Please note the original audio of over three hours was edited by Noj. 1. I removed a discussion of AI, which I'll use for a later video, and sent Noj the remaining two or so hours. 2. He then did what he told me was a "a full edit of the talk", removing anything he said which he thought were irrelevant or unclear, and "augmented a couple of my answers" to provide more detail or clarify his comments. He then sent me back the audio, which I used. 3. Noj's contributions differed according to the question. For instance, in the first 10 minutes, seven and a half of it is him speaking. I then speak for nine minutes, after which he speaks for eight and a half of the next 10 minutes. Noj not only spoke for as long as he wanted in the interview, but took the opportunity to add even more of his own commentary in post-production. He just had less to say than I did. For anyone who isn't a fan of this video, I have unlistedit, re-edited it, and uploaded a new version which you may prefer; here it is. ruclips.net/video/CL37jdbGYQA/видео.html
I found this video in my recommended, I've watched a lot of Noj videos before - that said, i think you need to work on letting the guest speak a bit more! It felt like everything you brought up was just supposed to be used as a jumping off point for your own story. I wouldn't be surprised if Noj had 33-25% of the speaking time in this video.
You should do an episode with/ on bad empanada, I really would love a deep dive into his research process or a scholarly dismantlement of his sources if that is more appropriate
@veritasetcaritas when making his video on shining path he used a genocidal far right government as his source as opposed to the guys opposing its genocide
Nice video, but I wish Noj had gotten a chance to speak a lot more. I wanna hear his unique perspective, but imo the interviewer kept interrupting him and going on long, unrelated tangents.
@@veritasetcaritas I don't think it's a matter of editing, it's about being receptive as an interviewer. At some points it sounds like Noj is trying to get a word in or say more but you switch the conversation. He also brings up a lot of interesting things but you don't ask many follow-up questions about them, and instead redirect to what you want to talk about (e.g. the Opium Wars, TIKhistory). It's unfortunate because you end up just pitching the contents of your own videos, but we can simply watch those videos for that. I would have loved if you probed for more explanation on the topics we can't get anywhere else.
@@VoicedJustice when I mention editing, I am pointing out that Noj edited over three and a half hours of conversation into less than two hours, and in the process he made decisions about what he wanted to remove and what he wanted to add. You claim he didn't have a chance to speak or get a word in, but not only is it clear he had such opportunities during the interview, he had full editorial control after the interview was recorded, and added more of his own commentary when he felt the need. So yes, he had plenty of opportunities to express his views. The edit of the interview in this video is one he was happy with because he made the edit, so I don't understand why you think he would be dissatisfied with it. The topic of this interview was Noj's research process specifically, and good history research more generally. In the first twenty minutes I asked him about his research process, he answered then stopped, I prompted him to tell me MORE about his research process, he answered them stopped, and I prompted him a SECOND time to tell me more about his research process, and he again answered them stopped. At this point he had told me all he wanted to say about his research process, so we moved on to related research topics. At a later point when he was speaking, he ended what he wanted to say by commenting "sorry I'm rambling a little bit", because he was concerned he was speaking too much, but I again encouraged him to speak more. But I couldn't force him to say more than what he said. The topic of this video was good research practice, which is why I kept pulling the conversation back to that topic. We were supposed to be analysing and discussing examples of good and bad history reseach, in particular on RUclips. In the entire 104 minute video I only raise the Opium Wars once, and TIKHistory twice, and only in the context of the actual subject of the video, which is good research methodology. The idea that this video is just a pitch for my own videos is uncharitable. I don't even list any of my videos in the description box for this video; I list Noj's channel and four of his videos, plus a video by Zoe Bee. I don't usually pull down entire videos and re-edit them for people, but in response to your distaste for this one I have unlisted the video, re-edited it, and uploaded a new version which I hope you will prefer; here it is. ruclips.net/video/CL37jdbGYQA/видео.html
@@veritasetcaritas I don't doubt he was happy with the edit, I'm just saying that you as an interviewer (in the future) could ask more follow-up questions and direct the guest to expand on things they're interested in. It's not about bringing up the Opium Wars only once (that was just an example), it's the fact that you went on tangents of that kind several times, and talked about each tangent for a long time. I did not say this video is ONLY a pitch for your videos, what I'm saying is that the long digression about your video on the Opium Wars for example is essentially repeating/pitching/explaining the contents of it to Noj, but that is uninteresting for the viewer because we can just watch said video. I never asked you to take down this video, that's not what I want at all and I personally think that's a horrible idea. I was just giving constructive criticism on how to make interviews in the future more engaging. Arguably the re-upload is worse, because now we get even less content.
