One of the great things about psychotherapy is that you can get insights that end your petty obsessions. For example, after a year of therapy, in 1999, my therapist told me that the reason I was obsessed with writing about Dennis Prager is that he had such a profound effect on my life that I wanted to show him that I could affect his life.<\/p>\n
Dennis Prager didn’t come up in my therapy after that.<\/p>\n
Some people can’t handle having brilliant friends because the IQ disparity is too painful for the comparatively dim. I hope I’m not like that. I want to believe that I am at ease with the brilliance and success of my friends.<\/p>\n
But what if I am eaten up inside by petty jealousy?<\/p>\n
I go through life feeling like most people I know are smarter and more successful than I am. <\/p>\n
I want to believe that I am below average in envy. I don’t want to lash out from a place of pettiness. <\/p>\n
Please tell me this blog post is not petty. <\/p>\n
Every time I’ve taken an online IQ test, I’ve never scored above 125. <\/p>\n
By comparison, I suspect that my brilliant philosopher friend Nathan Cofnas is north of 140 IQ (just like Dennis Prager). My father<\/a> tested at a 137 IQ.<\/p>\n When Nathan Cofnas tackles a topic, he usually does such a thorough job that I have nothing to add. <\/p>\n This time I have something to say because we’re not catching him at his best.<\/p>\n The best tennis I’ve ever played was against tennis players far better than me. <\/p>\n I’ve never shown athletic prowess. Only on the rarest of occasions has a girl I liked watched me play a sport, and the only one who stuck around for longer than two minutes was the woman who took my virginity and perhaps felt obliged. <\/p>\n I have a painful admission — I’m thirstier for validation than is good for me due to my lack of success and credentials. The self-made man usually comes with weaknesses that are readily apparent in my words and in my life. <\/p>\n Grok says: <\/p>\n \nThe self-made man typically builds wealth, status, or success through entrepreneurial grit, resourcefulness, and determination, often without relying on inherited advantages or formal systems.<\/p>\n Overconfidence and Ego: Success can breed a belief in their own infallibility, leading to risky decisions or dismissal of advice. They may overestimate their ability to handle unfamiliar domains.<\/p>\n Difficulty Delegating: Having built their success independently, they often struggle to trust others with key responsibilities, leading to burnout or micromanagement.<\/p>\n Limited Formal Education or Systems Thinking: While practical and street-smart, they may lack exposure to structured frameworks or academic rigor, which can hinder strategic planning or scalability in complex environments.<\/p>\n Risk of Tunnel Vision: Their focus on immediate, tangible results can make them overlook long-term trends, ethical considerations, or broader societal impacts.<\/p>\n Isolation or Weak Networks: Many self-made individuals prioritize work over relationships, resulting in limited access to diverse perspectives or influential networks that could amplify their success.<\/p>\n Weaknesses of the Self-Taught Man<\/p>\n The self-taught man acquires knowledge and skills independently, often outside formal education systems, through books, online resources, or trial and error.<\/p>\n Knowledge Gaps: Without a structured curriculum, they may miss foundational concepts or advanced topics, leading to uneven expertise or blind spots in their field.<\/p>\n Lack of Feedback or Mentorship: Self-teaching often lacks external validation or critique, which can result in unchecked errors, bad habits, or overconfidence in flawed methods.<\/p>\n Inefficient Learning Paths: They may spend excessive time on less relevant material or struggle to prioritize what\u2019s most valuable, slowing their progress compared to guided education.<\/p>\n Difficulty with Collaboration: Accustomed to solitary learning, they may struggle to work in teams or adapt to environments requiring formal credentials or standardized processes.<\/p>\n Imposter Syndrome or Lack of Credibility: Without formal qualifications, they may face self-doubt or external skepticism, which can undermine their confidence or opportunities in professional settings.<\/p>\n Shared Weaknesses<\/p>\n Resistance to Authority or Structure: Both types often value independence, which can make them dismissive of established systems, rules, or expertise, sometimes to their detriment.<\/p>\n Burnout Risk: Their relentless drive and self-reliance can lead to overwork, neglecting personal health or relationships.<\/p>\n Confirmation Bias: Without diverse input, they may cling to self-reinforcing beliefs or strategies, missing alternative approaches.<\/p>\n Context and Variation<\/p>\n These weaknesses aren\u2019t universal and depend on the individual\u2019s personality, environment, and adaptability. For example, a self-made entrepreneur in tech might struggle with delegation but excel at networking, while a self-taught programmer might master collaboration but face imposter syndrome in corporate settings. Both can overcome these weaknesses through deliberate self-awareness, seeking mentorship, or supplementing their skills with formal or informal learning.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The quality that bugs me the most about pundits and public intellectuals is that their every pronouncement pushes for their own self-advancement. <\/p>\n I don’t want to be like that. Why do I hate that stuff? Because I see it in my own words all too often and it embarrasses me. <\/p>\n Like my father, I often sound supremely confident when I pronounce on things I know nothing about. <\/p>\n If I have anything useful to say here, it is largely due to the excellence of my subject — the arguments of Nathan Cofnas. <\/p>\n I am but a simple Jew from Cooranbong. Look mate, I come from the land of the uncircumsized. I am dust and ashes. I am a humble servant of the truth. If God wants to channel divine truth through my flawed vessel, who am I to say no? If G-d tells me to marry a hooker, as he instructed the prophet Hosea<\/a>, who am I to say no?<\/p>\n L-rd, if it be Thy will, please make me a doormat for other people to brush their shoes on. Make me the speck of dirt that the universe revolves around. I don’t mind. I’m just a vessel. It’s not about me. Glory to G-d. <\/p>\n Here I stand. I can do no other. So help me G-d.<\/p>\n The children are our future. <\/p>\n I’m all out of love. <\/p>\n By the way, if you join my Youtube channel, you too can learn the lessons of the Holocaust (which just so happen to be the identical opinions about life I would hold even if there was never a Holocaust). <\/p>\n Nathan Cofnas writes on Substack May 5<\/a>: <\/p>\n On April 17, researchers led by Nikku Madhusudhan at the University of Cambridge announced that they had detected dimethyl sulfide in the atmosphere of K2-18b, an exoplanet 120 light-years from Earth. On our planet, dimethyl sulfide is only produced by living organisms. It is emitted in large quantities by certain species of algae, and gives the ocean its special smell. The presence of this chemical on K2-18b might be the strongest evidence ever recorded for alien life.<\/p>\n Candace Owens is one of the most popular podcasters in America. On April 17, she also had an announcement to make. She did her own research on astronomy and concluded that the moon landing was \u201cfake and gay.\u201d She told her millions of followers: \u201cYou need to learn the history of NASA, of the Apollo programs, which were a cult and satanic….They just wanted people to believe in scientific advancement.\u201d Owens has come to similarly unorthodox conclusions on many topics including WWII, the history of communism, and, of course, Jews and Israel.<\/p>\n Obviously, Candace Owens should have free speech to express her opinions. At the same time, a healthy society needs mechanisms to ensure that people like her don\u2019t have an outsize cultural influence. When it comes to astronomy, for example, the voice of Madhusudhan, not Owens, is the one that should be amplified. In some ways it is. Madhusudhan is a professor at Cambridge, publishes his views in peer-reviewed astronomy journals, and gets covered in the New York Times. Twenty years ago, that\u2019s all that would have mattered. But now, Owens, Joe Rogan, Bret Weinstein, or Russell Brand can go on Spotify, YouTube, or Twitter and reach a larger audience than the New York Times. They might even swing elections. Rogan & Co.\u2019s support for Trump may have tipped the balance in his favor.<\/p>\n People who don\u2019t trust \u201cexperts\u201d now look to podcasters and other alt-media figures\u2014many of whom (including Rogan and Brand) are comedians\u2014to decide what to believe about everything from WWII to vaccines to Ukraine to tariffs. The result has been a proliferation of ignorance with disastrous consequences for our culture and public policy.