Supplementary Material 23: Content Shark Psychology, Rorschach Tweets, and the Art of Radicalisation
Chris and Matt have their models exploded, the maps ripped up, and their minds blown as the Gurusphere expands into exciting new territory.Supplementary Material 2302:47 Chris Williamson blows our minds!08:57 Content Predator psychology and motivational posting12:28 Balancing the Scales14:07 Eric Weinstein the master of Rorschach Tweets20:26 Modern Sages Reunited: Bret Weinstein and Joe Rogan24:29 Open-Minded Joe Rogan34:26 Maybe prescriptions are actually bad!37:38 Andrew Gold expands into Race & IQ46:47 4 Warning Signs of Radicalism56:45 Monomaniacal Fixation vs. Pluralism01:05:26 Rejoinder: What if it is a diagnostic?01:09:43 Lex wants to join DOGE01:10:31 Lex's next world leader interview: Modi01:14:57 Matt's Final Thought: People contain multitudes01:16:57 OutroThe full episode is available for Patreon subscribers (1hrs 19 mins).Join us at: https://www.patreon.com/DecodingTheGurusSourcesEric Weinstein's profound tweet on history as we know itThe Joe Rogan Experience#2269- Bret WeinsteinAndrew Gold Heretics: CONTROVERSIAL: Are Some Races DUMBER? - Nathan Cofnas (4K)Lex wistfully imagines joining DOGE and thinks deeply about his upcoming interview with ModiRecent investigation of 'Race Realist' networks and outletsKruglanski, A. W., & Moskalenko, S. (2025). Psychology of the Extreme. Taylor & Francis.
Hello and welcome to Decoding the Guru's supplementary material.
We're back again with him, psychologist extraordinaire, Matthew Brown.
With me, anthropologist of lesser renown, Chris Kavner.
Here we are in the supplementary material safe zone behind the shamrock and dangling cork curtain.
Just hanging out.
Just shooting the breeze.
We are indeed.
What are we shooting the breeze about?
Many things, Mark.
Gurus, mainly.
Mainly gurus.
That's right.
Yeah, you forgot.
This is the coding of gurus.
Right.
That's right.
This is a supplementary materials episode.
I've lost track.
I've forgotten what we were recording.
Okay, that makes sense.
Hey, did you know, Chris, that I have started painting?
I've started painting again.
You've started painting?
Oh, really?
Yeah.
Yeah.
I've got a canvas.
I'm looking at it right now.
It's coming along okay.
Crows?
Using crayons?
Yeah, and just holding them in my fist and throwing them like that.
Look, I've drawn a picture of a dog in the house.
Yeah, here's my family.
It's abstract art, isn't it, Matt?
You're an abstract art.
You like to draw squares and shapes and colors.
Yeah, that's right.
The highest form of art, very conceptual.
Yeah, anyway, stay tuned.
If all goes well and I don't stuff it up, then I will post the photograph of the finished product later.
Oh!
Should we make that like a Patreon bonus, like the very top tier can see Matt's art?
It's so special.
It's so special.
I mean, the very top tier can see it.
No, no, we won't.
Look, I want to manage expectations.
That could be too much pressure, Chris.
I can't paint too much pressure.
Too much pressure?
Okay.
So you won't, even the highest tier can't see the art.
It's only families and friends.
That's the only people that they're allowed to see.
But just know that Ma is doing art again.
It's good to know.
We've got to keep your mental health in check.
You're an important member of this community, Ma, and we care about you.
That's right.
All podcasting and research makes Jack a dull boy.
He also needs to get outside, do some painting, do some other things.
Cook Indian food.
That's the other thing I need to do.
How have you been, Chris?
What's been going on in the less wholesome...
Less salubrious parts of the gurusphere.
Well, why don't I start with something that will blue your world, Matt?
So, you know, Chris Williamson, Modern Wisdom.
Fame, right?
You're familiar with him.
His rippling muscles, his cumheller smile.
His perfectly symmetrical features.
Yeah, his tendency to platform absolute muppets and allow them to spout nonsense with mild pushback.
We know Chris Williamson.
He supplies me with newtonic energy drinks to keep my mind focused with cognizant.
And we thank him for that.
But I discovered a shocking revelation that shook.
The core of my reasoning abilities.
I like to think of myself, Matt, as someone with a finger on the pulse of the guru sphere.
You know, there is not much that these gurus do that really causes me, you know, big surprise.
Disappointment.
I'm like, oh, they really did that, right?
But in most times, it's within the range of possibilities, right?
