Thanks for watching my latest episode. Let me know your thoughts and opinions down below in a comment. If you like my content and want to support me, consider becoming a paying member of the Coleman Unfiltered Community here --> bit.ly/3B1GAlS

"I don't have a stance on anything." -NDT Yeah...right.... In the most recent interviews I have listened to with NDT, the lack of self-reflection is truly wild to behold.

Coleman: "Hey how are y-" Dr. Tyson: "JUST TO BE CLEAR,"

“I throughly enjoy everything Dr. Tyson says. He speaks so eloquently and intelligently. He’s the best science communicator to date, and everything he says is true, and good.” -Neil deGrasse Tyson, probably

Man, I used to love NDT but he’s becoming insufferable.

Neil deGrasse Tyson is coming off as increasingly smug and condescending.

I've never seen so many negative comments for any of Coleman's guests, we'll deserved imo

Neil being underestimated his whole life explains a lot about his personality

Neil Degrasse Tyson is a man who is clearly hot-headed, impatient, churlish and loves the sounds of his own voice.

Tyson: *goes on a minute long tirade against the word "stance" Hughes: 😐 *Literally less than 10 seconds later* Tyson: "I think people are needlessly distracted by the definitions of words..." Hughes: 😐 Coleman's patience and professionalism is so on point here. If anything he could have been a little more confrontational.

Next time Neil say's he doesn't take stances on things, ask him how he feels about Pluto being a planet.

I thought it was super weird how Neil deGrasse Tyson flipped out on Coleman just for using the phrase "cognitive empathy." I felt like he was making some kind of petty show of dominance.

Coleman must be a good host, because no matter how many times I skip forward Neil is the one speaking.

This was disappointing. Perhaps I hadn't listened to enough NDT, and had a much higher opinion of him as a communicator...as looking through the comments this doesn't seem like an off day. I'm agreeing on most of his points, and yet cringing through the delivery. I have no doubt he's put up with a heap of bigotry in his day...but the examples he used prove Coleman's point more than his. Especially when he was treating Coleman the same condescending way the 'racist' man in his popcorn story did. Losing his mind over 'stance' then smugly talking about how we're too wrapped up in words was especially golden. I really wish Coleman challenged him more, but I get the sense NDT's personality was too big on this day.

I think if NDT made an effort to conduct himself with a bit more humility and grace, he could be a much more effective communicator.

Anger at cultural appropriation is “a reminder that, yeah, you were the oppressor. I can’t have you claiming that you’re my friend now.” Perhaps he misspoke, but if not that shows just how much he buys into group (rather than individual) identity

I love Neil and respect all he’s done for the communication/education of complex scientific ideas to the general public but, I think at times he begins to lose touch of how to have a naturally flowing back and forth convo. He constantly interrupts which occasionally is permissible but almost every few sentences he tends to jump in and go on a tangent. Glad you kept pushing back Coleman! 👌🏾

Neil I really like you. I've seen countless hours of you speak but this is hard to watch. You don't have conversations anymore. You aren't listening and responding in the moment you are waiting to say things you've said before and I want more from you. That's selfish of me. But you feel condescending and arrogant and it disappoints me because I genuinely like you. I genuinely liked Startalk I shared COSMOS with friends and family and watched the nieces and nephews. I also watched this happen with Bill Nye but he seemed to have turned it around I hope you do too. But I also agree science is about questioning the currently held views and I would really love to hear you do that even if you come to those same conclusions it's awesome to see it in action. A fan

People have underestimated me too all my life, and I am a white woman. I don't hold it over people. I understand it is THEIR insecurities. Common, stop carrying these chips on your shoulder. De Grasse "I am so special. Just recognize how special I am". Seriously dude, grow up.

i think what makes this interview so painful is Neil always taking the least charitable interpretation of every question Coleman asked, and was constantly being overly defensive “i never take stances” “ai can never be truly creative” “i don’t get caught up on definitions” “oh that’s what a conspiracy is”

I don’t know Neil to be fair…. Apart from hearing his name all my life. Came to the comments to see if anyone else found that he was being deliberately and overtly obtuse in his push back, on a lot of Coleman’s very well crafted questions. I’m half way through, and I’m too frustrated to keep going on this one I think.

This episode really highlights one of Coleman’s strengths. NDT is so salty and Coleman stays calm and collected the entire time. Half his age but twice as wise.

Listening to Neil humble-brag about how incompetent other scientists are at communicating science to your average person is so arrogant and condescending, and clearly conveys he's never watched a Dr. Andrew Huberman podcast (one of the wisest, kindest most valuable scientists on social media IMO).