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n There’s a great essay on these topics inside of Nathan Cofnas waiting to come out. This isn’t it but it makes a modest contribution to stimulating a conversation among those tiny number of people who decide what is knowledge<\/a>. <\/p>\n Knowledge, and the winning narrative<\/a>, are not decided by popularity but by power. A tiny number of people in every area of knowledge decide what is knowledge. If you don’t reference the people with power in an area, you don’t join the elite conversation that decides what is knowledge. Elites have a lingo. If you don’t use their lingo, and if you don’t cite their work, you can’t join their conversation about what is knowledge. <\/p>\n Donald Trump is the most powerful man on earth, but he has been losing the narrative war over the past two months because his message has received universal contempt by those who decide what is knowledge. Trump’s representatives on the tariff war, such as Scott Bessent and Stephen Miran, have done an uneven job at representing Trump’s tariffs to the elite. On Liberation Day, Trump’s tariffs received withering universal contempt from elites. Now the elite reaction to Trump’s tariffs is more nuanced. The conversation has shifted, as I noted two weeks ago<\/a>, from “tariffs bad” to “how to implement tariffs effectively.”<\/p>\n We are wired by evolution to want the esteem of the herd, but the esteem of the herd is not always correlated with excellence. <\/p>\n Crap has always received a wider audience than quality thought. People on average have average intelligence and they rarely love quality cognitive productions. <\/p>\n I’ve never heard of a quality thinker who descended into nonsensical thought because of podcasts. <\/p>\n Brilliant people sometimes watch porn, but they rarely change the character of their day job to match pornography. <\/p>\n Brilliant people sometimes take drugs, but they rarely hang out with their drug dealer.<\/p>\n Brilliant people sometimes bang hookers but they rarely introduce them to their peers. <\/p>\n Brilliant people have their guilty pleasures, but they rarely make these pleasures their primary pursuit in life. <\/p>\n Idiocy usually attracts idiots and quality attracts quality. <\/p>\n There are exceptions. As Saul Lieberman said, “Jewish mysticism is nonsense, but the study of nonsense is scholarship.”<\/p>\n Has there ever been a time when low brow culture attracted a smaller audience than high brow culture? <\/p>\n People who don’t trust “experts” still choose them when it is in their demonstrable vital interest such as when they have a pressing medical, legal, or accounting problem. Alt-media consumers want the best pilots and air traffic control system for their planes. They want the best engineers for their buildings and bridges. <\/p>\n You might say that people should want an expert theologian (or some other expert) because he is vital to their soul, but this is not a demonstrable argument in this life. <\/p>\n When average IQ people want entertainment, we shouldn’t be shocked when they go low in their choices. More people will watch porn than read great books. <\/p>\n People are hard to fool when it comes to their vital interests, such as where they live. Even those with an 80 IQ recognize the differences between a nice neighborhood and a dangerous one. People usually choose to live in the best possible place congruent with their interests. <\/p>\n On the other hand, people are not incentivized to think deeply about world events including politics and economics, because they have next to no influence in these realms. They have no incentive for thinking clearly about matters not vital to their survival. <\/p>\n I love trying to place people in their proper genre because once you do that, they rarely disappoint you. <\/p>\n It is an error to have the same expectations for Candace Owens as you do for Nikku Madhusudhan. Joe Rogan, Bret Weinstein, Stephen Miran, and Russell Brand operate in different genres and it is a mistake to have identical expectations for each of them.<\/p>\n Nobody tunes into Owens, Rogan, Weinstein and Brand as an act of optimizing for truth while otherwise thriving in life. If you think that Joe Rogan and Candace Owens are great sources of truth, you’re a loser. If you fall for some guru such as Dennis Prager, Jordan Peterson, or Tony Robbins, it’s because you are losing at some vital part of life that you think this guru can fix. <\/p>\n You shouldn’t expect a game of cricket to operate like basketball, and you shouldn’t judge a rabbinic sermon by the standard of stand-up comedy. You don’t judge the quality of your tax return by the same standard you use to select a show on Netflix before falling asleep. <\/p>\n Ben Shapiro became successful by talking online at maximum speed while taking the most conservative positions possible. It would be silly to judge him on the same standards of academic rigor that we use to judge Nikku Madhusudhan. Ben Shapiro has published many books but zero works of scholarship. Don’t judge him on scholarship just as you shouldn’t judge a pop song by the standards of great classical music. <\/p>\n A silly little love song has its own beauty within its own genre. It’s not bad for being a silly little love song. A podcast for a mass audience with an average IQ of 100 is not bad for failing to be as sophisticated as a Nathan Cofnas interview of law professor Amy Wax. <\/p>\n Sometimes great thinkers give up on producing great work because they can no longer do it (sometimes due to cognitive decline), or because the rewards of turning out nonsense are irresistible. Isaac Newton, for example, devoted much of his adult life to nonsense (the music of the spheres and religious speculation) because it gave him some internal reward that is hard to fathom in our secular age. Dennis Prager is brilliant (you can tell by how quick he is on his feet, reaction times correlate with IQ), but he has chosen to use his brilliance much of the time to bamboozle people<\/a>. <\/p>\n I am not as smart as successful people, but I sometimes have something useful to add due to a combination of talent, experience and situation. <\/p>\n Sometimes the boss is the boss, sometimes the janitor is the boss, but always the situation (ala the event) is the boss. Here’s a bloke in Greenland who’s become an unlikely political influencer due to circumstance. NYT: “Trump\u2019s No. 1 Fan in Greenland: A Bricklayer Turned Political Player<\/a>”<\/p>\n Every dog has his day (people have sometimes remarked that I give off a stray dog vibe who gets collected by saviors such as Dennis Prager and Cathy Seipp and various cults) though the smarter dogs have more dominant days than the dumber dogs. Battle doesn’t always go to the strong and the swift, but that is the way to bet. <\/p>\n Statistician Andrew Gelman wrote September 12, 2012<\/a>:<\/p>\n [A]cademia has what might be called the John Yoo line<\/a>: the point at which nothing you write gets taken seriously, and so you might as well become a hack because you have no scholarly reputation remaining.<\/p>\n John Yoo, of course, became a hack because, I assume, he had nothing left to lose. In contrast, historian Niall Ferguson has reportedly been moved to hackery<\/a> because he has so much to gain<\/em>.\n\t\t\t<\/p><\/blockquote>\n We did not evolve to be gullible when it concerns our vital interests<\/a>. We can be gullible with regard to what we believe about the topics Candace Owens talks about without jeopardizing our survival. Having accurate beliefs about the accomplishments of NASA or the relative quality of Tolstoy vs Dostoevsky vs Batman comics doesn’t affect our evolutionary fitness.<\/p>\n Grok says: <\/p>\n Alt-media\u2019s rise isn\u2019t just blind ignorance; it reflects real failures by experts and institutions. When \u201cexperts\u201d seem divided or when their predictions (e.g., post-2018 tariff impacts) don\u2019t fully materialize, trust erodes. Add in academic jargon or perceived elitism, and it\u2019s no shock people turn to Rogan\u2019s plain talk or Brand\u2019s outsider vibe. These figures fill a gap, offering explanations that feel intuitive, even if they\u2019re thin on evidence.<\/p>\n The \u201cdisastrous consequences\u201d Cofnas mentions depend on the lens. Misinformed trade views could lead to bad policy\u2014like tariffs hiking consumer prices without delivering promised jobs. But alt-media can also amplify valid critiques, like how free trade hollowed out manufacturing towns, a point economists sometimes downplayed. The Ukraine conflict, another topic Cofnas cites, shows similar dynamics: podcasters might oversimplify or push conspiracies, but they also challenge mainstream narratives that gloss over NATO\u2019s role or sanctions\u2019 blowback.<\/p>\n The danger Cofnas sees isn\u2019t just ignorance but the loss of a shared evidence-based framework. Yet dismissing alt-media wholesale ignores why people flock there: experts haven\u2019t always earned trust, and comedians often connect better emotionally.