Like what occurs.
Now, I learned something about Chris Williamson that...
Was outside my predictive capacities.
So shall I share that with you?
You shall.
Let me pose it to you in the form of a question.
I feel like I've kind of spoiled what the answer is going to be.
But nonetheless, let's imagine, you know, your beep in the woods just come along.
So Matt, if Chris Williamson was to have the opportunity to interview Trump prior to the election.
What would you anticipate that he would do in that scenario, given that many other people in the kind of bro-sphere, optimizer, whatever, you know, heterodox podcast sphere, had Trump on before the election.
Theo Vaughn, Lex Friedman, Joe Rogan, right?
They all did.
And Trump did numbers, baby, right?
Like he, very, very successful, get you a lot of downloads, get you, you know, in the news cycle.
So Chris Williamson, somebody that's not averse, To interviewing controversial figures, has heterodox, leaning inclinations, right?
A lot of Tulsi Gabbard types popping up in his show.
Would you bet that he would accept the opportunity to have Trump on?
Would he jump at it?
Would he turn it down?
What would your model suggest?
I would.
Absolutely.
Bet that he would jump on that.
You know, we don't think he's terribly terrible.
We don't think he's the most toxic.
I know, you know, you and he are on friendly terms and I don't dislike the man.
However, if you'd asked me, I would have said absolutely.
He is first and foremost a professional and is ambitious and that he would jump at that chance.
And I don't think my expectation would be that he wouldn't see too much of a problem with that because after all...
President Trump was a previous president.
He was running for the United States.
I mean, you could make a pretty good argument that it is totally legitimate to interview him.
So yes, I would say yes.
Yes.
So would I?
I would actually have gone so far as to probably bet my house on that possibility if it came to it.
Right now, I don't have a house.
But if I did, Matt, I would have been confident enough to say, yes, that given my mental model.
And what I anticipate people to do, I would have bet that.
But it turns out, and I saw evidence to this effect, so it isn't just a rumor, that Chris did have the opportunity to interview Trump and said no.
He didn't do it.
Literally, I don't really understand that because it's not like...
It was a principled opposition to interviewing politicians.
Because like I said, there's plenty of politicians, including right-wing reactionaries, that have been on Chris's channel.
But not Trump.
Yeah, yeah.
So it is amazing.
So what is the reason that he gave for not interviewing Trump, Chris?
I think he just didn't think it would be a good conversation or that there would be anything additional.
Glean for it.
Like it would be, you know, essentially working for Trump's campaign to boost his numbers because he's not the kind of journalist that could give, you know, a very critical, hard-nosed pushback on Trump.
So it would have been a similar kind of thing that you saw with Lex and Rogan and so on.
But that consideration, of course, would never stop Lex or Joe Rogan in a million years.
Yeah, and I wouldn't have said it'd stop.
In general, when you look at his channel, it's not like this seems to have been something that stops him engaging with other similar figures.
I mean, Piers Morgan was just on Chris Williamson's channel.
Granted, Piers Morgan is not going to be the Prime Minister of Britain or anything like that.
But similarly, a kind of political figure.
If you were examining them, you'd want to hear some hard questions put to them, but I suspect that's not how that interview went.
I haven't seen it, but this is just my idea.
Jordan Peterson, Eric Weinstein featured prominently on the channel.
Well, all I can say is that I wholeheartedly approve of that.
Not that I think that it's absolutely critical for people never ever to interview Trump, but rather just that Chris Whittamson.
You know, is operating according to his own principles.
He definitely sees the world a little bit differently from me, but he does have principles, it seems, and he tries to live by them.
I don't know if I do that.
I guess so, but I guess for me, the main thing is just, it's very interesting when you come against something that is completely counter to your...
Expectations.
Well, he does have principles.
I mean, his calculus in that case is clearly not just, "Oh, this will do numbers.
This will increase my profile.
I don't care whether or not it's good or not."
Okay, right.
Yes, that's true.
But I view the principles, in effect, to be kind of like a shark.
I feel like Chris Williamson is a content predator, but in that frame.
You would expect like an Andrew Gold would jump at the chance, right?
He'd be on that email within 10 seconds if he got the chance to interview Trump, right?
So obviously not like that.
But in the same way that the shark is, you know, kind of inscrutable, like it might swim past something that you expected to bite and show no interest.
And like, you're like, you know, I understand you're a predator, a magnificent beast of the ocean and whatnot, but your mind is like an alien.
World to me.
I think this is what I'm like.
I still, the behavior is mostly predictable.
