Video summary
In a discussion regarding Donald Trump's potential presidency, Eric Weinstein critiques the concept of the "rules-based international order" being cited as an obstacle to his election. He argues that this claim relies on vague, shadowy forces rather than specific, actionable evidence, which he finds unhelpful for political engagement. While acknowledging that conspiracies do exist, Weinstein insists they must be grounded in tangible facts and identifiable actors so that society can collectively identify and fight them. For instance, instead of alleging a nebulous "Deep State" conspiracy to stop Trump, he points to specific actions such as legacy media outlets mirroring each other on political narratives or informal agreements among government members to suppress stories like the Biden laptop incident. He contrasts these concrete issues with unfalsifiable hypotheses that allow opponents to retreat into endless layers of shadowy explanations, ultimately turning politics into a form of blood sport where losing is impossible because one can always blame invisible forces. Weinstein further elaborates on why he avoids jumping first in debates without waiting for data to emerge, noting the mathematical reality of modern media environments. He explains that if an individual speaks up 100 times and is wrong 98 times but right twice, they eventually become a credible source; however, if one waits until evidence appears before speaking and maintains high accuracy (being right 98% of the time), any two instances where they are wrong render them untrustworthy. This dynamic encourages people to prefer immediate, seductive answers that confirm their biases—such as claims that an election was rigged by ballot box stuffing—even when such allegations lack evidence. Weinstein admits he has made mistakes in his own analysis, particularly regarding COVID-19 vaccines and lockdowns, where initial skepticism based on a lack of data had to be corrected once new information revealed the true efficacy or risks involved. A significant portion of their conversation addresses the social stigma attached to changing one's mind publicly. Weinstein observes that while admitting error is seen as a mark of intelligence in business or personal relationships—where pouring money into a failing strategy like a rat hole would not continue—it is often viewed as fickleness in politics. He laments how unwaveringness on data, rather than principles, should be the standard for credibility, yet many treat consistency with outdated information as loyalty to their side. This phenomenon extends beyond just political elections; it applies equally to debates over vaccines and pandemic responses, where selective skepticism often leads people to cling to incorrect narratives because acknowledging them would require admitting fault. He hopes for a culture where individuals can publicly correct themselves when data changes without fear of being labeled unreliable allies or traitors to their cause. The dialogue also touches on the nature of media algorithms and corporate influence versus systemic conspiracies. Weinstein distinguishes between actual conspiracy theories involving hidden groups pulling levers, such as Jack Dorsey influencing social media platforms, and mere coincidences where legacy media outlets independently arrive at similar political conclusions due to shared environments or incentives. He emphasizes that while he is willing to fight against specific manipulations by identifiable figures like tech CEOs who set algorithms in certain ways, vague assertions about systemic orders preventing democratic processes are difficult to adjudicate because they cannot be proven false. This distinction is crucial for maintaining a functional democracy where issues can be addressed through legislation and hearings rather than retreating into unverifiable claims that shield actors from accountability. Ultimately, the conversation highlights the tension between the desire for immediate answers in a fast-paced media landscape and the necessity of waiting for evidence to form solid conclusions. Weinstein illustrates this with his own experience regarding vaccine efficacy announcements by the FDA under President Trump; initially supporting vaccination based on available data despite personal risk calculations, he later had to apologize when it was revealed that transmission reduction claims were made without actual backing data. He contrasts this honest admission of error with those who double down on incorrect positions for years, refusing to acknowledge they were wrong even after evidence mounts. The discussion concludes by underscoring the importance of trust and intellectual honesty in public discourse, suggesting that a healthy society requires individuals to be willing to update their views as new facts emerge rather than prioritizing ideological consistency over empirical reality.