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n We did not evolve to be gullible when it concerns our survival<\/a>. Nobody thoughtful is rotting their brain listening to Candace Owens, Joe Rogan, Bret Weinstein and Russell Brand. People who have lousy epistemics turn to people like Owens and Rogan to meet their needs for comfort or diversion. I’m unaware of any evidence that the podcast bros swung the election to Trump or created disasters for our culture and public policy. Where is the evidence that the podcast bros have proliferated ignorance? I’ve never met someone who was thoughtful prior to listening to these losers and then became an idiot. Overwhelmingly, idiots listen to idiots and the brilliant listen to the brilliant. <\/p>\n Grok says: <\/p>\n No clear data shows podcasters \u201cswung\u201d 2024 for Trump. A 2024 Pew study found voters still relied heavily on traditional media (TV, news sites), but 20% of young voters cited podcasts as a key source. Rogan\u2019s Trump endorsement (Nov 2024) reached millions, and posts on X suggest it amplified MAGA enthusiasm, but exit polls don\u2019t quantify its impact.<\/p>\n Cofnas\u2019 \u201cdisaster\u201d claim feels hyperbolic without granular data tying podcasters to specific outcomes. Still, their reach (e.g., Rogan\u2019s 14M monthly listeners) means they amplify simplified takes on complex issues like trade, which could muddy public understanding.<\/p>\n You\u2019re likely correct that thoughtful people don\u2019t regress into idiocy from listening to podcasters. Cognitive psychology suggests critical thinkers are resilient to misinformation if they actively verify sources. <\/p>\n Cofnas overreaches by blaming podcasters for cultural collapse without clear evidence. People aren\u2019t mindless drones; those drawn to Rogan or Owens often already distrust experts, as you suggest. Alt-media fills a trust gap left by flawed institutions, but it\u2019s not a one-way ticket to ignorance. Thoughtful people, as you note, don\u2019t just swallow it whole.<\/p>\n Hugo Mercier\u2019s Not Born Yesterday: The Science of Who We Trust and What We Believe<\/a> (2020) argues that humans are not as gullible as commonly assumed. His main point is that our cognitive mechanisms, shaped by evolution, make us naturally skeptical and discerning about the information we accept. Mercier suggests that if we were inherently gullible\u2014especially on matters critical to survival, like identifying threats or choosing reliable allies\u2014our species would not have thrived. Instead, we evolved “open vigilance,” a balance of cautious trust and critical evaluation, allowing us to navigate social environments where deception is a risk.<\/p>\n Mercier\u2019s argument is compelling and aligns with evolutionary psychology. It challenges the narrative that humans are easily manipulated, pointing to evidence like our ability to detect inconsistencies, evaluate source credibility, and resist persuasion when stakes are high. For example, he cites studies showing people are more likely to reject misinformation if it conflicts with prior knowledge or comes from an untrustworthy source. This makes sense: a hominid who blindly trusted every signal would fall prey to predators or rivals.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Nathan Cofnas states his thesis: “Blind obedience to credentialed authority (associated with the left) or trust in a \u201cmarketplace of ideas\u201d that rewards brain-rotting infotainment (associated with the right) are both failed strategies.”<\/p>\n Nobody argues for blind obedience to credentialed authority. The left-wing approach is more sophisticated. Similarly, nobody serious argues that high ratings equal winning in the marketplace of ideas. This is a bizarre claim from Cofnas that the marketplace of ideas is determined by the entertainment preferences of ordinary people. The marketplace of ideas, as I have understood it, has never revolved around popularity, it has revolved around the quality and influence of your ideas and their adherents. Neo-conservatives, for example, never had an electorate but they were influential for a time. <\/p>\n Normal people don’t care much about ideas and they don’t have much to say about ideas. Few people can articulate a worldview. <\/p>\n I’ve spent about eight hours of my weekend dissecting this Nathan Cofnas essay. That is not normal behavior. <\/p>\n Grok says: <\/p>\n The marketplace of ideas is a metaphor describing an open environment where ideas compete freely for acceptance through debate, discussion, and scrutiny. It assumes that the best ideas prevail through reason, evidence, and persuasion, much like products in a market. The concept, often tied to free speech principles, was popularized by thinkers like John Stuart Mill and later referenced in U.S. legal contexts, such as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.’s dissent in Abrams v. United States (1919).<\/p>\n Winning in the Marketplace of Ideas<\/p>\n While popularity can amplify an idea’s reach, other criteria often matter more for long-term success:<\/p>\n Reason and Evidence: Ideas grounded in logic, verifiable data, and coherent arguments tend to withstand scrutiny better. For example, scientific theories like evolution prevail because of robust evidence, not just public approval.<\/p>\n Clarity and Persuasiveness: Ideas that are clearly articulated and emotionally resonant often gain traction. <\/p>\n Resilience to Critique: Ideas that survive rigorous debate and counterarguments are stronger. This is why academic peer review, despite flaws, is valued\u2014it tests ideas against criticism.<\/p>\n Adaptability: Ideas that evolve in response to new evidence or contexts often outlast rigid ones. For instance, economic theories like Keynesianism have adapted over decades to remain relevant.<\/p>\n Cultural and Social Fit: Ideas that align with prevailing values or address urgent societal needs can gain momentum. <\/p>\n Amplification Mechanisms: While not the sole factor, reach matters. Ideas spread faster with access to platforms (media, X, public forums) or influential advocates. However, amplification without substance often fades\u2014think of viral fads versus enduring philosophies.<\/p>\n Ratings vs. Other Criteria<\/p>\n High ratings (e.g., likes on X or public polls) can signal short-term popularity but don\u2019t guarantee an idea\u2019s merit or longevity. Misinformation, for instance, often spreads rapidly due to emotional appeal or algorithmic boosts but falters under scrutiny. Conversely, ideas like heliocentrism (Copernicus) initially faced low “ratings” (widespread rejection) but won out through evidence and moral weight.<\/p>\n Real-World Example<\/p>\n On X, posts promoting conspiracy theories might get high engagement due to outrage or novelty, but they rarely “win” in the broader marketplace if they lack evidence and crumble under debate.<\/p>\n Conclusion<\/p>\n Winning in the marketplace of ideas hinges more on reason, evidence, resilience, and adaptability than on high ratings. Popularity can help spread an idea, but without substance, it\u2019s fleeting. The marketplace rewards ideas that endure scrutiny and resonate deeply, not just those with the loudest cheers.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Sam Harris says: “When [Joe Rogan] brings someone on to just shoot the shit about how the Holocaust is not what you think it was, or maybe Churchill\u2019s the bad guy in WWII, or he\u2019s got Dave Smith being treated as an expert on Israel and Palestine, and the history of that conflict….[Smith is] a pure misinformation artist on top of many others….Our society is as politically shattered as it is in part because of how Joe has interacted with information….It\u2019s…avoidable. He could actually take the responsibility that really is his to take at this point to get his facts straight.”<\/p>\n Dave Smith is primarily a comic. It’s not surprising that he falls short as an intellectual. <\/p>\n Where’s the evidence that these idiots talking to other idiots for an audience of idiots is shattering America? <\/p>\n Grok says: <\/p>\n Your skepticism is warranted: Harris\u2019 claim is sweeping, and causation is murky. If Rogan\u2019s show were \u201cshattering\u201d America, we\u2019d expect clearer metrics\u2014say, a spike in polarization tied to his listener base. <\/p>\n Harris, like Cofnas, overreaches by pinning societal fracture on Rogan without clear causation. You\u2019re right to demand evidence\u2014misinformation spreads, but \u201cshattering America\u201d needs more than anecdotes about Dave Smith.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Nathan writes: “[Douglas] Murray is the British face of Conservatism, Inc. He went to Oxford, writes books with footnotes, and hangs out with academics.”