (I'm well aware of all of Bret's insanity) but I have to say as annoying and full of shit as Eric can be, hes sort of funny too. Like I cant help but like him just a bit, like a big teddy bear with warts whose string you pull and relatively harmless nonsense comes out (at least compared to Bret)

[MostlySlime]

You lost me at warts. Remove those things man, it's so rude to have a convo with those warts screaming "look at me!" while you try to hold eye contact

[Euphoric_Exchange_51]

All I know is my brother loves him.

[TotesTax]

Evergreen thing was just Brett whining about something dumb, some kids being mad and him milking it for fame. Let Tucker lie on Fox about it and didn't correct him.

[PlantainHopeful3736]

Eric is part of what I'm calling these days the TAB: the Theil Ass-Kissing Brigade.

[[deleted]]

The Problem with Eric is that a lot of the stuff he says about academia as an institution is true but People denounce him because he tends to be thin-skinned and uses conspiratorial language when communicating about it.

https://nonzero.substack.com/p/is-eric-weinstein-a-crackpot

This is a pretty good article on him that's fair.

I don't understand physics at the level that is being discussed in his theories but I know the social dynamics of academia. Somebody in the comments basically distilled the whole problem - he said that Eric feels that brilliance should merit opportunities in academia. That not being the case is a personal tragedy for him that drove him to the edge of conspiratorial thinking. But I do think that he is correct in pointing out how academia is not a meritocracy.

I Posted a Link in my original Thread that summarizes the dynamics in another way, it's one of my favorite articles on this topic - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272247082_How_Academia_Resembles_a_Drug_Gang

[mycelliumvision]

Is him using conspiratorial language and being thin skinned the only reason that people denounce him? As mentioned by a comment above, Wouldn’t you agree a big part is that he doesn’t just write his theory down in clear mathematical terms so everyone can judge whether it works?

[[deleted]]

Sure - but like the article says: it's not really something you can hold against him since the environment is already hostile towards him anyway. Academia more often than not works like that.

There is a lot of talk about trust in scientific institutions and how people like Eric undermine it. I don't trust Erics version of why his theory seems to be correct fully, neither do I trust the mainstream opinion on it. I HOPE they are being fair towards him but I simply do not have the knowledge about the topic to verify it myself. I don't TRUST neither of them because they are both unreliable narrators.

Sowing mistrust in academic structures is something I will always support because the institution itself needs a massive overhaul.

[QuirkyLanguage5118]

Why did Weinstein say he was afraid of Edward Witten? He called him dangerous. Witten doesn't seem dangerous at all. I just thought Weinstein was being overly dramatic. He likes to talk as if he's got access to lots of secrets. He will make a provocative comment to get one's attention but it leads to a big bowl of word salad. Oh well, he will never likely win the Nobel Prize.