You know, great white sharks, nine times out of ten.
It's going to chomp down on the thing.
But just once, it might just swim beside it and let you, you know, hold on to its tail or whatever.
And you're like, why?
You creature.
I don't fully grasp your alien mind.
So that's what's happening with Chris Williamson.
Well, it just goes to show we do not have excellent...
Working model of Chris Williamson.
He continues to surprise us, and that is a good thing.
On the other hand...
This is the thing.
We do have a good working model.
We do.
I'm not letting that go.
Normally, what he does doesn't surprise me.
Just this specific instance.
It's like it's broken outside the boundaries of the little mental box that I had Chris Williamson in.
He's drawn outside the boundaries of it, but I don't think I'm wrong overall.
Okay, I'm not wrong overall.
No, of course not, Chris.
You're never wrong.
Well, one of the things that Chris does that doesn't surprise me is, you know, like a lot of gurus, he's dispensing wisdom.
He's dispensing modern wisdom.
He's looking to help all the bros out there become better, fitter, stronger, faster.
But in doing so, I feel that he does slip into aphorisms, that I think he thinks some things are profound when, in fact, they are not.
And he has been grinding my gears a little bit recently, Chris.
So I'm just going to say something mean now to balance out my wholehearted, unequivocal...
Praise?
Endorsement?
Praise for his decision there.
Blanket endorsement?
Blanket endorsement.
On the flip side, these are some of his recent tweets.
Hopes of success and fears of failure become less relevant the more you do something.
You genuinely love.
Do you think that's true, Chris?
Is that true?
Very poetic.
Very beautiful.
Just makes me think.
That does make you think, doesn't it?
Words to live by.
Here's another one.
The magic you're looking for is still in the work you're avoiding.
That's true of you though, isn't it, Chris?
I feel like these are inspirational posters.
Quotes, you know, like a sunset.
These are very much in the inspirational poster category.
Enemies are just friends that you haven't yet convinced.
That's right.
You don't have to be crazy to work here, but it helps kind of thing.
And look, that's fine.
It is not the worst thing in the world.
It is pretty much harmless to be posting those sorts of faith reasons.
But I feel like Chris Williamson thinks that there's wisdom there.
I just don't think there is.
This is where we think differently, I suppose.
This is where you diverge from the modern wisdom that he offers, he and his guests offer.
I can see that.
Well, I can also say, just to balance up, you know, we like to balance things here, right?
That when I was discovering this event about the Trump or the non-Trump interview and assigning...
Mental credit and public credit now, right?
Because I think it does deserve credit to turn down that kind of opportunity, given the incentives in the ecosystem.
But you remember when we covered the Lex episode, Matt, and you were like, whenever Lex does his wounded bird pose and he says, you know, I'm trying so hard and the people online are tearing me down and whatnot.
And you were like, who does this work on?
Who feels sorry for Lex based on that kind of thing?
So when I was discovering this, Chris Williamson was also voicing his sympathy for Lex, who was obviously genuinely hurt by the attacks, the slings and arrows that had damaged him online.
And I thought, there's the one!
That's the person it works on.
So he generated sympathy in Chris Williamson.
So the credit he gets for not interviewing Trump and for...
You know, resisting that siren call?
Slightly, slightly diminished by the kind of falling for Lex's transparent wounded bird pose.
So if you hear this, Chris, do you hear that?
Don't fall for it, okay?
It's very obvious.
So yeah, that's it.
That makes the universe slightly more right because that's in line with my mental model.
So that was like, well, I'm not completely off the reservation, as they say.
No, you're not.
You're not.
Hey, since we're monitoring people's tweets, being the good little hall monitors discourse police that we are, do you want to hear an Eric Watson?
Don't say that.
That's going to make people...
I know you're joking, but you know, people online, they don't joke.
They'll clip that and be like, they called themselves the content police.
Yeah, I've got to stop doing that.
Carry on.
That's right.
Irony is dead.
So...
Do you want to hear an Eric Weinstein tweet?
I'd love to, yeah.
Okay, so this is great.
I love this and I'm going to read this to you for a reason because it is just distilled, perfect Eric Weinstein.
And I want to preface it by saying that it's not part of some thread.
It's not in reply to something else.
There is no context.
No context here.
It is just a standalone thought that he has cast out there.
Okay, a thought bubble.
Yeah, here it goes.
This goes arbitrarily deep.
Everything pivotal since World War II was, in part, unreal.
Jesus Christ.
What do you make of that, Chris?
What do you make of that?
Did Chris Williamson retweet it?
