Home
Creators
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

Jamie Wheal: Right to Respond (Patreon)

Published:
2022-12-02 03:45:26
Imported:
2026-06
Tags:

Content

Well, this is an interesting episode.

For those wondering if there was ever going to be a sensemaker right-to-respond episode, the answer is yes and here it is.

We had some audio difficulties at the start so you might notice some shifts and some low-quality segments. We will do our best to fix it in post.

There are no edits/we haven't even reviewed and as such would appreciate folks keeping the content in the Patreon bubble for now.

But I am very interested to hear feedback. We get into quite a lot of things and there is probably more discussion of covid than you would have imagined.

Audio will follow later.

Files

sddefault.jpg

Comments

Nina Davies

He seems to have blown his mind with Toad. But unfortunately he hasn't blown his enormous ego. That seems to be consistent across people who believe psychedelics are it.

Scott

“Are people like Jordan and Daniel well-positioned to evaluate the efficacy of hydroxychlorquine and other clinical research?” “Well they do have a nine figure nutritional supplement company…” 🙄

Devin Poore

I'm really gonna try to stick it out with this one, but, as others have noted, it's a challenge. I wanted to like Jamie. Out of the gate, his pillorying of the sensemakers got my Omega Rule fully engaged, but it is an exercise in tedium to listen to him. I would be shocked to encounter someone in real life if they tried to communicate with me in this rhetorical style, but at least I could attempt to minimize my time spent engaging with them. Matt and Chris are stuck in a scheduled Zoom meeting with Jamie lol. Idk - I think all these guys just need to get a little stoned and watch/rewatch Cosmos. In my mind, Sagan has already successfully elucidated the kind of heuristics we should be looking to engage with more and more over time and isolated a lot of our less useful/destructive tendencies as individuals and societies. And he did it all with a kind of clear & eloquent brevity that the sensemakers could only dream of and without having to chase down some grand theory of group coherence that is apparently governed by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Edit: Managed to finish. My opinion of Jamie really fluctuated throughout the second half of the episode. It seemed like there were moments where he was so close to being potentially conciliatory before he'd get really defensive and suddenly mount a passionate tirade against universities or the failings of science or COVID vaccines and then be unwilling to acknowledge Chris or Matt's counters/alternate perspectives to those tangents before resorting to saying "Why are you guys even talking about Bret and Heather?" or "Why are you guys so focused on the COVID vaccine?" AFTER he was the one who had explicitly invoked those things in his prior comments. It wasn't Kisin levels of dirty pool rhetorically, but it was frustrating nonetheless. Kudos to Matt and Chris. I think you both did a great job articulating your issues with the Sensemaking/IDW alternative intellectual ecosystem. A highlight moment was definitely Chris calling out the hypocrisy of that community's purported ethos of willingness to engage in tough conversations and holding up that willingness as the pinnacle of intellectual virtuousness, but then immediately writing virtually all criticism off as bad faith, and then contrasting that kind of culture with what occurs in academia was about as rock solid a case as you can make against the superficiality of these characters' authority. Just look at the degree to which Bret was personally offended when faced with what was ultimately pretty mild, yet firm criticisms from Wright on his podcast. He threw a tantrum and ruled out further conversations because his feeling were hurt and yet he wants everyone to take it as gospel that he has more intellectually rigorous heuristics than all of academia? Give me a fucking break. Overall, interesting, if relatively frustrating, conversation. Props to Jamie for coming on and generally being a good sport (though he got a bit snippy here and there). I think he just needs to back off his thesaurus, the adderall, and the psilocybin for a bit.

Rasterisk

This pretentious hack had me bristling at “academic refugee” and pondering fight or flight by the time he tried “but yes-ish” on Chris. 🚫 Thanks for the solid pushback, guys—don’t know how the hell you do it but it’s always fun listening.

NB

I love the dynamic of Jamie bringing up COVID and then 3 minutes later asking why they're talking about COVID. "That was a riff"

Potato Schmidt

I truly regret listening to that whole episode. He’s probably a lovely person, but I can’t handle all that self-satisfied word salad. I’m exhausted and feel like this cost me IQ points I can’t afford to lose.

brianshmrian

What was it like to go from third person observers of sensemaking to being sucked through a vortex into the first person experience with Jamie waiting for your response to one of his paragraph sentences? I was grateful to maintain the subject-object duality, leaving the conversation safely as an object in my headphones.

Curtis Kofoed

This mf is incapable of speaking clearly. I got a nosebleed at this exchange: “do either of you have experience with psychedelics from a first hand phenomenological perspective?” “You mean to ask if we’ve done psychedelics?”