@@VoicedJustice you wanted less of my commentary, so now the video has less of my commentary. You wanted me to "direct the guest to expand on things they're interested in", but that was not the purpose of this video. Noj fully understood the subject of this video was good research practice, which is why it's focused on that. I think what you mean is that you want me to have directed Noj to expand on things you are interested in, and not the topic of the video, because you are not interested in the topic of the video. My comments on the Opium Wars and other topics were not tangents at all, they were specifically examples of the importance of investigating sources when doing research. I didn't simply explain, repeat, or pitch the videos. You get less content with this upload, but importantly you get less of the content which you said you did not want. But now you're objecting that you're getting less of the content which you said you did not want.
@@veritasetcaritas I know he named plugged your Gnosticism vid in his response to TIK history, have you thought about doing an interview with him in a similar vane as this one?
1:25:30 tikhistory does have an undergraduate degree in history. I would assume that means that he was ‘taught that method’. He has a series of videos on historiography in which he lays out in excruciating detail his qualms with the modern historical method and presents his own methodology through which he analyses history (I can’t be bothered to tell you what differences he makes because firstly I’m not a historian and I myself don’t know the academic standard and secondly it’s a lengthy video) I would assume that he perhaps makes some of his mistakes as a consequence of his fringe perspective on historical analysis and methodology and historiography.
He's come out as an objectivist, so a Randian basically (most of us probably know them by reputation alone, they are the Jehovah's witnesses of libertarianism). This has led him to conclude that the real problem with people like Marx and Stalin was that they were altruistists (which would be funny if he wasn't serious). He's also a big fan of James Lindsay, the guy who started accusing right wing interlocutors of being part of a secret conspiracy of St Michael worshipping pagans. Anyhow he is very critical of academia but as I have tried to point out numerous times there are large components of historical departments who are revaluating and collating sources into interpretations in some ways much more radical than his own (which is largely based on established and somewhat mainstream literature rather than recent research), interestingly when I said to him the other day that he absolutely needs to look into the Russian civil war before talking about 1920's German perceptions of Russia he told me he'd already studied it in Uni, which I think shows his attitude given that he has stated open his low opinion of that very education. It's frustrating, but I know that people have reached out to him and found that he's unwilling to engage due to their being proximate rather than totally in alignment with him on ideology.
@@vorynrosethorn903Tik's historical work is/appears to be first rate. The material is well sourced and at least appears to walk through a range of logical scenarios to assess primary sources. He did an excellent job of teasing out some not obvious conflicts on his recent series on Gazala. I suspect his objectivist politics and economics (closer to my actual expertise) come from a good place, but are borderline specious. In his historical work, this focus on data, verification and comparative analysis of sources gives a lot of richness to the work's over-arching narrative. Once these same habits and frameworks are applied to these other areas of study seems to lead him astray.
@@blue-pi2kt yes his standards for historical accuracy plummet any time he steps away from military history. He has made apallingly bad videos on the history of Gnosticism, claims the Nazis were socialists, claims communism and socialism are religions, and repeats James Lindsay's culture war trash. He is also moving further right in his views on immigration, and made two sympathetic videos on British fascist Oswald Mosley, despite denouncing Mosley's fascist views, depicting Mosley as a misunderstood victim of left wing violence.
