Hunter-Gatherer’s Guide to 21st Century-Heying & Weinstein on Evolution + Challenges of Modern Life 

I wish I could give this 100 votes as it is compelling listening. Thanks to all. Subscribed to Dark Horse. I am astounded that 12K views and only 400 likes. What gives yooz pees? 22;00 GMT Sep 18

Thank you ☘️

First Time hearing Real People in business and History

Is expressing an opinion via the subscription system. Is not hate, is not cancel culture, and is not polarization. This being a channel that promotes skepticism and critical thinking, looses credibility when a charlatan like Weinstein comes in to promote his book and further his career as a pseudointelectual. Fault is bigger when it does it in an uncritical way, and not press on the subjects Weinstein is broadly infamous for. Is at odds with everything that Skeptic and Shermer holds as a value. I unsuscribed because I dont want to contribute to the subscriber count to a channel that serves as a platform for uncritical conversations under the banner of critical thinking. I think the polarized reaction was yours, taking it personal and jumping to generalizations.

@@byronbevensee5723 how is Bret a “charlatan”?

They subscribed because he sells himself as a courageous skeptic. They're unsubscribing because he's demonstrably NOT that - he's a hypocrite and a charlatan. They're letting him know that there's a bit of distance between what he advertises himself as being, and what it is. You're butt-hurt.

People have lost the ability to hear a critique of their opinions. They only hear an attack now.

@@_nebulousthoughts And who is above that observation? Not Bret, for sure. Nor his fans. They come here to hear what they already believe be told back to them. To be told what smart little munchkins they are.

@Cmon man Can the commies be any worse then the Trump Cultists?

@Cmon man Where exactly in Europe? I haven't seen any

@Cmon man Social Democracy is communism? I assume you have never EVER been in Germany.

Religious systems have done this for....since the beginning. Now the same people attack Critical Race Theory, Abortion rights and vaccines.

it is sad, but they scream the loudest, more emotional. Liken it to the bratty child at check out, the louder they yell, kick, and scream the more they get their way,,,,this entitled behavior began in childhood, and for some they never out grew the temper tantrum stage. I would imgaine they were ignored at home, or at the very least, accomplishments were not acknowledged. (curious why the cancel culture types are mostly white, lib, women?)

It's funny how unintelligent, ignorant people have been trained to sound thoughtful. What you just wrote has no connection to why people are objecting to this video. "Brings their viewpoints into question"? Their viewpoint is that he should have asked them about the misinformation campaign they've been pushing that had been based on debunked fraudulent data. A campaign that has caused people to harm themselves by neglecting legitimate medical advice, and procuring chemicals from animal stores. Is he "challenging" peoples perceptions by agreeing to not ask questions about the thing that has many people criticizing them?

The negative comments aren't about this interview. They're about Bret's medical opinions, which he has shared on his podcast, but were suspiciously absent from this interview.

I think the problem with B and H is they are often full of shit, though I like them. Their ideas about male-female sex seem to ignore almost everything we know about tribal and historical societies. Which is really weird when they go on so much about how the "software" level is so important and monogamy (or apparent monogamy) and mate choice were culturally enforced in throughout history. People pair-bonded because they had to, not because of biological sex differences (though of course these are real too). I wonder how they argue can something so silly

@@WhiteRussianBC Brett's medical opinions are well founded.

@@bidhrohi12 they are true to their Pro-Choice beliefs. I appeciate that for you, fear has allowed you to abandon that hard line. But to still infer one of the lesser choice as a chemical from an animal store is weak. Like Benadryl there is one for animals and one for humans. Rather than making fun, why not question why something that is still in very expensive trial stage, therefore none of the offered jabs are FDA spproved, with a very short durablity rate is the mandated choice. Rather than the cheaper, FDA approved, many decades of success, not even allowed to be part of the discussion. Because of big pharma, and sadly people actually dont want choice

@@aaronclarke7732 Thanks for the comment. I would have appreciated some discussion. There is a responsibility with a successful platform (similarly, and much more so, with Joe Rogan's quality yet often destabilizing show), but responsibility must also be placed upon people' ability to think for themselves, which it seems is not commonly taught or practiced enough. I myself as a fan of theirs have been confused, but I remain confidently skeptical of everything, despite my biases, and have been vaccinated etc. It's tricky, and it's a tricky world. Have a great week!

@MasterOnion North they are pushing ivermectin instead of the vaccines when clearly it should be reversed. they know how to read studies. they have spread hours of misinformation for months and months.

Their publicist is making it a condition of their book tour podcasts.