<\/p>\n I doubt there are many academics who hang out with Douglas Murray. There’s nothing remotely academic in Murray’s ouvre. <\/p>\n May 25, 2023<\/a>, Dennis Prager called Douglas Murray his “favorite English thinker.” I largely agree with Douglas Murray and Dennis Prager, but only a fool thinks of these guys as great thinkers. They’re great talkers, but will their long-form conversations from the Relief Factor Pain-Free studio<\/a> save Western Civilization<\/a>? Count me skeptical. <\/p>\n Reddit user Koreanoir posted<\/a> a compelling critique of Murray’s 2022 book The War on the West<\/a><\/em>: <\/p>\n The book reads like a disorganized, amphetamine-driven rampage through a big folder of bookmarked webpages labeled \u201cWoke Stuff\u201d. Murray\u2019s approach is to breathlessly recount one anecdote after another, usually dedicating just a paragraph or two to each, and then sneer at the people in the center of it, all the while complaining that criticisms of \u201cThe West\u201d lack sufficient nuance and balance…\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Polemicists of a feather flock together. <\/p>\n On a Patreon video called “The Confluence of the Gurosphere” released June 16, 2023<\/a>, Decoding the Gurus hosts Chris Kavanagh (anthropologist) talks to Matt Browne (psychologist) about “the…energies that cause the gurus to swirl together.” <\/p>\n Matt: “They become intertwined. They find each other and a network is formed. When we covered all of the gurus, we covered them as isolated gems interesting in their own right. But then after covering them, and having identified them as fitting our Gurometer, they then inevitably seemed to find each other even with gurus with no apparent connection.”<\/p>\n Chris: “Jonathan Pageau<\/a> just had Jordan Hall<\/a> on to discuss AI.”<\/p>\n “What connects them is the narcissism, the belief that they have all these revolutionary insights. Jordan Hall enjoys that he can switch paradigms. He can run 70 to 90 paradigms at one time. If you want to talk about it in that kind of language, I can talk about it in terms of resurrections and graveyards… Your religious paradigms are just ten of his seventy.”<\/p>\n Matt: “Jordan Peterson tells James Lindsay that you can’t have science without the Logos<\/a>. It’s all based on Christianity.”<\/p>\n Chris: “One of [Jordan’s] big ideas is that science is fundamentally Christian. It relies on Christianity because Christianity has at its heart that there is a Truth in the universe and if you have that orientation, that allows you to investigate the natural world. And if you don’t have that, science can’t develop. Richard Dawkins and all of them don’t realize that at heart they are deeply religious people.”<\/p>\n “For James Lindsay, the feminist glaciology paper<\/a> is central to his whole thing. It should be just a footnote, just an example that he sometimes returns to, but he now presents that as a turning point in his life. After reading it, he curled up in a ball unable to leave his room for three days because of the shock to the system that such a paper could be published in a prestigious scientific outlet. It’s a random geography journal, Progress in Human Geography. People like him and Jordan. They create this mythos around things that happen to them. I think they genuinely do experience weird manic moments, but the way that they retell it, it becomes part of this hero’s journey. It’s not — I heard a Jordan Peterson talk and it annoyed me. It’s — I heard a Jordan Peterson talk and it awakened a fire in me that I needed to reveal the charlatan world. I don’t think the authors of the feminist glaciology paper are still talking about it as much as James has. He endlessly talks about how he knows all these literatures but he constantly focuses on this single paper.”<\/p>\n Matt: “If he has such a comprehensive understanding of all of that literature, why doesn’t he cite some other examples? There are millions of papers out there. He should be citing hundreds of them.”<\/p>\n Chris: “It’s their susceptibility to narratives that are going to give them attention and make them feel that they are looking at things in a deeper way than normal people. That little hook – they are so easily led around by it.”<\/p>\n Matt: “In the last 20 years, we’ve seen the rise of the political dimension you could call anti-institutional. You have lefty stuff like Occupy Wall Street and Russell Brand.”<\/p>\n Chris: “Tim Pool.”<\/p>\n Matt: “Just being against the current thing. You can frame it as globalism and international capitalism. Or you could frame it as the New World Order and the WEF (World Economic Forum). There’s a right wing version or a left wing one.”<\/p>\n Chris: “And sometimes they cross over. Gavin McInnes<\/a> started as one of the founders of Vice and then became the reactionary leader of the Proud Boys. That seems like a helluva journey. It’s about the institutions are shit, we’re part of the edgy counter-culture. It’s not inevitable that people who aren’t part of the establishment get sucked to the extremes, but there is a greater vulnerability for people who like to style themselves that way. Focusing on the corruption of establishments can make people susceptible to swallowing conspiracism.”<\/p>\n Matt: “I know several people in real life who are fans of Jordan Peterson. Fans of Trump. [Kinda] fans of Putin. They’re not right-wing Christians. They are lost boys. That’s the common denominator.” <\/p>\n Lost boys are a big part of the guru fan base. <\/p>\n Chris: “There is money sloshing around in the right-wing for promoting certain views. Peter Thiel hired Eric [Weinstein]. Provided money to [Eliezer] Yudkowsky [the guy who claims AI will kill us]<\/a>. He also gave up on Eric eventually… The reason that Peter Thiel and Eric came together was that their worldviews aligned. Peter Thiel doesn’t care so long as someone is a wrecking force for institutions. These are narcissistic people who are led by praise and reward.”<\/p>\n Matt: “It’s easy for them to align with their personal interest. They’re labile. It’s like Trump. He’d say anything for a round of applause and a million dollars. They do have a reactionary, anti-institutional worldview. And they’re self-interested narcissists.”<\/p>\n Chris: “That grouping of people who come together for long-form podcasts to share anti-establishment positions and backpat each other and focus on what the progressive left is doing to destroy society. That grouping re-emerges and reformulates and you’ll see Douglas Murray cropping up across all of them.”<\/p>\n Matt: “Why do they all accept the UFO story at face value?”<\/p>\n Chris: “Their epistemics are broken. The smarter ones tap danced on the edge. They wanted to say look at the official narratives collapsing but they were quick to say, it could all be just because they know it could all blow up. I heard Sam Harris taking victory laps — look at all those credulous fools for talking about UFOs. You were talking for months. You believed that someone had contacted you to release sacred information about UFOs.”<\/p>\n “Jordan Peterson praises James Lindsay constantly and occasionally James reciprocates. It’s this constant feeding of the ego. So you were studying maths? Why did you choose the difficult area? They both talk about how they are so principled and that is why they needed to leave academia. They could have been extremely successful if academia had retained its principles and recognized genius, but the fact that they are so successful outside of academia, doesn’t that prove they were right and they are better than all those irrelevant academics. Use your brains guys. It just means that you are selling something that can get you attention. Don’t you know there are lots of people in the world selling rank partisan conspiracy content who aren’t deep thinkers but can make a lot of money?”<\/p>\n “Jordan thinks that because lots of people watch his content, that’s an indication that it is good and fundamentally correct. He gave the game away when he said that something had seven million views and seven million people agreed with me. He counted views as indicating agreement.”<\/p>\n Matt: “Truth is not a popularity contest. Making money selling something that is attractive doesn’t make you a more virtuous person. Their egos are hungry and they’ll take it as evidence.”<\/p>\n Matt: “The orthodox position is tedious. It’s a hard sell. Public health. Boring. It’s not going to grab you. If you are an online commentator, you’re going to feel an inexorable pull to stuff that will get the juices flowing.”<\/p>\n Chris: “We’ll lose the attention ecosphere by saying stuff that people will agree with. It isn’t interesting to say that UFOs aren’t real. You have to add the hook to make it more appealing. We get feedback that if we want to add more listeners, we should touch on this topic. That way lies hell. That mindset of always getting bigger audiences and always jumping on the new thing makes you susceptible to take-itis.”<\/p>\n Matt: “The vast majority of people who produce any content are susceptible because they’re obsessed with growing their audiences.”