2 HN users recommended this podcast episode2 months2018–2019score 3
Years with an HN recommendation, 2007–2026
HN commenters recommend it as an entertaining account of how easily fake papers get published and of problems in academic peer review.
Joe Rogan interviews Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay, who describe their hoax papers submitted to academic journals in grievance studies. The conversation runs about two hours and covers academic publishing, ideology and victimhood culture.
“If you have not watched Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay on the Joe Rogan show you should.” (HN, 2019)
The term "competitive victimhood" came to my attention after watching the Joe Rogan interview of Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay who pranked academic journals with research papers based on ridiculous premises. A must watch IMO [this video]
Authors discuss hoaxing journals and competitive victimhood.
If you have not watched Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay on the Joe Rogan show you should. Very entertaining and shows how ridiculous these publications are. [this video]
Entertaining discussion showing how ridiculous some publications are.
> But does that justify what they did? Yes, it does. These journals are an absolute joke, make a mockery of any serious attempt to advance knowledge and understanding, and deserve to be pilloried. Their standards of rigour and review are shockingly poor and as such they do not provide a suitable vehicle for the publication of genuine research, or for measured consideration of the content they do publish. Just this week I ran across this, where a couple of the academics concerned were interviewed by Joe Rogan late last year: [this video] Fascinating, horrifying, and entertaining in equal measure. For more background, there's also this on wikipedia: [link]
It's a 3 page document that makes a number of false assumptions. They extrapolate bitcoin to having 300 billion transactions and means no lightening or L2 solution and the block size would be 3gigs. Nor do they even factor in the halving. Wasn't even researched properly, just utter nonsense for the papers. And Joe Rogan was showing how easy it is to publish fake papers in journals. [this video] here is the paper by the way behind a shitty paywall. [link]
> Absolutely terrifying. Indeed. We seem to be increasingly awash with evidence that the standards of rigour in academic journals across a number of fields are... quite poor. Peter Boghossian, James Lindsay and Helen Pluckrose set out to demonstrate this in the field of grievance studies by submitting and, in some cases, successfully publishing a series of fake papers: [this video] I mean, in some sense this is highly entertaining for the rest of us, but it is also utterly horrifying.
Authors explain publishing fake papers in grievance studies.
Video list and Hacker News comment labels from HackerTube (prompted by @karpathy), released under ODC-By 1.0, built on the open-index/hacker-news archive. Hacker News data is provided by Y Combinator; comments remain the work of their authors. Video titles, channel names and thumbnails belong to their creators and are shown via YouTube. HackerTube Watch is an unofficial edition. Data export of 2026-10-31.
Plays via YouTube's privacy-enhanced embed
5 Hacker News comments
From the HN archive; up to 20 kept per video, favoring different commenters. Recommendations first.
Read more
Citations, criticism and jokes