@MasterOnion North then you simply didnt listen to their claims. they are claiming the vaccines are dangerous and that there is already reason to opt out of taking them. they are crying long term side effects and pushing anti vaxx talking points that arent backed by any science whatsoever. they are suggesting treatments that have no scientific support over the ones that have mountains of it. their dangerous claims were not ever about a waning effectiveness in the vaccines.

@@ryrez4478 I think you're misunderstanding them, which is understandable because you likely don't listen to their podcast and probably mostly hear about them second hand or through short clips. They aren't telling people take ivermectin or not to take vaccines. People might cite their discussions are reasons to do so, but they aren't telling people what to do. I know they see that there is scientific support for Ivermectin, as they've cited the meta-analysis by Tess Lawrie. The fact that we don't know the long term effects of either vaccines or the virus is simply true. They don't say that to convince people to not to take the vaccine, they say it because it's a factor that should be considered. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it misinformation. On the rare occasions they make mistakes they correct them.

They're not thinkers. They recognize the utility of jargon and scientism to promote conspiracy theory, to seduce retards into becoming devout followers. They're making money off their followers literally dying from following their lies. They're cold blooded sociopaths.

@@bidhrohi12 you're either a master troll or a complete narcissistic sociopath yourself.

@@bidhrohi12 Your post is merely evidence that you haven't watched their shows, you merely believe lies peddled about them. If you had watched their shows, you would know that they present their data using studies all the time. If they make a mistake, they'll often correct it on the next show, and they often correct each in other directly in the live stream as well. And they criticize badly done studies, even those that would support their point of view. In fact, Bret's problem has been that he will not tolerate any form of dishonesty and so he gets in trouble that way. But the truth has a way of coming out and exonerating him. This will be no different, even if its scale is larger.

I like these guys. It’s comforting to have surefooted guides to help get us thru Modernity.

@@bidhrohi12 damn, sir and/or ma’am, you’ve been had I’m afraid

What if it's pleasure seeking, what if consciousness is fundamental, how could you possibly prove your assertion

@@jessgarza88 can I not assert a belief?

@@jessgarza88 all theories begin with an assertion to be disproven.

Being a skeptic doesn't mean you question authority. Being a skeptic means you question EVERYBODY. Bret is more of a contrarian than a skeptic.

When we humans say : People dont adapt, people has to much sex before they are married etc, we normally say a lot about our own believes......but often less about other humans.

An algorithm is just a set of instructions. Usually you're talking about a computer program when you use that word but it could just as easily apply to the instructions on how to assemble the new table you just bought or even a recipe etc. Every time RU-vid or Facebook (etc.) is recommending you the next thing to look at, it is based on all the data they've collected on your previous viewing habits. This raises the likelihood of recommending something you'll click on, i.e. keep using the service, i.e. keep staring at the screen.

@@buryyourdraws thank you!

A mathematically derived set of rules that are set up to get you to spend more time on a platform, usually by taking the data of what you watch and serving you more stuff like it.

Clearly you don't know much about Sociobiology aka Evolutionary Psychology to think this is the "last word"...geez.

@@Raydensheraj I was alluding to S J Gould's "just so stories" epithet.

Agreed. And Bret is a very good wife.

@@bidhrohi12 Heather is the wife. Why are you misgendering people

@@jffryh Whose wife? Does Bret know?

@@jffryh Oh, lighten up; that was funny. "Misgender?" Creepy jargon alert!

@@guyincognito8440 how?

well the term "Europe" has no basis in the natural world but rather an outcome of the most preponderant human tradition, that of communicating ...there is no other basis even for the specific group you claim ..I think now you can appreciate the fact that to be African is to communicate in an African language.

@@guyincognito8440 well either that or your capacity to cogitate and understand is less than impressive. I don't think any sane person would put their money on a. I don't even think it is worth it but let me just throw out a recommendation of a book by an Italian Philosopher that tells half the story "Documentality - Or Why Nothing Social Exists Beyond the Text" by Maurizio Ferraris.

Yea , these posters are on a team and if you aren't on there team they hate you , simple as that. That's the modern world :(

They obviously missed the point on being a scientific skeptic. Skeptics like Shermer are there to challenge emerging ideas. The new ideas have to fight for their right to be considered by presenting evidence. The commenters are not taking the task of challenge ideas. They're trying to attack the people who presented them.

@@dranreb1118 Exactly

Or men?

@@gb7418 I mean.. i guess, yeah. But i don't think both sexes are equally as valuable in the home and the workplace. Especially in the early stages babies need moms alot more than they need dad. When they start to get older dad becomes alot more useful. If i understand correctly. I haaate working i would gladly stay home and take care of kids. But lets be honest, really succesful women want a more succesful man not a dude that wants to stay home lol

there is only one "t" in Bret

@@TheShootist edited to fix, thanks

They just pander to an audience that wants to hear that.

