I quite like http://rationallyspeakingpodcast.org if you can get past the very annoying intro music. Whether it's stimulating or simulating is for you to judge.
I wonder where Julia has been. I know there's been the pandemic, but the podcast was already done remotely. Her last tweet was back in November. Hope she's okay and will eventually bring the show back.
Shane Parrish always waists an enormous amount of time on uninteresting aspects of his guests and then after 1.5 hour when he finally gets to interesting matter the podcast ends. A good example is the podcast with Jim Collins where the interesting stuff came after 2 hours.
I like the long form of content but it should be used appropriately. When Shane does an interview it always sounds like he is completely out of depth with the answers his guests give as if he hasn't researched the topic well enough.
Give this podcast a shot and just listen to the last 10% of the recording.
https://www.econtalk.org/
Fascinating insights into economics, with a Hayekian bent. Lately has been diverging into many other topics related to philosophy and religion, but always interesting.
In Our Time with Melvin Bragg from BBC Radio 4. It’s a colossal podcast series split into six podcasts discussing Literature, Culture, History, Philosophy, Religion, and Science. Each episode Melvin Bragg brings together a panel of professors and experts (mostly from within the UK) to discuss a topic, event, or famous figure.
The Knowledge Project with Shane Parrish from Farnham Street. “Master the best of what other people have already figured out” sums it up.
EconTalk with Russ Roberts from the Hoover Institution. Russ brings on distinguished guests to talk about economics, finance, and more. It’s a neat way to discover interesting thinkers. The topics are far ranging: he once brought on Judith Donath to talk about human-computer interaction and online communities and identities.
I've really liked the BBC content that I've managed to listen to. But their catalog really show the navigation, discovery mismatch between established publishers and the podcast networks.
Podcast UIs need trees or facets or something, to ease drill down.
Much as I've disliked the NextStep (iTunes) panel navigator, I really miss it on mobile.
The supporting materials for EconTalk (from econlib) are also fantastic -- you can go deep into the topic with curated resources for a lot of stuff.
I tell people that if I had a year I'd systematically walk through the EconTalk back catalogue and emerge with a better education than people who get 4 year degrees in the topic.
I would highly recommend the “In our Time” podcast by the BBC. The host gets three experts to discuss a very wide range of subject from history to science to art.
Agreed - he is one of the best interviewers I have ever heard and has an absolutely fascinating number of opinions on a wide range of topics. I don't agree with him on everything but he always makes me think
Lots of episodes of Joe Rogan (Depending on the guest)
Brett Weinstein's "Dark Horse Podcast"
Rationally Speaking by Julia Galef (Been on hiatus for a while, though)
Uncommon Knowledge by Hoover Institution (I don't appreciate some of their conservative views, but they have interesting guests and are a good way to break the liberal bubble)
I just subscribed to Uncommon Knowledge, thanks for the reference. I am a very far left liberal, but if I have to talk politics then I prefer to doing so with my conservative friends rather my with liberal friends. I think having my own viewpoint just reflected back at me gets boring.
I will check this one out (the Hoover one), but I'm skeptical.
I could see, in theory, reading or listening to some conservative stuff, but it just never seems to be honest. Or...lacks basic human decency. Is outright racist. etc.
I do remember, at least think I do, 20 years ago -- you could find at least some people being serious on the right. Eh, I was probably just being naive.
Hoover - last time I saw something from them - it was basically VDH arguing for total war or something.
And...what is with billionaires buying universities' prestige? It's kind of like you can have excellent global heating reporting in the WSJ, and then their OpEd page will say, 'There is no evidence of heating.' Same thing with Hoover and Stanford. Or the Kochs buying...everything. I guess Unis are on even shakier ground now. :-/
...checked them all out. Not for me. Except one Rationally Speaking episode about whether global poverty/rate is good/bad.
Julia Galef remains the best interviewer I have ever heard. She is so incredibly sharp. Her guests will make a point about an abstruse philosophical/economic/statistical topic and she will reply with a perfect, novel, challenging question that betrays an immediate understanding of the complex idea she just processed. Shame the show is on hold.
A fan of "The Portal" but didn't know about "Dark Horse". I listened to a couple Q&A episodes, and they, two professional biologists, concluded that covid-19 is most likely a gain-of-function, chimera virus created in a lab.