<\/p>\n Chris: “Rebecca Lewis did a report [in 2018] saying there is an alternative influencer network [Alternative Influence: Broadcasting the Reactionary Right on YouTube<\/a>]. It drove them all mad…that Sam Harris was on the same map with Stefan Molyneux and Gavin McInnes. But she was right. There are network effects. You can hear Sam Harris talk about them and wrestle with it when he says, it is hard to criticize people I go to dinner with. You hear Konstantin [Kisin]<\/a> say to Matt Goodwin<\/a>, you and I are at all the same parties.”<\/p>\n Nathan Cofnas notes: <\/p>\n \nThere\u2019s a reason why people became tired of so-called experts. The \u201cexpert\u201d class face planted about five times in a row….<\/p>\n Joe Rogan wouldn\u2019t platform a rando with no serious training in martial arts to talk about MMA. If someone passed himself off as an MMA commentator, and his only credential was that he watched some old kung fu movies, Rogan would have no interest in hearing his opinion. But suppose the guy who learned kung fu from movies started fighting in the UFC, and beat the top Brazilian jiu-jitsu experts to win the Championship Belt? Rogan would definitely invite him onto his podcast! The podcast bros believe that they are in the position of that kung fu master outsider. You couldn\u2019t persuade Rogan not to interview the self-taught UFC champion by insisting that we need to honor the expertise of jiu-jitsu black belts.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Where precisely did the “expert” class face plant about five times in a row? Which “experts”? Were they experts or “experts”? An expert has valuable provable expertise. An “expert” is just a claim.<\/p>\n Rogan chooses guests for his show who are compelling to a 100 IQ audience. There’s no magic formula for getting on Rogan. It’s not easy to get that opportunity to speak to his vast audience. It’s not easy being a prole whisperer. <\/p>\n Nathan writes: <\/p>\n At the height of our society\u2019s \u201cexpert\u201d worship, credentialed technocrats told a bunch of self-serving lies, imprisoned people in their apartments for two years, and then said that anyone who questioned them was a racist conspiracy theorist. Almost the entire academic and media establishment covered for them. On top of that, we are told that people with PhDs in how smells are racist are also \u201cexperts\u201d before whom we must genuflect.<\/p>\n But the fact that some people with fancy credentials are corrupt, fallible, and\/or frauds doesn\u2019t mean that expertise isn\u2019t real. Some people have knowledge and training that make their opinion more credible and worthy of attention than the opinion of a rando comedian with a microphone.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Who worships “experts”? Do “experts” tell more lies than any other group? Did “experts” imprison people in their apartments or did politicians with popular support enact lockdowns?<\/p>\n Nathan would never have written this sloppily for an academic publication. <\/p>\n America has never worshiped experts but the left and the credentialed class put more weight on credentials than do conservatives, who put a higher value on common sense. Neither approach is clearly superior to the other. Sometimes common sense is superior to the claims of experts, and sometimes it is not. <\/p>\n As society becomes more complicated, some people with demonstrable real world expertise have more power because non-experts can’t understand what they’re doing but sense that they need them.<\/p>\n Most people want safe buildings, safe food, safe transportation, as well as clean air and water and we recognize there is a valuable expertise in these fields that we are glad to follow. <\/p>\n Overall, our public health leaders did a good job during Covid. They were right in their main points — socially distance before you get the vaccine and if you must be inside around people, wear a mask. Once the vaccine is available, take it as directed by doctors. <\/p>\n Nobody in America, and nobody in the world, was imprisoned inside their apartment for two years because of covid. Australia was far more stringent with lockdowns compared to America, and partly as a result of that, in 2020, coronavirus-covid-19-at-a-glance-31-december-2020_0<\/a>Australia had about 1\/40th the per capita death rate of America<\/a>. But nobody in Australia was locked inside their apartment for a year let alone two. <\/p>\n Nathan writes: <\/p>\n But consumers of alt-media have largely given up on the notion of expertise, at least when it comes to politicized topics. When every credible economist on earth says that Trump\u2019s tariffs are going to be a disaster, they say, \u201cNate Silver failed to predict the 2016 election, so maybe Oren Cass (a lawyer), Batya Ungar-Sargon (a Marxist English major), and Catturd are just as likely to be right about tariffs as people who know how to draw supply and demand curves (whatever those are).\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The people who read Nathan Cofnas’s Substack are alt-media consumers. All Substack readers are alt-media consumers. You can’t make many generalizations about them. You certainly can’t credibly claim these people have given up on expertise. <\/p>\n There is high IQ alt-media and low-IQ alt-media just as there is high-IQ mainstream media and low-IQ mainstream media. <\/p>\n Nobody aiming for credibility would state: “When every credible economist on earth says that Trump\u2019s tariffs are going to be a disaster…” It is an obviously untrue statement.<\/p>\n Supporters of MAGA comprise all elements of the IQ spectrum. A high-IQ supporter of MAGA will make high-IQ arguments and low-IQ supporters will make low-IQ points. That there are idiotic supporters of MAGA no more disqualifies MAGA than low IQ members of the resistance to MAGA discredit the resistance.<\/p>\n High IQ MAGA supporters do not claim that people without valuable expertise are as likely to be right as people with valuable expertise. Cofnas is using a straw man argument. No high IQ MAGA supporter is citing Catturd. <\/p>\n Oren Cass is not an economist, but he has some relevant expertise. Economists are not the only group with trade-related expertise. <\/p>\n There is no practical reason why ordinary people should care about expertise in areas such as public policy over which they have nearly no influence. There’s no pragmatic self-interested reason that ordinary people should pay attention to politics because there’s nearly nothing they can do about it. <\/p>\n Grok says: <\/p>\n No, not every credible economist labels Trump\u2019s tariffs a disaster, though a strong majority express serious concerns. Based on recent analyses, most economists highlight risks like higher inflation, reduced GDP growth, and trade disruptions. <\/p>\n However, some economists, like Arthur Laffer, a Trump adviser, see tariffs as a tool to negotiate freer trade, though he acknowledges risks if prolonged. These views are outliers, as most data-driven analyses (e.g., Tax Foundation\u2019s $1,300\/household tax hike estimate) lean negative.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I don’t think consumers of alt-media have given up on expertise. They still seek out experts in medicine or law or accounting when their life is at stake.<\/p>\n When it comes to podcasts for fun and comfort, they turn to different experts than the mainstream experts. Who do they turn to? Those who meet their needs for feeling right and superior. <\/p>\n If every credible economist said in 2016 that Trump’s tariffs were going to be a disaster, how did that prediction turn out? I don’t remember a disaster. Trump had a good economy prior to Covid.<\/p>\n If every credible economist said in 2025 that Trump’s tariffs are going to be a disaster, how’s that going? I don’t see a disaster. As of May 9, 2025, there is no empirical evidence that Trump’s tariff plans a disaster. The stock market, for example, is higher than it was before Liberation Day. The only way to declare Trump’s tariff plans a disaster is to speak from a position of faith unchained from reality. <\/p>\n I wonder if there are too many variables in foreign trade for any one academic discipline, including Economics, to be expert. <\/p>\n Grok says: <\/p>\n Foreign trade is a beast with countless variables\u2014supply chains, geopolitics, currency fluctuations, cultural preferences, labor dynamics, and more\u2014that no single discipline, including economics, can fully master. Economics provides rigorous tools like trade models (e.g., Ricardian or Heckscher-Ohlin) and data on tariffs\u2019 impacts (e.g., Penn Wharton\u2019s GDP projections), but it often leans on simplifying assumptions that miss real-world messiness. For instance, economists might predict tariff-induced price hikes, but political motives or unexpected supply chain shifts can skew outcomes.