Curtis Kofoed

Imagine he’s your guide on Everest and you’re trying to get a clear answer to a life and death question

Simon Patience

Woh! Maybe you guys shouldn’t bother with right of replies. I mean, they’re funny but….sheesh!

Kat

You let him have the last word. Now you can't say anything, or he'll have another "right to respond"

Barrett

I have more substantial thoughts but man, the way Jamie mixes 'fuck' into his sentences is kinda grating, it reminds me of an preteen with pretenses of edginess. Especially when mixed into the rapid-fire and oft unnecessary jargon. "...be Bayesian as fuck about it" <- oof I've gotta say - the end was pretty perfect. Inviting you to get into the flowing river where you stop criticising gurus and aim to get over the rough spots in a dialectic to make jazz was a really good reminder of the context of this whole episode. It also reminded me of something i see among academics, typically prominent profs with a controversial theory that faces pushback. "the sooner everyone stops criticising my pet theory, the sooner we can all build upon it and figure out all the ways it will benefit the world" kinda thing

Heather Geverding

Jamie “I’ve fucking got so many fucking books I need a fucking ladder” Wheal.

Heath Lancaster

I had much higher hopes for Jamie wheal when he was the quieter one on the sense making episode, damn he was frustrating haha. The exchange about psychedelics was the perfect summary of how he is just trying way too hard “Do you have experience with psychedelics from a first person phenomenological perspective?” “Uhhh do you mean to ask if we’ve tried them?” Lmfao

Erin Dougherty

I listened to the original episode again and I didn't understand anything a second time. The funny thing about this follow-up interview is that it's now a 50/50 experience where Chris or Matt would ask a question, a clear one which I understood, and Jamie would say words and they would float through my ears leaving no meaning at all. So half of this I understand, and half of this is like actually tripping. And hearing him talk about taking drugs reminded me of all the people I've met with this exact problem before. The words are crystal, the meaning is lost, as if in a dream. I've done a lot of acid and mushrooms and club drugs and I just don't have evidence personally that they are the cause, I have a feeling the lack of sense comes first and the open mind stuff comes later.

Jennydiver

Oh bless your hearts, I'm struggling to get through even his self introduction......good lord, the lack of insight.

Jennydiver

These guys certainly have big feelings.

Jarrod Sanderson

In an attempt to not rehash what’s already been well commented on, Jamie’s reference to ‘you’re just mad that we’re all friends’ and his corresponding explanation suggesting the possibility that he does disagree with the crazy ideas of his friends …. But only behind closed doors, was the pinnacle for me. Even then, he wouldn’t actually address the volume of damage people like Bret Weinstein did with pro-Ivermectin, anti-vaccination positions. There’s just no accountability any direction

KMD

The “You ain’t seen shit till you licked a toad” was just beyond! And the implication being that Matt and Chris couldnt possibly understand his brilliance until having done so. So smug and ignorant! (And I have learned a lot through my own experiences but come on!) Also, it seemed to me he was trying very hard to get you guys to like him, and yet establish some sort of higher status… here’s how I’d critique your podcast and what you do! And when it was clear you’d bested any argument, he’d be like, oh let’s move on guys of course that’s what I WAS saying. And I didn’t hate him, but oh the unreasonable overuse of vocabulary and name dropping, and like of COURSE we all tell Brett he’s a dumbass behind the scenes, but our friendship… this little world of “thought leaders” aren’t we special? Don’t get mad because we use our platforms to support our friends and overlook critiquing them! And right after you praised him for not being so thin skinned he went straight to translucent! Oh those assholes who didn’t like me! LOL I actually learned something listening to this because when I get into these discussions I tend to get so exasperated, so thanks for the tips on remaining evenhanded and firm. Love the show so much!

Barrett

The one thing I reckon may have been worth adding was where Jamie defends his lack of critical pushback to Bret in that it is something to do privately: pointing out there is a distinction between having a chat with your friends and intentionally creating content and thus a responsibility when doing the latter. A podcast interview isn't just a chat with a friend that happens to have a few people in earshot. If you aren't willing to publicly bag out your friends for their bad ideas, that seems fine. But you aren't required to make podcast content with them.

Jason Etheridge

I listened to the conversation twice, once on my usual 1.6x speed, and again slowing it down to 1.3x as I couldn't understand what Jamie was saying when he really got going. I've never really listened to his content, so have no preconceived notions about him. The one episode (making sense of sensemaking or whatever) he was kind of drowned out by the other two. He sure can use phrasing and metaphor which sounds profound and insightful, but doesn't really mean anything, and could be expressed far more clearly using regular language. It was an interesting conversation, with you two keeping his toes to the fire. He actually sounded reasonable for a good part of it, though there were times his general disregard for the status quo, particularly academia, became all too obvious. What I can't help wonder is why these big name clients of his pay him so much for his brand of nothing talking?