"i have a higher threshold for acceptance of a claim" yet thinks male people should be able to play on female sports teams

Painful to watch, why did Tyson even show up if he was going to act like this.

Another excellent episode. Very interesting and thought-provoking. It seems very difficult to have a true "conversation" with Neil deGrasse Tyson. Solely based on this episode, Mr. deGrasse Tyson appears to very much want people to listen to him but seems to not truly hear what others in the conversation are saying. Still, he's certainly a very interesting person and there is authority behind his words. My admiration and appreciation for Coleman Hughes (which were already at a high level) were increased by the way he handled this difficult interview.

Seems like Neil thinks he sounds wise if he acts unimpressed about AI, rather than actually considering the arguments

Can't quite understand the criticism of Degrasse. I found him insightful and extremely open minded. What a brilliant conversation! If anything this has increased my respect towards him.

he says "people are needlessly distracted by the definitions of words" after spending 5 minutes describing his definition of the word "stance"

Neil's idea of science communication seems to consist of interruption, tangents, and owning the conversation. Then wonders where the trust went.

Neil started looking uncomfortable as soon as Coleman began to discuss the covid booster efficacy.

Tyson comes across as a guy who does not know that he does not know. I doubt if he’s ever heard of Westall, or has every spent any time familiarizing himself with decades old UFO cases on even a cursory level. He fully assumes that he would automatically know if something interesting existed about this. I was the same way 2 years ago. Then I listened.

I am convinced that Neil deGrasse Tyson it doesn't actually know how to think. About 45% of the time he's asserting something that he could by no means justify.

Any interview with Neil will always get me to watch it and give it a thumbs up so I am glad you decided to have him on your show

None of those stories of being assumed unintelligent are unique experiences of black people.

This is one of these videos where I hit the like button even before watching cause I just know and it never fails. Thanks boys! Super enriching interview!

Coleman, you have the patience of a God. NDT only interrupted at every single point he could, yet you remained so calm and collected. I would have lost it on him. Good on you man!

Only making a word cloud could soothe me. Great job Coleman, you are a Saint. Interruptions. Condescension. Irritation. Wishful thinking. Dismissiveness. Badgering. Short bursts of reasoning. Platitudes. Indignance. Flustered.

The people in the comments section are an excellent example of how overly sensitive humanity has become and how little people listen and think. The majority of the comments have NOTHING to do with what he said, rather they are focused on him as a person and their interpretation of his character based on their own emotional experiences. There is plenty to be learned IF you are willing to let go of what you think you know to allow another perspective to add to or change your mind on certain things hence him not taking stances. (he made that explanation quite clear, but people chose to react emotionally to that too)

Used to like & respect Neil. He was trying to put Coleman in his place the entire interview. Neil came off as smug, arrogant, rude & hyper defensive. Completely unnecessary. Done with him. Coleman was all class!

Neil can be really hard to listen to

What drives me absolutely crazy about Neil Degrasse Tyson is nobody pushes him on the actuality of the difference of technologies. Could a stealth jet that we created today. Should it be flown back in the early 19th century go completely unnoticed and unreported by the flyers and the people of that day. Could a single drone go undiscovered? The answer is, of course. Why is it that he is stuck on the fact that our smart phone cameras are capable of picking up what even our US military has difficulty in identifying, but managed still to maintain and identify with three different imaging technologies at the same time..

What interview yall listening to. It was great. They both got along well. I’m thinking y’all didn’t like the racial stuff Neil said about apes lol.

Ironic that he’s talking about the power of learning yet still hasn’t learned how not to constantly interrupt people.

Prattles on for ten minutes about the necessary parameters *he requires* for proof of UFO's, and then says he never has a stance on anything. Then narrowly defines the definition of "stance". Then in the next breath @ 40:03 "I think that people are needlessly distracted by the definitions of words".

1:35:00 so the oppressor can’t be his friend but they can be his spouse.

NDT, the most difficult man to converse with in the cosmos.

This dude is living evidence that it is possible to be hyper intelligent and not wise at all. He comes across as petty, competitive, arrogant and presumptious.

thank you for covering the UFO/UAP topic and at least tangentially or indirectly Disclosure itself. Perhaps. Is there any way you could timestamp the specific parts of the interview on that? Thanks!

After finishing the full video, which took a better part of a day for me, it was a good interchange with points and counter points by both Coleman and Neil on many subjects. I didn’t know of Coleman, or even where he’s coming from prior to seeing this podcast, and I only came upon it as a person watching Startalk and having this suggested in my KZfaq feed. I have now subscribed. To be fair, while I’m always in awe of NGT’s knowledge of the universe being an amateur astronomer, I’m also an 42 yr electrical engineer and have a broad foundation of knowledge so am not aligned with his comments on AI, which seem both a bit uninformed and naive. I was also disappointed by his point on why cars now start reliably, which has little to do with being made by robots (smile).. Still love listening to him, especially when it comes to the physics,which he knows so well.