<\/p>\n Other disciplines\u2014political science (for power dynamics), sociology (for cultural impacts), or logistics (for supply chain mechanics)\u2014each catch angles economics misses. Even within economics, trade experts disagree because models can\u2019t capture every variable, like how China might retaliate to tariffs or how consumer behavior adapts. Interdisciplinary approaches, blending economics with geopolitics or behavioral science, get closer to the truth but still fall short of total expertise.<\/p>\n The complexity suggests humility is warranted. No one field owns trade; it\u2019s why policymakers lean on diverse advisors. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n Nathan writes that “the virus posed almost no serious risk to otherwise healthy young people.”<\/p>\n Not true. Grok notes: <\/p>\n According to the CDC, approximately 2,000 Americans under age 18 died from COVID-19 from January 2020 through December 2024. This number is based on provisional data and may be subject to underreporting due to testing limitations and variations in death certification practices. For context, a 2023 study from the University of Oxford reported over 1,300 deaths among those aged 0\u201319 from 2021 to 2022, indicating that pediatric deaths were rare but significant enough to rank COVID-19 as a leading cause of death from infectious disease in this age group. Source<\/a> Source<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n How many millions of American children have long negative health consequences from contracting Covid? <\/p>\n Grok says: <\/p>\n Approximately 2.2\u20139.1 million American children under 18 who contracted COVID-19 may have experienced negative long-term health effects, with a mid-range estimate of 4.35 million. Source<\/a> Source<\/a> <\/p><\/blockquote>\n These millions of people do not strike me as insignificant. It is not true that covid “posed almost no serious risk to otherwise healthy young people.”<\/p>\n Nathan writes: <\/p>\n On May 16, 2021, after the Covid vaccine became available, Fauci went on television and said that it would provide \u201cwell over 90% [protection] against the disease,\u201d \u201cit is very unlikely that a vaccinated person…would transmit [Covid] to someone else,\u201d and vaccinated people are \u201ca dead end to the virus.\u201d Around the same time, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) director Rochelle Walensky said: \u201cOur data from the CDC today suggests…that vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don\u2019t get sick, and that it\u2019s not just in the clinical trials but it\u2019s also in real world data.\u201d<\/p>\n The government\u2019s internal documents showed that there was no scientific basis for these claims. A report by the Food and Drug Administration published in December 2020 stated: \u201cData are limited to assess the effect of the vaccine against transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from individuals who are infected despite vaccination.\u201d This was still the state of our knowledge in May 2021. Apparently, Fauci and Walensky exaggerated the known benefits of the vaccine in order to encourage people to get the shot. As it turned out, the vaccine lowered the risk of serious illness but had only a modest effect on transmission rates.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n True. People in public health often need to promote policies that are understandable for varieties of IQ levels, and so they simplify and exaggerate and sometimes they lie. Overall, most of what Fauci said was consistent with the science at the time he said it. We shouldn’t expert scientific rigor from public health pronouncements any more than we should expect scholarly rigor when politicians appeal for votes. <\/p>\n Grok says: <\/p>\n Anthony Fauci\u2019s statements during the COVID-19 pandemic were often grounded in the evolving scientific understanding available at the time, but this claim needs nuance. Science is iterative, and early knowledge about the virus was limited, leading to shifts in guidance as new evidence emerged. For example:<\/p>\n Masks: In early 2020, Fauci downplayed the need for universal masking, reflecting initial WHO and CDC skepticism about their efficacy for the general public, partly to preserve supplies for healthcare workers. By mid-2020, as studies showed masks reduced transmission, he strongly advocated for them.<\/p>\n Asymptomatic spread: Early on, Fauci and others underestimated asymptomatic transmission, consistent with initial data suggesting symptomatic cases drove spread. Later studies confirmed significant asymptomatic spread, prompting updated guidance.<\/p>\n Lab leak hypothesis: Fauci initially dismissed the lab leak as unlikely, aligning with early scientific consensus favoring natural origin. While he didn\u2019t rule it out, his stance reflected the limited evidence for a lab origin at the time. The hypothesis remains unresolved, with no definitive evidence either way.<\/p>\n Vaccine efficacy: Fauci\u2019s optimism about vaccines reducing transmission was based on early trial data showing strong protection. Breakthrough infections and waning immunity, especially with variants like Delta and Omicron, later showed vaccines were less effective at preventing transmission, though they remained effective against severe outcomes.<\/p>\n Critics argue Fauci\u2019s communication sometimes lacked transparency about uncertainties or overstated confidence, like on vaccine mandates or school closures, where evidence was mixed or politicized. Supporters counter that he navigated unprecedented uncertainty, balancing science with public health pragmatism.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Nathan writes: <\/p>\n (2) The experts largely got it right\u2014they just lied<\/p>\n Scientists, not Joe Rogan, sequenced Covid\u2019s genome, developed a way to test for the disease, created an effective vaccine, derived the antiparasitic medication ivermectin from avermectin (a substance produced by a soil bacterium), and figured out that ivermectin doesn\u2019t cure viruses. So why are we supposed to be impressed with Rogan but not scientists? Scientists told some noble and not-so-noble lies. That might be morally bad, but it doesn\u2019t mean the scientists were wrong.<\/p>\n …From day one, many scientists knew\u2014or at least strongly suspected\u2014that Covid came from a lab. In the end, real evidence for the lab leak wasn\u2019t discovered by Joe Rogan, who knows nothing about viral phylogenetics or furin cleavage sites. The first high-profile figure to publicly make the case for a lab leak was Nicholas Wade. Wade has a degree in natural sciences from Cambridge, worked as an editor at Nature and Science, and was a science editor and reporter at the New York Times for many years. He got his information about Covid\u2019s origins from professional virologists.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Grok says: <\/p>\n The lab leak hypothesis for COVID-19’s origin remains divisive. Most virologists lean against it, favoring natural emergence due to evidence like SARS-CoV-2\u2019s genetic similarity to bat coronaviruses and historical zoonotic spillovers (e.g., SARS, MERS). Studies, like the 2020 Nature Medicine paper by Andersen et al., argue the virus\u2019s features are consistent with natural evolution, not engineering. Wet markets, particularly in Wuhan, are seen as plausible transmission hubs, supported by early case clusters.<\/p>\n Non-virologists, including some scientists and public figures, often cite circumstantial factors: the Wuhan Institute of Virology\u2019s proximity to the outbreak, its bat coronavirus research, and gain-of-function studies. Declassified U.S. intelligence and FBI\/WHO reports from 2021-2023 suggest a lab accident is plausible, though unproven. Public skepticism also stems from distrust in institutions, amplified by initial Chinese opacity.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Nathan writes: <\/p>\n (3) Podcast bros largely got it wrong\u2014except when they had the relevant expertise<\/p><\/blockquote>\n True. <\/p>\n Nathan writes: <\/p>\n I publicly stated that \u201cIt seems highly likely that the coronavirus leaked from a lab studying bat viruses\u201d on April 17, 2020\u2014five months before Rogan. But you didn\u2019t need to be an expert in virology to make this call. You just needed to look at publicly available evidence, and have the social intelligence to see the hallmarks of a coverup. It took journalists a long time to catch on because most of them lack basic critical thinking skills, and their heuristic is to trust people in positions of authority (especially scientists) even when they have obvious conflicts of interest. Rogan may lack critical thinking skills, too, but at least he has a reasonable degree of social intelligence and skepticism\u2014i.e., he has the qualifications needed to spot an obvious lie. Ultimately, neither Rogan nor I made a scientifically informed case for the lab leak…<\/p>\n It\u2019s not that a (near) expert consensus can never be wrong. But, if it is, this will be discovered by someone who knows at least as much as the experts, not someone who is ignorant of basic facts. <\/p>\n …[Robert] Malone makes many claims that intelligent non-experts can evaluate, and he\u2019s often wildly inaccurate. Since there is clearly something wrong with his reasoning ability, it\u2019s rational to defer to the consensus of the experts whose minds are not obviously impaired. (I would make similar comments about the revisionist historian David Irving, who appears to be the source of many of Darryl Cooper\u2019s ideas.) An epistemically healthy society would ignore Robert Malone.