@@danielm5161 Right... I suppose that's just your gut talking?

Bret and Heather will never take responsibility for their views on vaccines and treatment. They are just going to stop talking about it and pretend it never happened. They can't admit any mistake, well, they'll admit a mistake while claiming that it wasn't actually their mistake, you know, there were extenuating circumstances, etc. They're just narcissists.

Did you know that people can form their own educated opinions on subjects without getting PhDs in those subjects? And did you know that even "experts" can be mistaken/corrupt? Just because some "experts" tell you to do something doesn't mean you should surrender your ability to think critically. Never forget: Every media source today (and maybe always throughout history) has some degree of politically motivated agenda, and never forget that all events, including the appearance of a new virus, can (will) be politicized, weaponized, and distorted so certain individuals can gain power.

They call their analyses as being "through an Evolutionary lense" because everything they talk about is analysed that way. When you say "outside their wheelhouse" you're referring to their COVID stances, but the main claims they have made pertain to their wheelhouse.

lol

?

Yes, that might be the case in your parallel dimension. Here, in reality, there actually is empiricism. Example: It's not necessary to believe in gravity for it to exist. It can be proven without a doubt.

Also, there's an awful lot of vanilla sex out there in porn-world. I'm again unconvinced that this needs more regulation than does (unhealthy) fast food.

I thought he was being inconsistent on that topic as well.

Where did they say porn should be illegal? They said it isn’t good for you just like junk food and should be avoided.

Dr. Shermer to you

@Bob Charles ROFL that you think these two are actual skeptics. Blind leading the blind!

They actually dropped that whole thing like a lead balloon. I agree there were several episodes that were wayyy to heavy on the ivermectin thing (to spread awareness about potentially life-saving information that was underreported), they had an episode get banned from RU-vid, it was a whole thing. Then, like a flip of a switch, not a peep about it OR vaccines, to the point where if a PAID question comes across to them, they’ll read the question, and won’t answer it (example: should I get the vaccine because xyz?), they just say sorry there’s a lot of factors and we’re not going to be making recommendations on that.

Same thing happened to me, don’t understand how they got into that rabbithole, now I wonder if i can take the rest of what they say seriously. Shame since i do find the evolution angle very interesting and have actually bought this book!

@@rick15666 they should be correcting their misinformation instead of dropping the subject entirely.

@@robertschriek1353 I too have bought their book, it’s on my bed now (preordered). I actually bought the audiobook version as well, after learning the authors read it, and remembering that I don’t read books. Much prefer to listen. Lazy I guess. Only made through 3 or 4 chapters. It’s good, but I wish the read slower. Reminds me of reading philosophy, or physics, there’s SO much crammed into just a handful of sentences, I could ponder every couple paragraphs, take time to digest it. I don’t really have an answer to that other than to pause it often, listen to it more than once (which will be a must for me anyway, I tend to tune out here and there), or, having it in book form, might be nice to follow along and get a chance to see and profess the paragraphs. Not sure what my point is with this comment other than to say I’m a huge fan of theirs, I think what they have to say is largely well-read and important, and despite the brief ivermectin rabbit hole, like the “Unity” 3rd part candidate idea Brett had, they’re worth a second look at their podcast. And hell, their book is literally a decade in the making, and these are some smaaart folks, so I think if you read the book, you’d get a lot out of it. Just my opinion though. Huge fan of Brett’s brother Eric as well. Near Genius-level, the both of them, if you ask me. Heather is also on another level. Just pop on any podcast some time and see for yourself. I always come away from them 1. learning something, 2. gaining diverse perspectives allowing me to question the status quo, or identifying a blind spot of mine, or my own logical fallacies. Best wishes

Appeal to Authority Fallacy. You're easily duped by cheap jargon. I'd ask you to read the actual criticisms of Bret and Heather, but clearly you don't read.

@@bidhrohi12 yawn. I dont really even care for bret, but its obvious that the fact hes completely disregarded by the MSM and every lefty academic or lol "skeptic" youtuber can't judge this man's findings on the merits shows hes onto something.. And authority fallacy coming from the kids who watch this show?? Lol ok guy.

@@bidhrohi12 your comment is 3 assumptions none grounded in reality, try again

But I'm skeptical of his claims that Ivermectin is good for covid and vaccines are dangerous. He is a Biologist but he isn't a physician, epidemiologist, physiologist or pharmaceutical chemist. So he has some credentials on the subject but he is not an expert.

The whole skeptic movement is pathetic, all they do is parrot orthodoxy.