Yeah, well, that's Eric, isn't it?
It's just conspiratorial drivel.
And I like that he said, since World War II.
Yes.
That seems to be just heading off a problem that I think he knows is likely to be coming, right?
If he suggests that all events are likely unreal, historical.
Yeah.
Now, that had huge engagement.
That tweet is followed by hundreds of thousands of responses.
And it's a fascinating read because every single one of the...
Deluded Apple people who follow Eric Weinstein has their own interpretation of what he means there, right?
So it's almost like the perfect vague posting engagement bait thing that a guru can do, where everyone can project their own kind of paranoias, their own conspiratorial theories, their own take on things onto Eric's tweet,
feel that Eric is speaking for them.
And then bounce off it and obviously create engagement.
So I just think, Chris, it's vague posting like this is like a Rorschach test.
It is, you know, a way to draw people out, you know, not saying anything specific.
Because if you say something specific, you get bogged down in the details.
Some people agree with you.
Some people don't.
It might conflict with their own crazy conspiracies, whatever.
What you do is you do this kind of Rorschach test speaking.
And Eric Weinstein is the master of it.
And even though it's a terrible, terrible thing.
I have to respect the master at work.
Yes, and I actually did see in the responses to this that some people were saying, Eric, you went most of the way there, but are you brave enough to look at the World War II events through that lens and reveal the real truth?
Now, this is Twitter in 2025, so that stuff was obviously coming, and they made reference to him being an ethnic Jew.
But those are the waters that Eric paddles in.
But I don't think he wants to play frizzy with neo-Nazis.
I don't think that's the kind of people that he wants to cultivate.
That just comes with the territory of being in that MAGA conspiratorial world.
It's just telling of modern-day Twitter and the conspiratorial ecosystems and whatnot.
So, yes, good tweet from Eric.
He's been making a lot of them.
Recently.
So, yeah.
And I saw someone giving credit like, oh, I'm starting to realize Eric Weinstein was very prescient in talking about the gated institutional narrative.
Like, this is his time.
This is his time.
If he cannot get some attention and position of authority, when the Trump administration are handing him out like candy, any coin comes by, honk, honk, here you go.
You can be transport minister.
Honk, right?
Yes, you're the...
Head of the FBI, whatever.
Like, if Eric cannot seize this opportunity, he's been wearing his coat for 20 years for no reason.
Because this is the most receptive a regime will be to the kind of stuff that Eric peddles.
But I don't think he's going to be able to seize it because he's more into the conspiratorial right-leaning posting than outright MAGA sycophancy, which is what he needs to do.
That's right.
He's not like a Chris Ruffo or...
No.
These are the characters that are active partisans who are actually working towards some sort of goal.
You know, RFK is an active partisan towards his health anti-vax stuff and has been for decades.
As a result, he eventually gets there.
You can't just do vague posting and cultivate this sort of generalized conspiratorial thing without putting your cards on the table and expect to get a Guernsey.
So, yeah, I don't think he'll get in.
I would disagree a little bit, I think, unless you're saying something different there, because, like, I feel that RFK, he's not been overtly a right-wing partisan for a long time.
He's been an overt anti-vaxxer, and he's leapt on to the MAGA thing, but he was, you know, left-wing coded before, even he ran, right, initially as a Democrat and then as an Independent.
And similarly with Eric, I don't think, I'm saying, like, the vague thing is what he does.
But he's not all over the shop in terms of his opinions, right?
He's reliably carrying water for right-wing stuff.
So I do think that he is a right-wing constant.
Like, his stuff always leans right-wing.
It always leans towards Peter Thiel.
It always leans towards the Democrats are doing bad things.
But he's not overtly MAGA enough to appear loyal.
Yeah, that makes sense.
Yeah, no, that's what I meant about RFK.
He's got a...
He's got a program of activism.
Yes, not necessarily MAGA, but yeah, he's a player.
Ah, there we go.
So, you know, after all those good-natured, positive stories, Matt, I've got something that you might find a little frustrating.
But the good thing is, when you hear this, it means you don't have to listen to the whole thing that this is from.
Okay?
So, here's two of your favorite people.
Who got the Geller to have an old chinwag about how things are going.
Mike Benz has been on that like a pitbull.
And I've been following him on X and he's going to come back on here and kind of explain everything.
But he explained it the last time he was here.
And I don't think I really grasped it until Elon's...
Six wizards.
They brought in some young wizards to go in there and go over the books, and they are just finding crazy shit.
It's great, and it's so interesting.
