As someone who reads and listen these people who are called "the intellectual dark web" I would not call them a group of intellectuals. Haidt and Pinker being exceptions.
I like to listen Sam Harris and have read a little Mr. Peterson and even listen Joe Rogan who gets into the list somehow. If I criticize these guys it does not mean that I think their net contribution is net negative.
Sam Harris is smart and nice to listen and read, but he identifies with his opinions very strongly. He has very clear tendency to "shut down intellectually" when challenged. His inability to see the other point of view cripples him. I have listened enough of his podcasts to realize the moment when he turns defensive. The rest of the podcast is just him repeating his point of view in different ways until the quest leaves it to be. He goes from rational to rationalizing (as in psychological defense) very fast and loses the ability
to listen. Harris was always the weakest link among the "Four Horsemen". Dennet & Dawkins were the intellectuals, Hitchens was incredible writer and attack dog. Harris was just edgelord even then.
I really appreciate what Jordan Peterson is doing. He actually concentrates on the positive for a group of people who are fed confrontation and anger. But his approach is motivational/charismatic, not scientific or highly intellectual even if he has the credentials. That's not a bad thing if he can reach people.
Joe Rogan is the purest case of "manly bullshit". Why he gets mentions is a mystery. It's entertaining if you like the entertainment value. He is smart version of Alex Jones without negativity or ill intent. I think his net positive effect comes from attracting people who fall into every conspiracy theory away from the negative emotions.
Conclusion: Opinionated or charismatic is not intellectual and critical thinking involves emotional control and checking your attitude. Intellectually these guys are punching below their weight class. As a group they are not challenging intellectually. They provide identification service.
You mostly got blowback in response, but as someone who also read almost all of these people (and listened a bit) I want to say that your descriptions resonated with me. I don't know if it's very important to distinguish who's an "intellectual" and who isn't, but I think your brief assessment is thoughtful and mostly on the money from my perspective.
My political views align with them mostly and as I said I think most of them are net positives.
I was trying to point out the low quality of people identified as "intellectuals". People who oversimplify ideals that I agree should be criticized just as much as people who I disagree with.
I am an elitist in a sense that I seek improvement and intellectual challenge and I don't think popular ways to present them has intellectual value. I think that people who are most principled thinkers should get most of the recognition, and lead others, not pundits.
I like to listen Sam Harris and have read a little Mr. Peterson and even listen Joe Rogan who gets into the list somehow. If I criticize these guys it does not mean that I think their net contribution is net negative.
Sam Harris is smart and nice to listen and read, but he identifies with his opinions very strongly. He has very clear tendency to "shut down intellectually" when challenged. His inability to see the other point of view cripples him. I have listened enough of his podcasts to realize the moment when he turns defensive. The rest of the podcast is just him repeating his point of view in different ways until the quest leaves it to be. He goes from rational to rationalizing (as in psychological defense) very fast and loses the ability to listen. Harris was always the weakest link among the "Four Horsemen". Dennet & Dawkins were the intellectuals, Hitchens was incredible writer and attack dog. Harris was just edgelord even then.
I really appreciate what Jordan Peterson is doing. He actually concentrates on the positive for a group of people who are fed confrontation and anger. But his approach is motivational/charismatic, not scientific or highly intellectual even if he has the credentials. That's not a bad thing if he can reach people.
Joe Rogan is the purest case of "manly bullshit". Why he gets mentions is a mystery. It's entertaining if you like the entertainment value. He is smart version of Alex Jones without negativity or ill intent. I think his net positive effect comes from attracting people who fall into every conspiracy theory away from the negative emotions.
Conclusion: Opinionated or charismatic is not intellectual and critical thinking involves emotional control and checking your attitude. Intellectually these guys are punching below their weight class. As a group they are not challenging intellectually. They provide identification service.