Coleman, this is the first interview of yours I've watched. I am very impressed with your patience and articulation. You've got a new fan in me.

Dude is salty today

God he’s so touchy. You stay always cool Coleman.

This man (Neil) impresses me less and less as the years go by. Now he just seems like an angry, rather shallow man with a chip on his shoulder to me.

Smug, self-righteous, condescending, arrogant, and annoying are words that I would use to describe Tyson in this interview. What a horrible display. The constant needless interruptions over irrelevant semantics. How aggravating. Coleman was put off from the beginning and rightfully so.

It's amazing how much more in touch with reality Coleman seems than Dr.Tyson who is the most propped up scientist personality of our time.

Why not give the host a chance to ask a question? He keeps interrupting and finishing the host sentences. It could've been better.

However serious Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson was in this interview, it was compelling and very educative all the same.

Great conversation! Would like to add one critical comment, as a lecturer. Doctor Tyson does not sufficiently distinguish between 'educator' and 'populariser and presenter'. He is brilliant at the latter, but that is not the meaning of 'educator', except in the most superficial sense. As a lecturer, I have to not only engage students in all the ways he says, but also ensure that months after they have had the class, they have retained the information and skills and can apply them correctly! So his attack on the inadequacy of teachers - the claim that they must 'make you interested' - feels very unfair. Schools are full of teachers who are much-loved, great presenters of the kind he means, but whose students turn out to have learned little or nothing while they were being - essentially - entertained.

Tyson: “…19th century Anthropology… arguably the most racist branch of science there ever was…” Science matured. Sociology and anthropology were clearly at their infancy in the 19th century. It’s not fair to apply 20/20 hindsight and assume out of the gate science would have the methods and knowledge that we have today regarding the human race, particularly given the pre-existing medieval notions from which science broke away. Imagine if someone heard our own half-baked ideas from when we were 10 and categorized us in our entirety by them.

I've listened to many hours of Neil speaking over the years on his own podcasts or shows as well as on others. I haven't typically thought of him as a person who views the world through the lens of science, but there were usually diamonds to be found in the conversation, so it was always worth listening. The more recent podcasts, like this one, put on display his lack of scientific perspective. They may still reveal some diamonds, but mostly from the other people involved, rather than Neil himself.

Dear Coleman, Your podcast is one of the best among deeper level conversations. I try not to miss any episode. Your conversation with Dr. deGrasse is very enjoyable. I want to comment on the second topic of this episode - Artificial Intelligence. I must agree with Dr. deGrasse that dangers of AI are not metaphysical. They will not replace humans in creative work. There are other real dangers that we must deal with: • Humans will lose their jobs to AI, like they lost to machines; • AI may create disinformation to polarize society. Even can used as a propaganda weapon to demoralize and destabilize a competitive business or an adversary state; • Empowered AI may make wrong decisions that affect human life or even start the war that will threaten the existence of humanity. Some AI scientists and philosophers rise another potential existential threat - AI gaining sentience, consciousness, and becoming competitors or enemies of humanity. I don’t agree that this is a real threat. After all AI is just a self-learning machine. No wonder that this generation of AI was initially called (and still called sometimes) machine learning and its brute-force version - deep learning. Because it is the essence - they are machines that are programmed to learn from available data and experimentation. No matter how sophisticated they seem in conversations or writing technical or literary texts - they do not generate new ideas and do not even infer new hypotheses. Ask them to prepare an essay on any philosophical or scientific topic and they may give you a summary of our current knowledge. Even students writing their essays are supposed to do more - to propose new hypotheses or express their personal viewpoints. Scientists, philosophers, or writers who would produce AI level work would be called plagiarists. The reason is that they do not think creatively. In fact, they do not think at all. All their internal models are purely empirical, not abstract, not causal, not behavioral. It is all about pattern recognition and matching it to existing classes of known patterns. It is impossible to trace back or understand their reasoning, because there is no reasoning. You mentioned that even humans in their creative process often reuse already existing pieces of art or science. That is true, but humans are driven by logic, intuition, or sense of beauty. There is no such drive in AI - they try to best match existing patterns. In unsettled topics their combination of opposite opinions sometimes leads to nonsense - I personally experience it many times. They cannot express their own opinion, because they don’t have it. Old school AI were supposed to model human thinking process - reasoning etc. The new AI is just a trained machine. Trained on available data, not experience. Machines can do things better that human - lift heavier stuff, work faster and more precise, and run faster. Now they can talk, write, design, compose music, and paint like humans but faster and in many cases better. As long as it does not require to make a quantum leap and invent, discover, or create something qualitatively new. Can AI overcome this limitation? I think it will be improved, be more reliable and accurate, but not creative. But even making them more accurate faces serious problems of resources. Medium capacity AI (e.g., medical diagnostic advisor) in its learning cycle can consume 20x more electricity than average US household per year. Hence, there are practical limits to AI accuracy. Maybe AI can accidentally create new unique piece of art or music, but unlikely that they will even recognize it. I don’t think that AI is capable of improving itself - analyzing its own weaknesses and writing new code based on different algorithm to eliminate them. (Although I allow that they can fix obvious bugs in their internal code.) And I am sure that AI will never gain consciousness, ambition, feelings, and free will. And without free will there is no creativity.