I was listening to a left-wing podcast today.
I like to mix it up.
You know, I listen to all kinds of different stuff, and it was like I was listening to a different world.
Like they weren't even talking about all of this corruption and all this obvious buying of influence.
Instead, they were talking about aid overseas and how people are going to stop.
It's mind-boggling and there's also...
I have to say I'm just...
I'm upset at the general pattern of a failure to recognize how right those of us who hypothesized that there was a racket that had overtaken our entire governance structure, we turn out to be...
Absolutely right about this and no one's going to mention it?
That's mind-blowing.
It's very strange that the media is ignoring it, especially the left-wing media.
It's just too big of a win for the right, and so they're just ignoring it.
And then they're just highlighting the good things that USA did, which I'm sure it probably did, probably had to do some good things to at least justify its existence.
As a cover story?
I'm not even sure.
Maybe.
It doesn't change anything.
Obviously, this was a mechanism used to funnel money to all sorts of things that we didn't vote on that don't make sense in light of our constitutional structure.
Yes, Chris.
Yes, yes.
I recognize the topic of this conversation.
These cuts to USAID and purportedly USAID is just being wasted and fridded away and all these kinds of things.
And they found blatant cases of it being used for the wrong kinds of things.
Is this accurate, Chris?
That's a good question.
Who can say?
Who can say that they've picked up on things because Elon's wizard, the six wizards have gone in and they've uncovered all this corruption.
And Joe is like, it's crazy.
All this corruption.
It's crazy.
They've noticed there's that.
And there's also nobody's recognizing the people that were right.
Like nobody's giving credit to that.
The people, the Weinsteins, it's a perennial issue that there's not enough credit going to the Weinsteins, right?
Like this is the, oh God, it's so annoying.
Well, the annoying thing about it is that these information bubbles become like these self-reinforcing things because I've seen only just a little bit of coverage on this, on the kinds of things, supposedly the scandalous things, right, that US aid has been spent on.
And, you know, it could be the sources I was looking at were a bit biased themselves, but it certainly seemed to me that a lot of the things that Joe Rogan was in shocked awe about are perfectly innocuous things and very sensible things, or his facts were just wrong about them.
But, you know, he's in his bubble, so he takes it as complete confirmation that he's right about everything.
There's just corruption everywhere.
So, yeah, if you do the conspiratorial two-step and you filter the information coming in, So that it fits your premises, then yes, Brett will be right in every time.
There's that and all.
But you know, Matt, you heard Joe.
He listens to a wide range of things.
He's seeking out disconfirming information.
No bullshit.
Joe heard something for the first time.
But you see how he responds to any information that contradicts his narrative multiple times.
He's just extremely gullible when it comes to anything from right-wing media.
And hypercritical when it comes to any fact-checking, any left-wing media, or just any media which contradicts right-wing media narratives.
And to highlight this, Matt, they had a little conversation about chargers, okay?
So this is the issue about wasteful spending.
They're still talking about, you know, the kind of corrupt projects and this kind of thing.
And this is about electronic...
Cars, infrastructure, right, for charging stations.
So listen to Joe and Brett get started on this.
Well, yes.
And USAID is, of course, riddled through whatever international madness it is that caused us to open our southern border and facilitate an invasion through the Darien Gap.
So, you know, seeing that structure laid bare is...
It almost feels like it can't be real.
It can't have been this close to the surface, and yet here we are.
They were spending...
Is this number correct?
I think the number that I read was $600 million every two months to ship in illegals?
Sounds right.
I don't know the number offhand, but...
What the fuck?
Well, you have to realize that basically we had a shadow apparatus Functioning, and it involves all kinds of things.
It involves payoffs to people who didn't deserve them.
It involves contracting to entities that were necessary to get the work done.
So I don't think we can properly understand what these numbers mean and what they're actually being used for, but it was a racket.
Well, we were always wondering, like, why is our debt so high?
Why is the national debt...
So high.
Like, why is our deficit so insane?
Well, this is it.
I mean, how about the one where they paid $236 billion, like, for chargers?
Do you know that they were trying to set up chargers?
You mean car chargers?
Car chargers.
And they only built a couple of them?
Oh, excuse me.
$40 billion for electric car ports.
Eight ports have been built.
You know how crazy that is?
$40 billion for carports.
But I have to say, as much as this is shocking, I wasn't surprised.
I thought that effectively our entire system had been turned into a racket and that we were basically being fed a cover story from it.
And it's weird to now have the evidence of this.