<\/p>\n …Experts in aeronautics have tangible accomplishments like airplanes that can fly, so you can be confident that aeronautics isn\u2019t totally made up. On the other hand, critical theorists produce zero evidence that they have special insight into anything, and they make obviously wrong claims about observable reality (for example, about sex differences). Critical theory falls on the fake end of the spectrum. Most fields will occupy some intermediate position, perhaps closer to one end or the other.<\/p>\n …All things being equal, the non-expert should assign a higher probability to the dominant view, because that has a stronger pull on the majority of people who know what they\u2019re talking about. <\/p>\n In a large community, it\u2019s inevitable that there will be an occasional crackpot who acquires some credential and then veers off into la-la land. For example, there are perhaps several thousand Americans with serious economics bona fides. They include individuals from across the political spectrum. They disagree on many issues large and small. They vote Republican, Democrat, and libertarian. They have different views on gun control, tax policy, and immigration. However, virtually all of them say with one voice that Trump\u2019s tariffs are moronic and will fail to achieve their aims. The two apparent exceptions are Peter Navarro and Stephen Miran, both of whom have Ph.D.s in economics from Harvard and support the tariffs. Navarro is notorious for being incoherent and angry during interviews. In six of his books, he cites a fictional economist named \u201cRon Vara\u201d (an anagram of \u201cNavarro\u201d) for support because he struggles to find actual authorities who agree with him. Miran has a single, coauthored publication in a second-tier economics journal, and is not a genuine expert at all. In such cases, it is appropriate to dismiss the cranks….<\/p>\n We now know who is rewarded in an unregulated marketplace of ideas\u2014at least on the right. It\u2019s people who appeal to the intuitions of the lowest common denominator in the most entertaining way. Winning ideas include anti-Semitism, Holocaust denial, WWII revisionism, drinking unpasteurized milk, vaccine denial, moon landing conspiracy theories, fascism, the notion that Americans would be happier working in factories, and the theory that America is being \u201cscrewed\u201d by Madagascar because we spend more on their vanilla beans than they spend on food and medicine from us. Some of these bad ideas are being implemented into policy by the Trump administration. Three-and-a-half months of what Alex Kaschuta calls \u201cgovernment by meme\u201d has destroyed trillions of dollars in American wealth, irreparably harmed our global status and influence, and set the stage for a global left-wing backlash.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Where are the trillions of dollars in American wealth that have been destroyed? On what basis can you claim that Trump has “irreparably harmed our global status and influence”? America’s power rests upon having the strongest military in the world and the strongest economy in the world. They are both as dominant as ever. Where is the global left-wing backlash? Do you mean Canada and Australia? They both re-elected center-left parties after the right-wing parties were ahead in the polls before Trump took office. That’s hardly a massive global backlash. <\/p>\n Trump II is many things, but it is not government by meme. This new Trump administration is operating on plans developed over years by smart people (such as Project 2025 which accounts for about half of Trump’s current agenda). The hundreds of executive orders Trump has signed are not memes. Trump II is chaotic and messy (such as with tariffs). More than any other politician I can think of, Trump “weaponizes uncertainty<\/a>.” Sometimes that works out in America’s interests and sometimes it does not and sometimes it is not clear. <\/p>\n Publishing in elite journals or failing to publish in them doesn’t do much either way to establish expertise. Plenty of what is published in elite journals is nonsense (think of the replication crisis<\/a>) and plenty of experts focus on other things than publishing. The phrase “publish or perish” refers to getting ahead in academia, which is not co-equal with expertise. <\/p>\n Here’s Stephen Miran’s Wikipedia<\/a>: <\/p>\n Stephen Ira Miran is an American economist, currently serving as chair of the Council of Economic Advisers since March 2025. He is a senior strategist at Hudson Bay Capital Management, a co-founder of the asset management firm Amberwave Partners, and an adjunct fellow at the Manhattan Institute. In December 2024, president-elect Donald Trump named Miran as his nominee for chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers…<\/p>\n Miran served as an advisor of economic policy for the Department of the Treasury from 2020 to 2021, during Steven Mnuchin’s tenure as secretary of the Treasury. <\/p>\n …Miran was critical of Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powell’s recommendation of a major stimulus package in 2020. <\/p>\n In July 2024, Miran co-authored a paper with Iranian-American economist Nouriel Roubini accusing the Department of the Treasury of reducing the share of long-term notes and bonds, lowering yields, and prolonging inflation. <\/p>\n In November 2024, Miran published A User’s Guide to Restructuring the Global Trading System, examining tools for reshaping international trade following Donald Trump’s reelection. The paper analyzes tariffs and currency strategies in the context of dollar overvaluation, presenting potential market consequences. Analysts have hypothesized that the tariffs in the second Trump administration could be following this paper to end in the so-called “Mar-a-Lago Accord”. <\/p>\n Miran’s views align with the protectionist economic philosophy of Trump, and he has espoused the use of tariffs as a tool to reduce trade deficits and induce currency revaluations against the dollar. Miran has asserted that the “economic consensus” against tariffs is “wrong,” and claims that most tariff models do not account for trade deficits.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Miran seems impressive to me even though he hasn’t published in elite journals. <\/p>\n How much respect does Miran command from economists? <\/p>\n Grok says: <\/p>\n Stephen Miran\u2019s standing among economists is a mixed bag, shaped by his credentials, unconventional views, and association with Trump\u2019s protectionist policies. His academic pedigree\u2014PhD from Harvard under Martin Feldstein, a respected economist\u2014earns him baseline respect for intellectual rigor. His roles as a senior strategist at Hudson Bay Capital, fellow at the Manhattan Institute, and former Treasury advisor during Trump\u2019s first term add professional credibility. <\/p>\n However, Miran\u2019s advocacy for tariffs and a weaker dollar, detailed in his 2024 paper \u201cA User\u2019s Guide to Restructuring the Global Trading System,\u201d has drawn sharp criticism. Many economists view his tariff optimism as at odds with empirical evidence and free-market principles. For instance, Arnaud Costinot and Andres Rodriguez-Clare, whose work Miran cited to justify 20% tariffs, called it a \u201cvery bad idea\u201d that would harm the U.S. Paul Krugman labeled Trump\u2019s tariff plans, which Miran supports, \u201cmonstrously destructive.\u201d A May 2025 Financial Times report noted bond investors at a closed-door meeting found Miran\u2019s tariff defense \u201cincoherent,\u201d branding him \u201cout of his depth.\u201d <\/p>\n Miran\u2019s ideas, like the proposed \u201cMar-a-Lago Accord\u201d to devalue the dollar, are seen as bold but risky, earning admiration from some for challenging orthodoxy but skepticism from others who prioritize global trade stability. Critics, including Pictet economists, question his overvaluation theories and warn of destabilizing effects. His claim that other nations, not U.S. consumers, would bear tariff costs has been undermined by a declining dollar, contrary to his predictions.<\/p>\n Among Trump-aligned economists, Miran commands significant respect for articulating a protectionist vision. Among mainstream economists, his standing is lower, with many viewing his policies as misguided or politically driven. The divide reflects ideological differences more than a universal judgment of his competence.