Problems with Professor Jiang Mega Thread

[Uddi]

https://actualized.org/insights/problems-with-professor-jiang

 

I would also like to know if the content or the structure is the problematic one. I am more focused on the root structure behind conspiracies rather than trying to worry about the content. Please have that clear distinction when reading conspiracies of any kind.

 

I still think he has so many valid points such as his critique on science, his stuff on quantum mechanics, and more. Which parts do you like and don't like about him? I would love to know why.

[Sucuk Ekmek]

He oversimplifies nation-states as vectors and trajectories, and fails to see individuals and their atomized structures within those states. He pays too much attention to eschatology. He needs to expand his right-brain thinking. He claims China is not interested in broader world politics, yet never mentions the Uyghurs or the reeducation camps — his students are lucky. To be fair, no nation trading with China mentions them either. He is a cool guy, who thinks out of the box. He is up there doing his own stuff and that is all about him. Which is perfectly okay. If he sucks he sucks...

Conspiracies are at the core of politics; in that environment, survival and conspiracy go hand in hand. There are no friends or foes there. So from this perspective he's totally okay with his bulshit, that is the game. I am not defending the guy but this is the part of his '' epistemic responsibility'' as Leo puts the term.

Sometimes doing something better than doing nothing, even if it's wrong. 

[Uddi]

I see. I was more focused on the broad structure concerning mainstream science. I haven't watched his videos on Chinese politics.

[Ulax]

I used to like Jiang, but then I saw leo doesn't like his views. So now i don't like his views.

--

The main issue i find with Jiang is that he is more of a secondary learning resource. I did Law at university and you have primary and secondary readings there. The primary readings are all about giving you an overview and survey of the concepts, issues and different perspectives on a topic. For example. imagine a explaining the basics of a contract, and the different views on what contract law is about.

The secondary readings are like a deep dive into one particular perspective. For example, a marxist view on contract.

The issue with starting with secondary readings is its easy to get indoctrinated by the first reading you've come across.

And many people online haven't gone through a primary resource, i.e. intro lecture, on the subjects he talks about. So they just end up getting indoctrinated with Jiang's views.

Edited 21 hours ago by Ulax

[Hojo]

The fundamentals of his theories come from he made it up. And since he is focusing soley on USA you have to be cautious that he is not a propoghandist. If you pay attention to his words hes just shitting on USA and uplifting China non stop.

It seems his political knowledge goes as deep as a level 3 where you need to go level 15 deep to actually make caculations.

So that makes his videos made up anti usa propoghanda from a chinese man living in China.

We have no idea if his views are real his stats are real or if hes being botted.

Both content and structure are not right here.

 

If you like him for his baseline views on quantum mechanics and science, he dosent say anything intelligent about quantum mechanics or science than any other person does.

Edited 20 hours ago by Hojo

[LordFall]

I think his meta understanding of geopolitics is quite phenomenal. The video Leo linked had some great points but a lot of it is clipping 5 mins of stupid shit he said in like 200 hours of golden philosophy and analysis. 

I've run a politics group chat and been educating myself on geopolitics for the past few years and I've learned some good paradigms from Jiang. Leo doesn't cover any of this and is more esoteric than actually examining what's going on with our politics and current events so it's a good mix for my intellectual content consumption.

On 5/10/2026 at 9:08 AM, Uddi said:

https://actualized.org/insights/problems-with-professor-jiang

I would also like to know if the content or the structure is the problematic one. I am more focused on the root structure behind conspiracies rather than trying to worry about the content. Please have that clear distinction when reading conspiracies of any kind.

Of course there is gonna be a content problem because the structure of geopolitics is a fog of war. We don't really know what's going on. We can just take public information, make analysis and try to make predictions from that and them improve on our previous past predictions. Jiang deserves to get fact checked but so does anybody else and I don't see very many other people posting quality geopolitical content online.

Peter Zeihan is another good source of content but he's also gotten plenty of stuff wrong. Ryan McBeth as well if you guys are more into military analysis. 

[Leo Gura]

The problem is structural because he likes to speculate, prognosticate, and spin narratives. This cannot be epistemically sound. The more he does it, the deeper into self-deception he and his students will sink.

He is not being epistemically responsible. He like to make imaginative leaps because it gets him more views than just not-knowing.

Edited 11 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Uddi]

@Leo Gura Makes sense. He then is hallucinating just like AI does because it would rather make up a narrative rather than admit that it does not know. Btw can you rank the epistemic responsibility of the following types of people? I'm curious about your rankings.

1. Physicalists

2. Rationalists

3. Naïve Materialists

4. New Atheists

5. Religious Fundamentalists

6. New Age Spiritual People

7. Politicians

8. Academics

9. Engineers

10. Post Rationalists

11. Mystics

[Uddi]

@LordFall The one thing you can assume is that corruption increases exponentially behind closed doors because history has proven that to be true countless times. It closely mirrors the second law of thermodynamics.

[Mel B]

@Uddi @Leo Gura , that structural critique on the speculation and narrative-spinning clicks. I can totally see how it could slide into self-deception just to chase more views. Still, I think Jiang’s whole core setup is worth defending, especially on that structural level.

Look, the dude lives and teaches in China. Of course he’s not gonna touch CCP hot buttons or Uyghur camps on camera, that’s not hypocrisy, that’s straight-up survival in an authoritarian system. Western academics do the exact same dance when their funding, visas, or careers are on the line. the content gap is obvious, but it doesn’t kill the root structure he’s actually teaching. nation-states as vectors and trajectories, game-theory incentives, the whole fog-of-war thing, and that Hermetic pattern-recognition lens. He’s doing predictive history, not pretending to be some neutral journalist.

And honestly, geopolitics is always gonna be 90% unknowns anyway, “exponential corruption behind the scenes”

We never get perfect info, so the real practical move is exactly what Jiang trains: sharpening your pattern recognition, making testable predictions, and learning to trust your gut intuition when the hard data runs out.
Some of his calls land (Trump stuff, escalation patterns), others miss, but that whole hypothesize-test-update loop is the epistemic responsibility, not just sitting in “I don’t know” forever while the world keeps moving.

His takes on science, quantum mechanics, and the Hermetic principles are still some of the strongest parts for me, they slice right through the dogmatic blind spots in mainstream materialism.

He’s not infallible, obviously. I treat him as solid secondary training wheels: grab the method, stress-test the predictions yourself, and you get the value without the indoctrination trap. 

[Leo Gura]

8 hours ago, Uddi said:

@Leo Gura Makes sense. He then is hallucinating just like AI does because it would rather make up a narrative rather than admit that it does not know. Btw can you rank the epistemic responsibility of the following types of people? I'm curious about your rankings.

1. Physicalists

2. Rationalists

3. Naïve Materialists

4. New Atheists

5. Religious Fundamentalists

6. New Age Spiritual People

7. Politicians

8. Academics

9. Engineers

10. Post Rationalists

11. Mystics

I don't want to generalize so broadly.