Cause civil rights don't work like that

@@oliviamaynard9372 You don't have a right to elective medical procedures, they are considered a privilege that is subject to laws and regulations, availability, affordability, etc. You don't even have a right to be guaranteed birth control, but only the right to be guaranteed that organizations can exist that offer affordable birth control and contraceptives, and upon a doctor's recommendation you can receive a prescription for said birth control. You have the right to not be denied life-saving treatment in an emergency situation, but even that is conditionally interpreted. You have the right to not be discriminated over immutable characteristics such a race, sex, age, gender, religion, etc, when it comes to being considered for such medical interventions, however that doesn't guarantee unconditional access to such things. If Texas wants to ban abortion, it is for the citizens of Texas to decide, and it is not the responsibility of the other States to influence or interfere with another State's legislative process or decisions. To be honest it isn't any of your business anyway, so again I ask why does it matter? It doesn't effect those outside of Texas, so just leave Texas if it is a problem.Texas isn't imposing abortion bans on the other States, their laws only effect their territory, so pro-choice activists are just going have to deal with it and set up shop somewhere else, there isn't any room left for discussion. You can claim sexism or misogyny or whatever trendy slogans and stances all you want, people are tired of the Left's authoritarian claims of morale supremacy, they no longer care when you cry "wolf!" instead they mock and ridicule your narcissism and fragility.

@@dakkagaming671 We have a right to body autonomy and property or we don't have rights at all. If one can't evict an intruder in their body they aren't free. This is called equal protection under the law and states do not have the right to beprive basic liberty. Also, yeah you have the right to pay for medical care silly.

@@dakkagaming671 I live in Houston. I am talking about my own liberty under the constitution. Texas has no constitutional right to violate individual liberty in violation of equal protection.

@@oliviamaynard9372 Intruder, quite the loaded term. Conflating property rights and bodily autonomy is shortsighted and dangerous as it will lead to unforeseen consequences that I feel you haven't properly taken a moment to appreciate. Have you ever heard of eminent domain? It is part of the 5th amendment and outlines the government's ability to take private land, and convert it for public use, as long as they properly compensate the owner. They also get to decide what exactly qualifies as _proper_ compensation. Just food for thought. Putting that aside for a moment, neither the 5th amendments due process clause or the 14th amendments equal protection clause offers the sort of protection you might think it does, because I think you are conflating what are sometimes known as "negative" and "positive" rights. Negative and positive don't mean good or bad, but describe polar opposites of a spectrum used to describe the varying degrees of severity for rights, how they are rankordered, the application of this ordering upon greater society, and whether or not any of these actions are justified or mandatory. Negative rights are what would be called unalienable, universal, or natural rights. The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which don't need justification as they are widely considered prima facie. Positive rights are rights requiring ethical analysis and are subject to law. Abortion is a positive right, one that isn't subject to the equal protections clause of the 14th amendment. So no, it doesn't matter what other States do, Texas can do what it wants regarding abortions. We are the 50 United, Independent, States. The beauty of that, is that if you don't agree with Texas, move somewhere that is more in line with your personal beliefs. If the majority of the population disagrees with you, they are under no obligation to appease your beliefs as an individual, so move to a place that doesn't have to appease you because they already agree with you. As for having the right to pay for medical care, when you pay for something in return for a service, that is a transaction, not a right. The right is that they can't refuse giving you life-saving treatment if they are able to, it isn't a right to have to pay for medical care, that is insane.

Ya, I'm scrolling and scrolling and not seen one negative comment yet. But I see lots of comments about "all the negative comments." Huh?! So it tends to seem like the negative comments vanished.

@Singularity That may or may not be true but are Rebels' substantial criticisms accurate?

lol

@C K How do you mean?

@C K Gender is essentially a meaningless category. And the word gender doesn't even make sense the way it has meaning ascribed to it. I think the entire gender construct thing is a non starter. There is sex and then there are sexed roles. Besides that its all silly religademic woo woo.

@C K Well.. I don't believe in gender so an adult female human. With some leighway for age and context but definitely restrict to the biological female sex. Do trans women exist? Yeah i guess. But its kind of like asking if indigo children exist. I mean i guess .. but only within a specific ideological lens. I think an adult should be able to do whatever they want for the most part. But you can't force language on me that presupposes a religion/faith/ideology i don't subscribe to. I am not a post modernist. just like i would never let you make me call masturbating a "sin". That is language that presupposes an ideological doctrine.

@C K I didn't see this one earlier. No not everything is reducible to biological factors, but sex is by definition a biological category. And i believe in free will. You taking my words and drawing conclusions that are outside what i am saying.

@C K Yes, your wrong. You asked my definition of women later. I said style, persona, and personality in reference to words that better categorize what is usually labeled as gender.

Sounds like someone needs a nap.

Sir you need to calm down

why?