Read the full video transcript
Eric Weinstein said he doesn't know if
the rules-based international order will
allow Trump to become president what do
you think of that I mean I I'm I'm
always sort of skeptical of you know
what kind of what that means what the
order means uh I I like more specificity
in in those sorts of allegations like
who are these people so we can fight
them I don't like sort of vague shadowy
forces that that are systemic racism
right like who are you BL what do you
mean the the the rules based
International order who specifically are
we talking about that is going to and
how and what's the control I really
appreciate the fact that you seem to
very rarely lean into conspiracism it
seems that a lot of the explanations
that you give why things are happening
are out there in front in some form or
another they're sort of tangible I can
touch them it's not this sort of up
there in The Ether and yet that has
become uh very much a signature of some
areas of the right as well for sure for
sure and it's something again I I think
that that leads to a breakdown in
politics because if you believe that
there are these vague conspiratorial for
that are at the center of all things and
then you lose well then you can't really
accept the loss and if you win you have
to use your power in order to crush
those vague conspiratorial forces that
you can't actually describe her name and
so politics becomes a little bit of
blood sport at that point again I'm not
saying there aren't conspiracies but I'd
like to see some evidence of them so
that we can all identify them together
and then fight them so for example I
think that it's not a conspiracy so much
as it is a large scale agreement among
Legacy members of the media on politics
that happens to be a truth they they the
the Legacy Media agree in very wide
scale on politics do they get together
in a back back room and decide in N no
they just start mirroring each other
like you would in a social club because
that's actually how it works is that
something that needs to be fought in
terms of the informational dissemination
sure is it a conspiracy when the
algorithms are set at Facebook or
YouTube or old act before Elon uh is
that a conspiracy when they set these
things certain ways it's not a
conspiracy it's someone who actually
it's like Jack dorsy who's actually
pulling a lever and saying you shouldn't
do this and I can fight that because I
know that Jack dorsy is pulling the
lever what I don't like is stuff like
the rules based interational order is
going to stop Donald Trump from being
president because I don't know what I'm
supposed to fight at that point how do I
stop that from happening and isn't that
an an un
unverifiable hypothesis that you would
that not be the uh purposeful byproduct
of such an order like that that it's
very difficult to Define and we're going
to stay in the shadows it's sort of
endemic to their very mode of operation
I mean sure I mean that that that's the
that's the counter argument but again my
problem is it's unfalsifiable so once
you put posit a hypothesis that's
unfalsifiable it makes it very very
difficult for me to either fight it or
to or to disagree with you because you
can always you know move into it's a
mountain Bailey argument you just move
right back into the next level of the
conspiracy so instead of me saying so
for example at 2020 election I've said I
think that there were people who
informally rigged the election in the
sense that the media totally agreed that
Donald Trump should not be president
they decided to promote certain
narratives to deny certain other
narratives to for example push with
members of the government to hide the h
Biden laptop story like there obviously
factors change the voting rules in those
are all very specific things I'm naming
right now right that the media social
media downplayed a story okay we know
what that is and we can have
Congressional hearings about it that
there that there were changes to the
rules in places like Pennsylvania we
know exactly what that is and we can try
to win back the legislature to actually
change the voting rules in Pennsylvania
to to prevent that sort of stuff right
these are specific things but what I
don't like is when people will say the
election was rigged and what they mean
is that there was mass voter fraud and
I'll say coordination right exactly like
that people put bring in boxes and then
you'll say okay well I I I need the
evidence that people are bringing in
boxes well but that's the whole point
the evidence doesn't exist okay well now
now we're arguing with with shadows
maybe you're right I mean you could be
right I I have no evidence that you're
right but I also have no evidence that
that you're wrong so I mean how am I
supposed to even adjudicate what to do
next so do you sort of purposefully
avoid the Deep State coordination
conspiracy thing and just that's an area
that I'm not going to bother debating
that's maybe some other people can try
and work that stuff usually what I do is
I wait for the evidence to emerge so
times it feels like I'm laid on the ball
because of that right we live in a in
such a fast-paced media environment that
there's a weird math that applies in
political media and the math is that if
I jump first 100 times and I'm wrong 98
of those times but two of those times
I'm right I'm now a credible Source if
I'm the second person on the ball
because I'm waiting to see the evidence
emerge for this thing and I'm right like
98 times but I'm wrong two times then
I'm no longer trustworthy better to be
first and wrong 98% of the time but
write those two because now you're a
profit yeah right now now you get
exactly now you get to say you know that
Alex Jones is a prophet of all the weird
and crazy things that he says like two
times he he was like right on it like
wow that's amaz okay well that that also
used to just be called a scam okay like
where does that seduction come
from the necessity for immediate answers
social media has made it so that you
want like answers right and people
always wanted answers but now you feel
like you have the mechanism of getting
an answer right away and you get
frustrated if people don't give you an
answer right away you prefer an
immediate wrong answer than a delayed
correct one especially if it backs your
rers right if if if the if the immediate
answer that comes back at you is what
