[newsbinator]

This is interesting. There was a time when I became aware of Eric Weinstein via Joe Rogan and Eric seemed to be pointing to things I'd recognized and couldn't name, and other things I hadn't recognized but could see when he pointed them out to me.

It felt enlightening: here's a concealed underlying pattern that I have now unconcealed for you.

Then after that, and after starting his own podcast, and after coming out with his own Theory of Everything ("Geometric Unity"), things shifted: Eric refused to publish a paper or proofs that could be scrutinized, what he did publish was labeled by professionals as "not even wrong" (i.e. not cogent enough to dispute), he insisted he taught himself guitar during lockdown (when he had been playing for years before), etc.

It felt like two different versions of someone: one you could trust was forthright (whether right or wrong about something), and another who would say things he knows aren't true out of ego/vanity or... out of something? But something to benefit Eric, not something to benefit the audience.

This felt like a shift to me.

[emsy]

Thanks for putting it so well. There are certainly some concepts that haven't been talked about in the public discourse and are true, the most important probably being the Russel-conjugation. And he's always been a bit whacky, but that was his thing, that we should be more tolerant towards whacky people and I still think this is true. But at some point Eric went from whacky to crazy and it kind of breaks my heart.

[newsbinator]

> What is Russell Conjugation?

https://tomdehnel.com/what-is-russell-conjugation/

> Russel used the following examples to describe the phenomenon:

> • I am firm, you are obstinate, he is a pig-headed fool.

> • I am righteously indignant, you are annoyed, he is making a fuss over nothing.

> • I have reconsidered the matter, you have changed your mind, he has gone back on his word.

> Russell Conjugations don’t always have to follow the “I, you, they” formula either. In fact, you’re more likely to encounter them in more subtle ways:

> • A politician you support reconsidered the matter in light of new evidence, but the politician you don’t support flip-flopped.

> • You negotiated boldly, but your coworker wasn’t being a team player.

> • Your own child is self-assured, but the neighbor’s son is a brat.

[spaetzleesser]

I always wonder if the Weinstein brothers can even be in the same room. Seems their egos may be too big to be together in an enclosed space.

[newsbinator]

They did a podcast episode together, which Eric ended up prefacing with context for the audience, since he realized he did a lot of interrupting and, arguably, semi-bullying during the conversation.

But then again they are brothers, and Eric was/is angry about the way he perceives Bret to have been mistreated by Academia. During the episode he encourages Bret to be as outwardly angry and to agree with Eric's conclusions about these systems of control that mistreated Bret.