Noj is one of my all time favourites history channels. Remember when he first started focusing on Societ History before you started this series. And mentioned you as a reference point when it comes to polemical/cross referencing over bad history youtubers
I studied under the Soviet economic history specialist Oscar Sanchez Sibony at the university of Hong Kong. My impression was that Steven Kotkin is basically a joke and a Kochs mouthpiece. I am surprised to here Noj cite him
If you watch the video, it's not arguing that there was a "Narodnik Lenin", but saying that there were other types of socialists in Russia in addition to Marxism, which all had an impact on Lenin's thinking growing up.
@@jsmedia-ww6gb Wait did I misremember??? I though he argues that Lenin never left the ideas he had from when he was a Narodnik. Arguing that he was more of a Narodnik then a Marxist.
@Ma_ksi Quote from the video: " I am not personally taking the position that Lenin wasn't a Marxist. Rather this video is to investigate why people accuse him of such, and especially to explore the other writings which could have influenced Lenin's thinking while growing up, in addition to Marx. Being inspired by other sources, or having certain beliefs prior to Marxism, don't disqualify you from being a Marxist ipso facto."
@Ma_ksi Nah at no point does he say Lenin was a Narodnik, just that he grew up in that milieu. It's like pointing out that Marx read Hegel and was inspired by him.
Please note the original audio of over three hours was edited by Noj.
1. I removed a discussion of AI, which I'll use for a later video, and sent Noj the remaining two or so hours.
2. He then did what he told me was a "a full edit of the talk", removing anything he said which he thought were irrelevant or unclear, and "augmented a couple of my answers" to provide more detail or clarify his comments. He then sent me back the audio, which I used.
3. Noj's contributions differed according to the question. For instance, in the first 10 minutes, seven and a half of it is him speaking. I then speak for nine minutes, after which he speaks for eight and a half of the next 10 minutes.
Noj not only spoke for as long as he wanted in the interview, but took the opportunity to add even more of his own commentary in post-production. He just had less to say than I did.
For anyone who isn't a fan of this video, I have unlistedit, re-edited it, and uploaded a new version which you may prefer; here it is.
ruclips.net/video/CL37jdbGYQA/видео.html
I found this video in my recommended, I've watched a lot of Noj videos before - that said, i think you need to work on letting the guest speak a bit more! It felt like everything you brought up was just supposed to be used as a jumping off point for your own story. I wouldn't be surprised if Noj had 33-25% of the speaking time in this video.
Thanks for the comment. I know this video has more of me speaking than Noj, but there's a reason for that; see the pinned comment.
Bro stop reading my mind
I'm glad you're a fan.
You should do an episode with/ on bad empanada, I really would love a deep dive into his research process or a scholarly dismantlement of his sources if that is more appropriate
I would like to see that.
His main channel generally has excellent research, but I have called out one of his videos for errors.
ruclips.net/video/wwemi8qoGzo/видео.html
You might like this.
ruclips.net/video/wwemi8qoGzo/видео.html
Hes more concerned about his political views than anything else
@veritasetcaritas when making his video on shining path he used a genocidal far right government as his source as opposed to the guys opposing its genocide
I don't have 2 hours to watch this today, and probably won't for many weeks. Please take this like as thanks for putting the answer in the thumbnail.
You're welcome.
Nice video, but I wish Noj had gotten a chance to speak a lot more. I wanna hear his unique perspective, but imo the interviewer kept interrupting him and going on long, unrelated tangents.
Thanks for the comment. I know this video has more of me speaking than Noj, but there's a reason for that; see the pinned comment.
@@veritasetcaritas I don't think it's a matter of editing, it's about being receptive as an interviewer. At some points it sounds like Noj is trying to get a word in or say more but you switch the conversation. He also brings up a lot of interesting things but you don't ask many follow-up questions about them, and instead redirect to what you want to talk about (e.g. the Opium Wars, TIKhistory). It's unfortunate because you end up just pitching the contents of your own videos, but we can simply watch those videos for that. I would have loved if you probed for more explanation on the topics we can't get anywhere else.