This viewpoint seems to be largely censored, but I think it deserves to be front and center of our covid discourse right now. Sad that marginal youtube channels are doing the work that our main institutions of journalism should.
God, no. He is a far-right YouTuber who is known for his promotion of scientific racism and white supremacist views. His website is basically a cult with active use of cult indoctrination methods on Molyneux's side.
Let's not pretend that the above poster doesn't know about that. He tries to bait you into watching Molyneux because he is "good on philosophy and parenting", who can slowly indoctrinate you into his far right views[1] (he doesn't try to be to open about them)
For instance, this is his take on the Holocaust:
> ...the Germans were in danger of being taken over by what they perceived as Jewish-led Communism. And Jewish-led Communism had wiped out tens of millions of white Christians in Russia and they were afraid of the same thing. And there was this wild overreaction and all this kind of stuff.
And if anyone wants to learn about denial tactics when faced with an alt-right, misogynistic mass shooter, using the example of Molyneux, take a look here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkMfKihy33w
Do you find the ramblings of Alex Johnes or Goebbels also "intellectually stimulating"? Don't get me wrong: I'm an avid listener if Intelligence Squared and find engaging with diverse opinions lovely but Molyneux doesn't fall into the camp of "intellectual thinkers" and his ideology is far outside of what any reasonable person could find intellectually enticing. He is also just plain stupid and fails to offer any good arguments, which might provide value.
He basically just rants on for hours without end, committing logical errors, providing disingenuous arguments, and ranting without sources on the way. For instance, he styles himself to be a philosopher but does not engage with the scholarly literature at all while copying arguments by famous philosophers (like Locke) without any credit.
Now I am interested in Molyneux even more. Whenever I see someone dumping personal attacks copypasta I am sure the person they’re attacking is interesting. Subscribed. Cheers!
We both know how disingenuous your argument is: No one actually thinks "I was actually a liberal until you made fun of Trump's physical fitness; now, I must vote for him" or "I am totally not a right-winger but now that you critized a major alt-right figure, I must become a follower of his".
The above is not a "copypasta". A person doesn't become suddenly interesting & someone to follow because they are subject to valid critcisim.
It is more likely you find him interesting, because you agree that "blacks are less intelligent" and women are to be blamed for being abused single mothers (or you are willing to overlook that, which is equally abhorrent).
Most normal people would probably take a look at SPLC's report and not blindly subscribe. But we both know you were already an avid fan long before your comment.
The Skeptics’ Guide To The Universe has been a weekly must-listen for me over the last decade+. They cover “science news, critical thinking, bad science, conspiracies, and controversies”.
I recommend it for anyone who wants to think more deeply about all things, including those which we previously might have considered unworthy of our mind cycles, such as the Taco Bell breakfast menu.
I have three favorites: Lex Fridman’s AI podcast, Azeem Azhar’s Exponential View, and recently I have also started listening to Eric Weinstein’s Portal.
Before the covid-19 period, I used to hike multiple times a week with often large groups of hikers. Now, with social distancing I have been mostly hiking by myself and I find hiking with either having a phone call with a friend or listening to a podcast makes very long solo wilderness hikes less lonely.
Right now, if you're looking for advanced discussions related to SARS-CoV02, is suggest this week in virology, https://microbe.tv/twiv (I didn't double check http vs https or www vs not). Right now they are getting some really good corona-virologist guests and they don't pull intellectual or depth punches to appeal to every layman. There's a lot, maybe look for episodes with field-expert guests.
+1. Twiv is superb. Someone recommend this podcast on HN a few weeks back, and I've been hooked on it. I think it's one of the best sources for Corona news.
The hosts are good too. I think they do great job of breaking down complex topics so layman like me stand a chance of understanding it.
I've learnt a great deal about viruses, vaccines and immunology in the 2 weeks I’ve been listening to it.
It really is worth a listen.
102 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 171 ms ] threadI like the long form of content but it should be used appropriately. When Shane does an interview it always sounds like he is completely out of depth with the answers his guests give as if he hasn't researched the topic well enough.
Give this podcast a shot and just listen to the last 10% of the recording.
He brings outstanding guests and help you reach a very good understanding of a topic in a very short time.
I've learnt a lot about space, MRI, CRISPR, genetics, lots of things, highly recommended.
A podcast by some guys that were at one point set on doing philosophy for a living, then thought better of it.
If you are into philosophy and philosophers, these are like the friends you wish you had.