Robert Andrews

Well... my own take (having not quite finished) is that Jamie Wheal knows how to switch on the Gish Gallop from time to time. What he says sounds superficially plausible regarding the problems of academia. However, I think you made a good point, Chris, that the problems in academia, and in fact with vaccine efficacy and Covid mitigation etc... are themselves often flagged up through better academic principles. For example, when Jamie splutters about how the vaccines have been reduced to an efficacy of 30%, how was this figure even arrived at? Was it through Bret and Heather's Dark Horse Reserach Lab? No, presumably it was from the very institutions that Jamie, Bret and Heather wag their fingers at. This is beside the fact that the 30% efficacy is better than 0%, and the fact that it may indeed be better than that when it comes to death and serious disease (an intervention that cuts death and serious disease by 30% is pretty damn good, is it not?)

Enchant-o-matic

The covid-19 parts toward the end seem revealing to me. Anyone who doesn't understand why public health messages shifted over time (scientific knowledge grows over time and the virus itself changes) or that there are different measures of vaccine efficacy (e.g., infection, hospitalization, death) hasn't been paying much attention or doesn't have a great ability to evaluate evidence. His rather strident reaction to Chris' pushback about his covid-19 position was also interesting, as he really did mostly do a good job of seeming open-minded and politely listening to Chris and Matt before responding. I think Chris gave him the benefit of the doubt that he understands how wrong Bret is and just didn't want to publically disagree with a friend. However, it seems Jamie actually thinks Bret is right about a lot of things and just got too focused on ivermectin rather than adopting Jamie's conveniently vague scepticism about "the authorities". Overall, Jamie comes off to me like a perpetually excited undergrad who has studied some cool theories and watched some cool TED talks and wants to show off. Not sure he has much to add besides flowery (and dirty) language and a vague anti-establishment pose that his tech and finance bro clients like to adopt for their weekend retreats. The covid-19 parts toward the end seem revealing to me. Anyone who doesn't understand why public health messages shifted over time (scientific knowledge grows over time and the virus itself changes) or that there are different measures of vaccine efficacy (e.g., infection, hospitalization, death) hasn't been paying much attention or doesn't have a great ability to evaluate evidence. His rather strident reaction to Chris' pushback about his covid-19 position was also interesting, as he really did mostly do a good job of seeming open-minded and politely listening to Chris and Matt before responding. I think Chris gave him the benefit of the doubt that he understands how wrong Bret is and just didn't want to publically disagree with a friend. However, it seems Jamie actually thinks Bret is right about a lot of things and just got too focused on ivermectin rather than adopting Jamie's conveniently vague scepticism about "the authorities". Not sure he has much to add besides flowery (and dirty) language and a vague anti-establishment pose that his tech and finance bro clients like to adopt for their weekend retreats.

Daniel

I was awed by Jamie's ability to go on metaphor-laden verbal tears, like his closing comments. It made me seriously wonder if he's using drugs (methamphetamines?) or something. I don't know anyone who talks like that in my daily life.

Ryan Goss

Just starting this and right off the bat, as a jazz musician, I resent these pseudo-intellectuals comparing anything they do to jazz. (Also, a "minor modal 7th" is not a thing)

Geoff Fitch

Given the steady stream of rhetorical flash grenades, you guys did well. I appreciate the attempt to engage by all involved. Having tried their neurotropic supplements, I've found them to have a high stimulant effect and I sometimes think that crew has just misunderstood being mentally amped for some kind of transcendent capacity.

Daz

"Are either of you guys familiar with psychedelics from a first-person phenomenological perspective?" is a hell of a way to ask "Have either of you tried psychedelics?".

Barrett

Final thought, when you guys edit, I'd very much like to hear what Chris and Matt were thinking during those two second pauses prior to speaking following a Silicon-Valley-at-Burning-Man style soliloquy.

Lilydale

I had trouble understanding Jamie at first. He talked really fast and he said things that sounded mysterious. Was he talking nonsense and using lots of fast talk and multi-syllabic words to disguise it? But after listening over and over I now think he was making sense and Matt and Chris were smart to be able to follow him in real time.