@@VoicedJustice when I mention editing, I am pointing out that Noj edited over three and a half hours of conversation into less than two hours, and in the process he made decisions about what he wanted to remove and what he wanted to add. You claim he didn't have a chance to speak or get a word in, but not only is it clear he had such opportunities during the interview, he had full editorial control after the interview was recorded, and added more of his own commentary when he felt the need. So yes, he had plenty of opportunities to express his views. The edit of the interview in this video is one he was happy with because he made the edit, so I don't understand why you think he would be dissatisfied with it.
The topic of this interview was Noj's research process specifically, and good history research more generally. In the first twenty minutes I asked him about his research process, he answered then stopped, I prompted him to tell me MORE about his research process, he answered them stopped, and I prompted him a SECOND time to tell me more about his research process, and he again answered them stopped. At this point he had told me all he wanted to say about his research process, so we moved on to related research topics.
At a later point when he was speaking, he ended what he wanted to say by commenting "sorry I'm rambling a little bit", because he was concerned he was speaking too much, but I again encouraged him to speak more. But I couldn't force him to say more than what he said. The topic of this video was good research practice, which is why I kept pulling the conversation back to that topic. We were supposed to be analysing and discussing examples of good and bad history reseach, in particular on RUclips.
In the entire 104 minute video I only raise the Opium Wars once, and TIKHistory twice, and only in the context of the actual subject of the video, which is good research methodology. The idea that this video is just a pitch for my own videos is uncharitable. I don't even list any of my videos in the description box for this video; I list Noj's channel and four of his videos, plus a video by Zoe Bee.
I don't usually pull down entire videos and re-edit them for people, but in response to your distaste for this one I have unlisted the video, re-edited it, and uploaded a new version which I hope you will prefer; here it is.
ruclips.net/video/CL37jdbGYQA/видео.html
@@veritasetcaritas I don't doubt he was happy with the edit, I'm just saying that you as an interviewer (in the future) could ask more follow-up questions and direct the guest to expand on things they're interested in. It's not about bringing up the Opium Wars only once (that was just an example), it's the fact that you went on tangents of that kind several times, and talked about each tangent for a long time. I did not say this video is ONLY a pitch for your videos, what I'm saying is that the long digression about your video on the Opium Wars for example is essentially repeating/pitching/explaining the contents of it to Noj, but that is uninteresting for the viewer because we can just watch said video. I never asked you to take down this video, that's not what I want at all and I personally think that's a horrible idea. I was just giving constructive criticism on how to make interviews in the future more engaging. Arguably the re-upload is worse, because now we get even less content.
@@VoicedJustice you wanted less of my commentary, so now the video has less of my commentary. You wanted me to "direct the guest to expand on things they're interested in", but that was not the purpose of this video. Noj fully understood the subject of this video was good research practice, which is why it's focused on that. I think what you mean is that you want me to have directed Noj to expand on things you are interested in, and not the topic of the video, because you are not interested in the topic of the video.
My comments on the Opium Wars and other topics were not tangents at all, they were specifically examples of the importance of investigating sources when doing research. I didn't simply explain, repeat, or pitch the videos.
You get less content with this upload, but importantly you get less of the content which you said you did not want. But now you're objecting that you're getting less of the content which you said you did not want.
Priors confirmed, thank you
OF COUSE!!! Unless that one guy REALLY WAS Trotsky
Fredda made a great response to Kraut.
Yes he does excellent work.
@@veritasetcaritas I know he named plugged your Gnosticism vid in his response to TIK history, have you thought about doing an interview with him in a similar vane as this one?
@@padricbrady6775 yes I have, just need to contact him about it.
@@padricbrady6775 I contacted him and he has agreed to an interview.
Goat discussing Goat
Thanks!
1:25:30 tikhistory does have an undergraduate degree in history. I would assume that means that he was ‘taught that method’. He has a series of videos on historiography in which he lays out in excruciating detail his qualms with the modern historical method and presents his own methodology through which he analyses history (I can’t be bothered to tell you what differences he makes because firstly I’m not a historian and I myself don’t know the academic standard and secondly it’s a lengthy video) I would assume that he perhaps makes some of his mistakes as a consequence of his fringe perspective on historical analysis and methodology and historiography.