The Knowledge Project with Shane Parrish from Farnham Street. “Master the best of what other people have already figured out” sums it up.
EconTalk with Russ Roberts from the Hoover Institution. Russ brings on distinguished guests to talk about economics, finance, and more. It’s a neat way to discover interesting thinkers. The topics are far ranging: he once brought on Judith Donath to talk about human-computer interaction and online communities and identities.
Podcast UIs need trees or facets or something, to ease drill down.
Much as I've disliked the NextStep (iTunes) panel navigator, I really miss it on mobile.
I tell people that if I had a year I'd systematically walk through the EconTalk back catalogue and emerge with a better education than people who get 4 year degrees in the topic.
https://lexfridman.com/ai/
My personal favorite episodes are with Chris Lattner, Bjarne Stroustrup and Jim Keller.
https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/
Lots of episodes of Joe Rogan (Depending on the guest)
Brett Weinstein's "Dark Horse Podcast"
Rationally Speaking by Julia Galef (Been on hiatus for a while, though)
Uncommon Knowledge by Hoover Institution (I don't appreciate some of their conservative views, but they have interesting guests and are a good way to break the liberal bubble)
I could see, in theory, reading or listening to some conservative stuff, but it just never seems to be honest. Or...lacks basic human decency. Is outright racist. etc.
I do remember, at least think I do, 20 years ago -- you could find at least some people being serious on the right. Eh, I was probably just being naive.
Hoover - last time I saw something from them - it was basically VDH arguing for total war or something.
And...what is with billionaires buying universities' prestige? It's kind of like you can have excellent global heating reporting in the WSJ, and then their OpEd page will say, 'There is no evidence of heating.' Same thing with Hoover and Stanford. Or the Kochs buying...everything. I guess Unis are on even shakier ground now. :-/
...checked them all out. Not for me. Except one Rationally Speaking episode about whether global poverty/rate is good/bad.
This viewpoint seems to be largely censored, but I think it deserves to be front and center of our covid discourse right now. Sad that marginal youtube channels are doing the work that our main institutions of journalism should.
Some episodes of the Tim Ferriss show.
https://www.youtube.com/user/stefbot/videos
Edit: He is also good on politics and economics. (He does not hold the positions of the far right or "alt right".)
Let's not pretend that the above poster doesn't know about that. He tries to bait you into watching Molyneux because he is "good on philosophy and parenting", who can slowly indoctrinate you into his far right views[1] (he doesn't try to be to open about them)
For instance, this is his take on the Holocaust:
> ...the Germans were in danger of being taken over by what they perceived as Jewish-led Communism. And Jewish-led Communism had wiped out tens of millions of white Christians in Russia and they were afraid of the same thing. And there was this wild overreaction and all this kind of stuff.
If anyone wants to take a look at this track record, in his own words, check out the SPLC: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/indi.... (Also the source for the above quote)
Otherwise, you can also take a look at the less trustable but far more comprehensive RationalWiki overview: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Stefan_Molyneux.
And if anyone wants to learn about denial tactics when faced with an alt-right, misogynistic mass shooter, using the example of Molyneux, take a look here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkMfKihy33w
[1] An explanation of "the onion" can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P55t6eryY3g
He basically just rants on for hours without end, committing logical errors, providing disingenuous arguments, and ranting without sources on the way. For instance, he styles himself to be a philosopher but does not engage with the scholarly literature at all while copying arguments by famous philosophers (like Locke) without any credit.
The above is not a "copypasta". A person doesn't become suddenly interesting & someone to follow because they are subject to valid critcisim.
It is more likely you find him interesting, because you agree that "blacks are less intelligent" and women are to be blamed for being abused single mothers (or you are willing to overlook that, which is equally abhorrent).
Most normal people would probably take a look at SPLC's report and not blindly subscribe. But we both know you were already an avid fan long before your comment.
I know you asked for conversations/talk and John Green's The Anthropocene Reviewed is a monologue, but wow is it a well-told and researched monologue. https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/anthropocene-reviewed
I recommend it for anyone who wants to think more deeply about all things, including those which we previously might have considered unworthy of our mind cycles, such as the Taco Bell breakfast menu.
Before the covid-19 period, I used to hike multiple times a week with often large groups of hikers. Now, with social distancing I have been mostly hiking by myself and I find hiking with either having a phone call with a friend or listening to a podcast makes very long solo wilderness hikes less lonely.