Chris Snyder

This was kind of what I expected haha. These guys live in a different world and I am a little frightened that it is leaking into the real world via the tech bro scene in Silicon Valley. These guys are all in the same “enlightened centrism” area of tech and has a creeping aspect of longtermisn that has a not so subtle aspect of scientific racism built into it, bordering on tech fascism. I think Chris & Matt should deep dive into this theology from an outsider (not American) perspective it would be a good listen. I am sure Chris might know about this subreddit & online space but the rational wiki, r/sneerclub shows the absolute insanity of these people like Scott Anderson and Curtis yarvin, who all seem to have ties to Peter Tiel. Anyway would be interesting because what I always thought of engineering brain seems to have a coherent (insane) philosophy behind it. Seems to be getting a little more mainstream press after the FTX meltdown. Anyway, after this rant would just be interesting to hear what Chris & Matt think of this philosophy in the tech world.

Chris Snyder

Last comment, he threw shade at the Conspirituality Pod guys! Chris & Matt you guys shouldn’t have let that slide so easily!! Haha

Rod Hodges

Plus his use of “fucking” this or “fucking” that was really hard for me to take. And who are the “thought leaders” he’s talking about? That phrase sounds pretty suspect.

Haley

I have the urge to shout "Parklife!" after everything he says ;)

Zvi Pardes

The guy came off as so pretentious it was almost satire. But satire shouldn't be so exhausting...

Jason Trock

I can take exception with a lot. Radiating narcissism isn’t always bad, except that yeah, it is. The meaningless word salad, the bro critique, the wide eyed stare into nothingness - it’s all very auto erotic. Jamie probably has a course on elevating masturbation to a optimized flow state of rapturous self love - a modern takedown of “the joy of sex” experienced through rigorous trials of the Kama Sutra - the lived experience of higher order bro-hemians. No - no thank you. The point Jamie takes to task about his Goldman (or whatever) riff on taking down the evils of post modern neo liberalism - yeah did you stand in front of seal team six and say the same? No - you flaunt that experience as as if the blind adoration of a highly trained kill squad is something that you find totally no objection too - nothing to see here, just finding flow! Jamie takes the money and hides behind his hot takes like “psychedelics are information technology! Do you get high? No? Why the fuck not! You’re not doing it right!” “What’s it? Living life!” And the nasty bit about “we’re on the same side!” Yes.. yes Chris and Matt are definitely out promoting and platforming misinformation and hawking this eastern baked pseudo science self help finding consciousness outside (or inside?) of conciseness. When of course Jamie meant “I’m one of the good gurus! Those other guys- hacks! Imitators! Dangers to all! By my book! H/T to Jamie - he’s figured out how to turn getting high, talking fast and having lots of sex into a nice stack of coin with no obligations and no strings attached.

Alex Nelson

This guy knocked out the entire english thesaurus within 10 minutes while saying little more than "psychedelics are awesome, man"

Sean Carmody

Wow! I can't help thinking that Jamie's main takeaway from the DTG of Sensemaking was that he was a less impressive maker of sense than Jordan and Daniel and he had to make up for it by going on a never-ending jazz solo. What a plonker!

Richard Husband

In Jamie's world (game A no less) everything and everyone is corrupted and/or compromised except him and his friends. Also game A has been very good to these people but it hasn't recognized them as the geniuses they are so on to game B. When he said that an EEG was not to be believed only what he felt about his own heart it was almost slipped by me. Well, I'm paraphrasing...

Richard Husband

Ha ha. My phone made this blank comment without me knowing it.

Alex Nelson

Lol, love him insulting Conspirituality pod-- they put in more work into one podcast than he does for an entire book

elcid

I’m afraid that this “fucking academic refugee” violates the rules of right to reply within reason…

SHOUNAK SARKAR

Hey guys, interesting and unintentionally entertaining episode! Props to Jamie Wheal for coming on the podcast to have a discussion (he's in select company), but I must say that his performance here wasn't all that different from the Sensemaking epic on Rebel Wisdom. The long array of wordsalads he strung together to discuss his psychedelic experiences were verbose and impressive, but ultimately nonsensical. Jamie seems likable but still problematic IMO. You can see it in how he was defending the Weinstein brothers, Joe Rogan and many others for "just asking questions". So even though the overuse of metaphors & nonsencial rhetoric in sensemaking doesn't seem to have any political valence on the surface, their skepticism of Game A and reflexive distrust of institutions can easily lead to a highly conspiratorial worldview. Also not sure why Jamie feels the need to insert a "fuck" into every sentence? That was bizarre and unnecessarily profane lol. Another observation, all the sensemakers have this peculiar soft spoken way of speaking. Looking forward to the Musk episode btw!

Christie McCormick

This guy is a paid speaker? Yikes. I can't imagine having to listen to his self-important

Christie McCormick

bloviations without Matt and Chris's tempering effect. What an irritating little popinjay.

Samantha Rae

I rejoined the patreon specifically to watch the video version of this episode because I simply had to see the guys' faces when listening to Jamie's excessively florid word salad monologues in his (deeply strange and definitley not real) transatlantic accent