I get that athlete comment all the time because of my size and fitness although I'm the Uni instructor in the Med School and Psych Department… “Oh, are you one of the coaches?”

This makes me wanna go get Neil's book, even more, this interview is fiiyyyya! Especially after listening to Neil talk about that chapter on Joe's podcast also I cant wait to read it! Good work out there fellas!

Great video. His book sounds interesting.

Thank you for this amazing convo! People sometimes hate on Neil for him Talking too much over the host, but in all honesty I still enjoy it because everything that he says is something interesting that I can learn from. He is just always spewing information constantly and I’ll never get tired of it. Definitely a new fan of your channel and just subscribed right now. All love 😁✌🏽

I see the comments regarding NDT's communication style. And yes, he has always conversed in a manner that many people interpret as rude by constant interruptions. Though true to an extent, it's not his intention to be rude. NDT is extremely intelligent, and when he is presented with a question, he is compelled to give an answer that encompasses all his knowledge on that topic. One of his priorities or passions is to bring science to the people in a way that can be understood by all. Another way of saying it would be to say his tendency to talk over or interrupt is nothing more than his excitement, his passion to teach. I have always enjoyed listening to his interviews, speeches, or presentations. He approaches every topic in a down to earth style. He's a matter or fact type of guy. If you ask him a question, he wants to answer that question completely without being questioned before doing so. Something else he does, or I should say, doesn't do is allow himself to be pulled into discussing conspiracy theories or pseudo sciences. He is a scientist at heart and soul. He uses everyday situations to express his ideas and knowledge, which is far easier, for me at least, to understand and relate that information to my life. He's incredible.❤👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👍🏻👍🏻

Neil deGrasse Tyson did start out a bit defensive and 'splainy, but he chilled out. Some of his views surprised me in a good way, and I thought it was a worthwhile conversation.

I could listen to Mr Tyson for the whole day he's so educational.

Oh, is that the "scientist" who always refuses to answer what a woman is by asking, "Why do you care?"

Neil is disappointing me by not explaining more clearly WHY the idea of aliens visiting Earth is super unlikely. I know why, and so does he, so why not make the point more clearly (he touched on it and then went to something else).

I feel as though I’ve watched an entirely different interview than 90%of the commenters here. NDT is very animated and values precision in language, but he wasn’t combative. I thought this was a perfectly fine conversation between two smart people with different personalities and perspectives. Not every interaction needs to be boiled down to hero vs villain. What an unproductive attitude.

An expert in public communication interacts with a good faith interviewer with condescension, strawmanning, interruptions, and yelling. This is the way to convince audiences. It is known.

Lol this guy is kind of a nightmare. Not talking about any of his points of view but just his overall attitude and demeanor. Awesome album coleman

In the PODCAST HOST POSITION: Coleman Hughes is a writer, podcaster and opinion columnist who specialises in issues related to race, public policy and applied ethics. In the PODCAST GUEST POSITION: Neil deGrasse Tyson is an American astrophysicist, author, and science communicator. Tyson studied at Harvard University, the University of Texas at Austin, and Columbia University. From 1991 to 1994, he was a postdoctoral research associate at Princeton University.

Instead of "Conversations with Coleman" this was "Lectures with Neil deGrasse Tyson"

Curious...what would happen if you locked up Neil deGrasse Tyson and Michael Eric Dyson in a room...

I can say after watching this is Coleman has a lot of patience. Neil came across as not only condescending, but kind of simple in his ideas. He seems to just want to talk a lot and never listens.

Great interview! You have my subscription

As a 54 y/o NYC Born 🇩🇴 American I have tears of joy that two Afro Latinos had this quality conversation.

This man is inspirational. His 'cosmos' series was very good.