you wanted to hear which is that your
candidate of choice whether right or
left this applies on both sides that
your candidate of choice definitely
didn't lose they actually won and they
were jobbed out of it and you're
outraged you didn't want your candid to
lose you're really pissed that your
candidate lost and then you know you
have a choice between somebody who says
absolutely he was jobed out of it there
are people who are coming in the middle
of the night and they were bring in
boxes of ballots and they were shoving
them through the machines and he
actually won and it's all being rigged
and and the red and the Red Wave was
real but then it was jobed out like
that's a much more interesting and
seductive answer than me saying you know
what I'm perfectly willing to hear the
case I need to see the actual evidence
flow in and then as it comes in and if
you can prove that to me then I'm
perfectly willing to to have you make
that argument but I I don't have the
evidence at this point to actually to
actually say that right one is one's a
sexier answer and even if it turns out
being wrong there's no punishment for it
because you either you don't acknowledge
that you were wrong you just keep
playing the game four years later and
and depending on the and it's a wide
variety of conspiracy theories I feel
the same way about Co okay I tried to
wait for data to emerge that meant that
I got some things wrong then there were
people who jumped one way or another
okay there are some people who jumped we
need a lockdown permanently and we'll
just do that for three years and then
there were some people who jumped to
vaccines will immediately be bad they
will be terrible and we don't need to do
anything about Co which should basically
just let it free free flow through the
population well it turns out the second
was probably closer to the truth in many
circumstances but I didn't have the
evidence of of any of that sort of stuff
so I had to wait for those things and
what that means is that sometimes I will
have to apologize on the air for having
gotten it wrong because I waited for the
data and I made a judgment in the
absence of data that I then have to walk
back because the data have arrived right
most famously this happened with with me
with regards to the vaccine so in in
late 2020 fiser and the federal
government under Donald Trump announced
that the vaccines were 99% effective in
preventing transmission not death
transmission right and the case that I
made at that point was listen I'm
healthy I'm young I don't really need it
but I have parents my parents were in
their 60s and they were basically
bubbled with us we weren't bubbled at
that time but you know we're we're out
and about and if I can prevent my
parents from getting it by getting the
vaccine fine I'll get the vaccine and so
I said that right and I said like a lot
of the talk about how the vaccines are
ineffective I don't know what data
you're basing that on and then it turns
out that fiser was basically lying that
they had that they had no actual data on
transmission and they were making claims
in the absence of the data well when
that happens then I have to come out and
I have to say I was too credulous but
the counter to that you know the other
sort of possibility is people who are so
skeptical of everything or selectively
skeptical that you know it's unclear
when they're right and when when they're
wrong what I would hope is to live in an
immediate environment where when I'm
wrong I admit that I got it wrong and
when other people are wrong they admit
that they got it wrong but that's not
the environment we live in yeah it's one
of my least favorite dynamics that
somebody publicly changing their mind is
seen as a mark of fickleness not a mark
of intelligence like I don't know it it
seems to me that a stupid person's idea
of being smart is being unwavering but
that in my experience doesn't seem to be
the case it's one thing to be unwavering
on your principles it's another thing to
be unwavering on the data right
sometimes the data just Chang
right like there's new data or it turns
out the old data were never based on
anything and at that point if the data
change then my opinion on the policy
changes if it turns out that the policy
that I've been promoting turns out to be
a giant failure I mean by by the way no
good business would operate on this
right if if my business were pouring
money down a rat hole and just kept
pouring money down the Rat Hole no
matter what because you know got to make
sure that we're consistent on this then
we lose and that's that's not in no
other area of your life do you act like
this but when it comes to politics then
you're supposed to be unwaveringly in
favor of the original position that you
took regardless of the data that emerges
about that position you wouldn't do it
with family you wouldn't do it with
friends you wouldn't do it with your
business it's like a show of fty or
whatever sort of loyalty to your own
side and you're seen as an unreliable
Ally if you're somebody that does change
their mind in retrospect which I really
don't like trust really is everything
when it comes to supplements a lot of
Brands may say that they're top quality
but few can actually prove it which is
why I partnered with momentus they make
the highest quality supplements on the
planet they're literally unparalleled
when it comes to rigorous third party
testing what you read on the label it's
what's in the product and absolutely
nothing else three of the products that
I use to support my brain body and sleep
are Omega-3 tonat Ali and magnesium l38
to support cognitive performance optimal
hormone function and better sleep and Dr
Andrew hubman is the scientific adviser
for momento so if you've ever wondered
what supplements he would create or what
he really uses himself this is the
answer best of all they ship
internationally and offer a 30-day money
back guarantee so if you're not sure you
can buy them try them for 29 days and if
you do not like them they will give you
your money back right now you can head
to the link in the description below or
go to Liv mous.com wisdom use the code
modern wisdom check out to get 20% of
everything sitewide that's l i v m o n
us.com modern wisdom and modern
wisdom a check out thank you very much
for tuning in if you enjoyed that clip
with Ben you love the full length 2hour
long podcast which you can watch right
here go on tap it