Nostr Web Client

Well said. His explanation evokes strong Eric Weinstein vibes when asked to explain something about his “Theory.”

God Eric is such a fraud.

Here's a fun fact. He used to claim Harvard (he loves to bring up his connection to that school) somehow didn't let him have his graduation day, implying somehow it was related to some agenda against him (and his very brilliant important work), but people learned they'd actually cancelled the ceremony for everyone that year (can't recall the reason). When confronted by this fact, he was flustered and kinda suggested yeah, but that was all done specifically to bury him somehow. 🤡

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Daniel Wigton 5mo ago

I actually like Eric Weinstein. He does have a bit of a persecution complex, is overly proud of his half-baked contributions, and has a narrowed worldview brought on by his humble superiority complex, but he is actually very smart and tends to see through a lot of BS. The fact that he would then like to sell you his own BS is beside the point. He is usually very upfront about the limits of his own understanding.

I wish I knew physics better so I could evaluate Geometric Unity, I may be completely hoodwinked because I am simply not as intelligent as he is, but I suspect that even if his solutions are wrong, his approach is probably correct. By that I mean making the assumption that our physical constants are a consequence of the mathematics and not a fine-tuning. (I might be saying that wrong as well)

ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 5mo ago

"a consequence of mathematics" the correct expression would be "the choice of base units"

ESE 5mo ago

I was thinking the same when Daniel said, “a consequence of mathematics.” It’s easy to forget that those constants depend on unit choices, not universal truths. This helps highlight the expert fallacy, too — assuming math explains everything.

YODL 5mo ago

A very fair assessment. I agree he's smart, smarter perhaps even than myself, but yeah, maybe it's his substituting his own BS is where he loses me.

He's good at tossing out some deep stuff, but when pressed by someone expert he acts like a lil bitch (seen it at least twice). I don't throw the clown emoji around lightly.

I'll still listen to him now and then, but he's mostly a grifty podcast clout chaser imo

ESE 5mo ago

When you say he tends to “see through a lot of BS,” do you think that clarity comes mostly from his background in math? Or could it be an example of the expert fallacy — where someone assumes deep insight in one domain translates across the board? I’m especially curious since physics isn’t his field, yet Geometric Unity rests on some bold assumptions. Also, have you seen an example where he admits being wrong without redirecting the blame?

Daniel Wigton 5mo ago

No. I think he actually thinks deeply about things. But mainly it is the fact that he distrusts everyone. He was the first person I saw that called out Epstein as being a likely intelligence asset for instance.

But let's not mistake me liking Eric to endorsing what he says. I think he has takes that are worth thinking about. He does rarely come to conclusions that I'd be willing to bet on, but that distinction is reserved to very few.

I just think he gets too much flak. I don't think he is a grifter. I think he is a conspiracy theorist who hits a little close to the mark.

YODL 5mo ago

Sure. Though I know you're answering someone else, I'll cede that your take of him being more accurate. Maybe a bit of a "crank" at worst.

He does have an odd past I have never bothered to look into. Worked as some sort of finance guy for thiel... odd

Daniel Wigton 5mo ago

Yeah, I never really understood what he did for Thiel.

YODL 5mo ago

Nor was he ever able to provide a reasonable explanation when I've heard him asked. Thiel just collects geniuses it seems, puts them in roles they're unqualified for just for kicks

ESE 5mo ago

Yeah, I get that — there’s a difference between “grifter” and “true believer.” I think what makes Eric so polarizing is that he blends sincere curiosity with a tendency to overreach, and that distrust-everyone mindset can sometimes feel revelatory even when it’s more paranoia than insight. As nostr:nprofile1qqsd9pqnwyshrse7z975h5ynptq9ktz3kv8txqs7lr20zgelqtys52cpp4mhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mqpzpmhxue69uhkummnw3ezumrpdejq9z0fsa points out, the Thiel finance chapter adds to the weirdness.

Also, that's just my take, but when someone seems to distrust everyone but themselves, that’s a huge red flag. It often reveals low self-awareness, which is the opposite of intelligence. If you can’t see that you are your most prominent blind spot, how sharp can your thinking be?