I was very disappointed in Tyson's extremely NPC commentary at the height of the BLM/covid/Floyd/woke fever a couple years ago. It seemed there wasn't a single officially certified mainstream corporate media opinion he didn't like, and the excuses he seemed to enjoy making for the riots were particularly obnoxious. But I'll listen all the same; he can still redeem himself if he tries.....hard.

1:14:00 (ish) Coleman bringing up the point of view of Tyson's discussion with the popcorn at the wedding being based on the other man assuming he is the smartest person in the room, and not that he was necessarily talking down to Neil because he is a black man pretty much sums up my issue with how many people describe encounters with supposedly racist people. If Neil was a white man, I imagine the conversation would remain unchanged because most people do not find themselves conversing with physicist all that often.

@ColemanHughesOfficial This was my first time on your channel, and I enjoyed listening and experiencing ideas through NDT's point of view. Thank you.

loved it. i adore neil degrasse tyson

I listened to this hoping Coleman would challenge NDT on his STANCE on Covid vaccinations...but the conversation always took different directions.

Godly I have to rewind and listen to the guest's responses twice to clearly understand 😅he is semi sarcastic, but highly intelligent with wordings. Loveit

NDT may be a little cranky. We can't be at our best 100% of the time. Let's give the man some grace.

It's interesting how he made such a strong emphasis on the importance of effective science communication, but he just seems so bad at it in real time. He's acting like everything is a debate. Doesn't feel like he's really listening to the questions, just scanning for key words and angrily rambling on the topic.

I'm encouraged to see that I'm not your only fan who finds NDT annoying. He doesn't strike me as a deep or even a particularly careful thinker, although he certainly regards himself as so qualified. His Cosmos series didn't convince me he is even particularly well qualified in his own field. Maybe it's me, but I didn't find his pedantry on rounding errors and separate bills to be a proof of racism, but rather that he was just a petty dickhead. He seems convinced of the certainty of life in the universe, but not of any alien visitations. The standard of proof in one case seems to be an unfounded probability projection, and in the other, the lack of clear smartphone pictures. Why not reverse these standards? And does he really believe smartphones can provide sufficiently clear pictures of distant alien airships? A number of times he referred to his lived experience as evidence that he values, thereby echoing a trope common amongst post-modern influenced woke types. This seemed to be a point with larger ramifications for science and which I think you could have addressed. What does he think of the woke recurrent insistence on confusing correlation and causality? His overconfidence in peer review as a sanctified standard is also questionable in light of venerable magazines such as Science and Nature's handling of Covid and other issues. Don't politics and grant money availability operate as the introduction of selective bias into the system? Science is proving to be just as prone to corruption as other human institutions. I'd like to see NDT interviewed by a more critical interlocutor.

You music is FIRE 🔥 I’m actually shook rn

One of the biggest life lessons you can learn is realising how most people, either in government or large corporations, are BEYOND incompetent. Hilariously incompetent. If you have spent any medium amount of time working with people you should know this. It's not even the people, it's the people & it's structures. I've got a thousand pages of correspondence to show for it.

It’s astonishing how pat and facile so many of NdGT’s answers and arguments here are. Though I know why he did not do so, I wish CH had held his feet a bit more to the fire. His discussion of AI, his conflation of having a stance/ taking a stand, his giggling condescension when CH says “cognitive empathy” (as though wowing the rubes isn’t Tyson’s stock in trade as a media figure), his refusal even to speculate on what these UFOs might be… One imagines the reason we don’t see him engaged in serious debate is that he understands he won’t do well minus the peanut gallery. Sheesh.

I don't mind having different viewpoints than someone but the amount of interruption here by NDT makes it a very hard conversation to listen to.

But I'm with Neill on aliens. Seems a big stretch.

the smart-phone argument kinda annoys me. most people aren't really using their cameras, they're looking down at something like insta or TikTok. and when they use their cameras they take salfies. 2 point would be that our cameras arent good enough to film videos in 4k etc. when it comes to ufos flying about breaking the laws of physics. I'm too drunk to elaborate but this is my argument against the "people have 4k phones" argument.

I know it is ironic when he goes off on a tangent about making a stance, then say "I think people focus too much on the definition of wards." But the stance part was to help show where his mindstate is when addressing the question.

Neil DeGress Tyson is the Steven Seagal of science!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wow, this interview was not a good look for Tyson. Maybe he needs to take time off from public speaking. I've listened to him on several podcasts over the past year and he's turning into a bitter curmudgeon who talks down to his hosts, which is ironic since Coleman is so mild mannered and well intentioned.

I love NG,though he seems pretty aggressive in tone in this interview.The interviewer is a chill guy.