But I think it was apparent that whatever had taken over our system wasn't interested in the well-being of average.
That it was interested in the power of the state to take people's resources and redistribute them, and that that really is what's been going on for most of our adult lives.
There are some astonishing facts and the implications of the facts as discussed by Brett.
Now, Chris, that particular thing you mentioned, was it $200 million to ship in illegals or did he say $2 billion?
Well, he said $600 million every two months to ship in illegals.
He said $236 billion on a...
Charging stations, but then they corrected that to maybe $40 billion.
Yeah, yeah.
And Chris, like, this only just happened, right?
But on the Joe Rogan subreddit, actually on our subreddit, it was then reposted to Joe Rogan, and I haven't fact-checked their fact-checking, that they have gone through all of those claims, and they are incredibly wrong and or misrepresented, including the $40 billion for electric carports,
right?
So according to them...
It was more like 7.5 billion.
It's 200 charges, not eight.
200 charges are running and thousands of more are in progress.
So whether or not the cardboard scheme is good use of money, whatever we could say, but definitely if this person is even close to being correct, then Joe Rogan's representation of it is completely wrong.
You are correct.
And I did look into it.
The 7.5 billion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021.
But it's also a planned investment.
It's not being spent.
And actually, Jamie brings it up.
So even then, right?
So, so far, Joe is wrong, right?
He started off with 236 billion.
No.
40 billion?
No.
7.5 billion.
Also not spent.
Right, yeah, so this is earmarked for this, right?
So watch what happens when Jamie brings up some of these points to him, right?
Jamie, in fact, tries to tell him a bit later on when they're talking about some analysis, he says, oh, really, I checked into it.
Maybe, you know, there's a correction here.
And let's see how Joe reacts, you know, because he's not, he's impartial, Matt, right?
You know, he's just, he listens to a lot of different things.
What's that, Jamie?
I was reading an article about the spending on the Chargers.
They said that they haven't actually, according to this, they haven't actually spent all that money yet.
What do they do with it?
They've spent some of it to make some of those things, but it hasn't been allocated yet.
It's a long article going through all the spending that's been done.
It's on factcheck.org.
Factcheck.org?
Who runs that?
I don't know.
Some of the chargers have been made.
Some of them are on the way to be making.
They've built 61 at 15 stations since mid-August or through mid-August.
14,900 more are currently in some stage of development.
But that's where it goes into, like, where they are, what they have to be done, and who's getting the money from them has to be done through a long process from each state.
Yeah, the question is, how can we get a proper accounting, as you point out?
Who the hell is factcheck.org?
Well, that's the problem with fact-checking organizations.
That should really be illegal.
Like, I think if you're a fact-checking organization, we should have stringent rules on what influence is being peddled.
Like, who's paying for these fact-checkers?
Who's behind the scenes?
What is the deter...
it should be very transparent.
How did you determine whether or not this was true or false?
There are a lot of things that get said like I don't know if you saw this but Elizabeth Warren got confronted and it's on Twitter this morning She got confronted about the amount of money that she's received from pharmaceutical drug companies She said she's never received any money from pharmaceutical drug companies and never received any monies from any PACs And then of course underneath it community note strikes again,
and of course she received millions.
Yeah, she's a fucking liar Well, and, you know, it's an arms race.
You know, how can pharma cloak the money that it's giving so that there's plausible deniability at the point that Elizabeth Warren is confronted or Bernie Sanders?
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
So we're confronted just with being blatantly wrong.
Straight away, he segues to, there's something wrong with the fact-checking.
So, like, there's just no ability to correct Joe Rogan, it would seem.
No, and then pivoting to, I saw this thing on Twitter this morning about Elizabeth Warren, right, and corruption.
Like, she's a fucking liar, right?
So, first of all, fact check.
What's this?
Have you looked into a source?
Suddenly his epistemic standards are very robust.
We need to look into this.
And actually, the fact-checking sites typically have all the sources listed at the bottom, like the original documents and where they're getting all the information.
But Joe doesn't care because it's just saying something that contradicts him and makes him look reactionary.
So he needs to dismiss it.
If you'd like to continue listening to this conversation, you'll need to subscribe at patreon.com slash decodingthegurus.
Once you do, you'll get access to full-length episodes of the Decoding the Gurus podcast, including bonus shows, gurometer episodes, and decoding academia.
The Decoding the Gurus podcast is ad-free and relies entirely on listener support.
Subscribing will save the rainforest, bring about global peace, and save Western civilization.
And if you cannot afford $2, you can request a free membership, and we will honor zero.