Yes very definitely. I may critique those historiography videos of his in the future. I've watched them all
He's come out as an objectivist, so a Randian basically (most of us probably know them by reputation alone, they are the Jehovah's witnesses of libertarianism). This has led him to conclude that the real problem with people like Marx and Stalin was that they were altruistists (which would be funny if he wasn't serious).
He's also a big fan of James Lindsay, the guy who started accusing right wing interlocutors of being part of a secret conspiracy of St Michael worshipping pagans.
Anyhow he is very critical of academia but as I have tried to point out numerous times there are large components of historical departments who are revaluating and collating sources into interpretations in some ways much more radical than his own (which is largely based on established and somewhat mainstream literature rather than recent research), interestingly when I said to him the other day that he absolutely needs to look into the Russian civil war before talking about 1920's German perceptions of Russia he told me he'd already studied it in Uni, which I think shows his attitude given that he has stated open his low opinion of that very education.
It's frustrating, but I know that people have reached out to him and found that he's unwilling to engage due to their being proximate rather than totally in alignment with him on ideology.
@@vorynrosethorn903Tik's historical work is/appears to be first rate. The material is well sourced and at least appears to walk through a range of logical scenarios to assess primary sources. He did an excellent job of teasing out some not obvious conflicts on his recent series on Gazala.
I suspect his objectivist politics and economics (closer to my actual expertise) come from a good place, but are borderline specious. In his historical work, this focus on data, verification and comparative analysis of sources gives a lot of richness to the work's over-arching narrative. Once these same habits and frameworks are applied to these other areas of study seems to lead him astray.
@@blue-pi2kt yes his standards for historical accuracy plummet any time he steps away from military history. He has made apallingly bad videos on the history of Gnosticism, claims the Nazis were socialists, claims communism and socialism are religions, and repeats James Lindsay's culture war trash. He is also moving further right in his views on immigration, and made two sympathetic videos on British fascist Oswald Mosley, despite denouncing Mosley's fascist views, depicting Mosley as a misunderstood victim of left wing violence.
@@veritasetcaritas Is he the RUclipsr who said that he doesn't read anything post-1960s because of revisionism?
Ive been waiting for this
I hope you enjoy it.
👏🙂
Very interesting. He looks like an under-appreciated channel.
He is.
Noj is one of my all time favourites history channels. Remember when he first started focusing on Societ History before you started this series. And mentioned you as a reference point when it comes to polemical/cross referencing over bad history youtubers
Thank you!
I appreciate this discussion, I really enjoy both these channels :)
Thank you!
I studied under the Soviet economic history specialist Oscar Sanchez Sibony at the university of Hong Kong. My impression was that Steven Kotkin is basically a joke and a Kochs mouthpiece. I am surprised to here Noj cite him
The videos after the Narodnik Lenin one, yes
If you watch the video, it's not arguing that there was a "Narodnik Lenin", but saying that there were other types of socialists in Russia in addition to Marxism, which all had an impact on Lenin's thinking growing up.
@@jsmedia-ww6gb Wait did I misremember??? I though he argues that Lenin never left the ideas he had from when he was a Narodnik. Arguing that he was more of a Narodnik then a Marxist.
I dont think he said "lenin is more a narodnik than a marxist" but that lenin retained some narodnik ideas after identifying as marxist
@Ma_ksi Quote from the video: " I am not personally taking the position that Lenin wasn't a Marxist. Rather this video is to investigate why people accuse him of such, and especially to explore the other writings which could have influenced Lenin's thinking while growing up, in addition to Marx. Being inspired by other sources, or having certain beliefs prior to Marxism, don't disqualify you from being a Marxist ipso facto."
@Ma_ksi Nah at no point does he say Lenin was a Narodnik, just that he grew up in that milieu. It's like pointing out that Marx read Hegel and was inspired by him.