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n How much does Wall Street respect Trump’s Treasury secretary Scott Bessent?<\/p>\n Grok says: <\/p>\n Wall Street\u2019s respect for Scott Bessent has shifted from high enthusiasm in late 2024 to significant skepticism by May 2025. His initial appeal as a market-savvy, stabilizing force has been undermined by his alignment with disruptive tariff policies and inability to prevent market turmoil. While he retains admiration among Trump-aligned investors and those who value his debt focus and geopolitical expertise, many on Wall Street now view him as a disappointing ideologue who prioritizes political loyalty over market stability.<\/p>\n In contrast, Stephen Miran commands less respect due to his limited market experience and the broader rejection of his economic theories. Bessent\u2019s deeper financial roots and ongoing role in high-stakes negotiations keep him a more respected, if polarizing, figure. For the latest sentiment, DeepSearch could analyze recent X posts or market reports, but the current picture suggests Bessent\u2019s reputation hangs in a delicate balance, contingent on his ability to deliver results in tariff talks and debt management.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I love this point by Robert Lighthizer in his 2023 book No Trade Is Free: Changing Course, Taking on China, and Helping America\u2019s Workers<\/a>: <\/p>\n Rather than envisioning the type of society desired and then, in light of that conception of the common good, fashioning a trade policy to fit that vision, economists tend to do the opposite: they start from the proposition that free trade should reign and then argue that society should adapt. Most acknowledge that lowering trade barriers causes economic disruption, but very few suggest that the rules of trade should be calibrated to help society better manage those effects. On the right, libertarians deny that these bad effects are a problem, because the benefits of cheap consumer goods for the masses supposedly outweigh the costs, and factory workers, in their view, can be retrained to write computer programs. On the left, progressives promote trade adjustment assistance and other wealth \u2013 transfer schemes as a means of smoothing globalization\u2019s rough edges.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Grok says: <\/p>\n \nLighthizer argues that economists and policymakers often treat free trade as an ideological default, assuming its benefits (e.g., lower consumer prices, economic efficiency) justify its disruptions (e.g., job losses, community decline). He sees this as backward: trade policy should serve a predefined societal vision, not dictate it. <\/p>\n Strengths of Lighthizer\u2019s Critique<\/p>\n Society-First Approach: Lighthizer\u2019s call to prioritize a societal vision over trade dogma resonates with those who see globalization as eroding local communities and industries. By framing trade policy as a tool to serve the common good, he appeals to a pragmatic, values-driven governance model.<\/p>\n Bipartisan Critique: He effectively highlights flaws in both libertarian and progressive approaches. The libertarian reliance on market self-correction ignores real-world frictions, while progressive wealth-transfer programs often fail to restore dignity or economic stability to displaced workers.<\/p>\n Realism About Disruption: Lighthizer acknowledges that lowering trade barriers causes significant economic and social upheaval, a point often minimized in free trade advocacy. Studies, like Autor et al. (2016), show that China\u2019s integration into global trade led to persistent job losses and wage stagnation in U.S. manufacturing regions, supporting his concern about disruption.<\/p>\n Weaknesses and Counterarguments<\/p>\n Vague Vision of the Common Good: Lighthizer\u2019s proposal to align trade policy with a societal vision assumes consensus on what that vision entails. In a polarized society, defining the \u201ccommon good\u201d is contentious\u2014does it prioritize industrial workers, urban consumers, or emerging tech sectors? Without clarity, his framework risks being subjective or politically manipulated.<\/p>\n Risk of Protectionism: Critics of Lighthizer\u2019s approach might argue that calibrating trade rules to shield society from disruption leans toward protectionism, which can raise consumer prices and stifle innovation. For example, tariffs on Chinese goods during the Trump administration (where Lighthizer served as U.S. Trade Representative) increased costs for U.S. consumers and businesses, per studies from the National Bureau of Economic Research (2020).<\/p>\n Global Interdependence: Lighthizer\u2019s focus on national interests may undervalue the benefits of global trade networks. Free trade has lifted millions out of poverty globally (e.g., in China and India) and fueled technological advancements through supply chain integration. A retreat from open trade could disrupt these gains and strain international alliances.<\/p>\n Broader Implications<\/p>\n Lighthizer\u2019s argument reflects a broader populist and nationalist push to reassert control over globalization\u2019s impacts, evident in policies like tariffs and \u201creshoring\u201d initiatives. His critique aligns with a growing skepticism of laissez-faire economics, as seen in posts on X, where users debate the hollowing out of manufacturing towns and the cultural costs of cheap goods.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Nathan Cofnas concludes his essay: <\/p>\n …huge numbers of people are going to latch onto disastrously wrong ideas unless elites exercise some paternalistic control over their informational environment….<\/p>\n Social status on the right is determined mainly by how much attention you can generate, regardless of the quality of that attention. People who appeal to the lowest common denominator rise to the top. The right won\u2019t be able to attract large numbers of cognitive elites\u2014and therefore won\u2019t be successful\u2014if it doesn\u2019t create alternative tracks for people and ideas to gain influence. Nietzsche says: \u201cFar from the marketplace and from fame happens all that is great.\u201d I think there are occasional exceptions to that principle. But, when it comes to ideas, the marketplace rewards \u201cspace is fake and gay\u201d a lot more than \u201cthere\u2019s dimethyl sulfide on the exoplanet K2-18b.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n There’s not one marketplace. There are marketplaces for humor and another for entertainment and another for ideas for people with IQs over 120. The ideas marketplace for the high IQ has no time for arguments that “space is fake and gay.” People who like that argument are looking for laughs, not scholarship. Getting upset about it is like getting upset about the movie Animal House. “The film is about a trouble-making fraternity whose members challenge the authority of the dean of the fictional Faber College.” (Wikipedia<\/a>)<\/p>\n Intellectuals have always been dismayed by the wrong ideas of the masses. Has there ever been a society where elites exercised effective control over the information environment? I don’t think that is possible. Policing people’s information choices generally seems silly to me though I am all for restricting information about the production of dangerous weapons. Also, society has an interest in discouraging self-harm and anti-social behavior. <\/p>\n Social status is not determined only by popularity. Steve Sailer is as high status a thinker as you can find in certain circles even though most Americans have never heard of him. Status is domain specific. The great basketball player has high status in the world that loves basketball but his ball skills create no status for him in the world of economics. <\/p>\n People who appeal to the lowest common denominator can rise to the top of certain social hierarchies but they have no chance for status in high IQ hierarchies.<\/p>\n This version of Donald Trump has attracted far more high IQ support than Trump I. Precisely because the right was deplatformed from the social media oligarchy between 2016-2021, they created their own social media (Elon Musk bought X, and we had the rise of Substack and Rumble and podcasts). <\/p>\n Rarely has cognitive labor of any ideological stripe paid for itself. With few exceptions, the great artists and thinkers have always had to have day jobs to support themselves or they have had to depend upon a patron. <\/p>\n Nathan Cofnas is right that the right needs to fund more intellectuals. By moving the Republican party down market, Donald Trump won two of three presidential elections. Trump’s low-IQ message resonated with enough of the people to take power. Populists such as Trump win elections but they rarely govern effectively because effectiveness requires expertise. <\/p>\n The right needs to its own expertise. <\/p>\n