When Experts should Shut Up.
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 апр 2024
- JOIN THE PHYSIONIC INSIDERS [PREMIUM CONTENT]
Join the Physionic Insiders [Standard Tier]: bit.ly/PhysionicInsiders2
Join the Physionic Insiders [Pro Tier]: bit.ly/PhysionicInsidersPro
Standard Tier: Access to the Premium Video Library, Full Study Analyses (+ Summaries), Insider Podcast, , Research Reviews, and More
Pro Tier: All benefits of the Standard Tier + Live Sessions with Me, Consulting Lite, and More
HEALTH AUTONOMY [COURSE]
Learn to Analyze & Apply Studies for Yourself: bit.ly/healthautonomy
JOIN THE COMMUNITY
Join my Community [It’s Free!]: bit.ly/PhysionicCommunity2
EMAIL LIST
One Weekly Email of Value: bit.ly/2AXIzK6
HIRE ME FOR CONSULTING:
Consulting: bit.ly/3dmUl2H
DONATIONS FOR A SCIENCE BASED CAUSE
Patreon: bit.ly/PhysionicPatreon
OTHER SOCIAL MEDIA
Instagram: bit.ly/2OBFe7i
Created with Biorender
CoffeeZilla Video: • are podcasts making us...
*******CRITIQUES, RULES, AND NOTES*******
Be aware of the following rules before posting comments:
- Please do not post summaries of the video in the comments - it damages retention on the video and RUclips is less likely to promote it (these videos cost me a lot of money to produce).
Critiques of my work are welcome! Please be aware of the following notes & rules before submitting critique:
Be mindful that this content is not all encompassing on the subject at hand and is self-limited for brevity to reach a wider audience. Also, be aware that I receive hundreds of RUclips comments per day, so the only way your critique can be considered is if you follow the steps outlined below. Finally, RUclips auto-deletes links, so I do not see most comments with links attached.
RULES:
If your comment is rude, you will be banned.
If your comment is not about the studies/topics at hand (i.e. extending to other outcomes not discussed) or offers critique with no scientific basis, it is unlikely to receive a response.
If you can follow these rules, I will try to address your critique and if there is merit, I will add an AMENDMENT to the content in question and pin it so everyone can see it (thank you!).
Please use the following link to submit your critique: bit.ly/PhysionicCritique
Disclaimer: None of the information provided by this brand is a replacement for your physician's advice. This brand is information for the sake of knowledge and the options of choice it provides, not in any way a personalized prescription. Please consult your physician before making any health related changes.
#coffeezilla #voidzilla #health
![ian - Fit Check (Feat. VonOff1700) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/sDGWDBg45Dw/mqdefault.jpg)
A few people are under the impression I'm saying non-experts aren't allowed to have opinions - that is not the point. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but the way the opinion is framed is critical, especially when data/evidence is not forthcoming.
You make great points, and basically I do agree with the gist of what you are stating. However, there are subject areas - generally not the "hard sciences", but occasionally, where the outcome is predetermined, and the experts have walled themselves in to a narrative and line of research that is basically designed to back up the predetermined outcome. In this case, the only way to break the stagnation is to have people speak who are outside the silo created by the experts in the field. Even if people inside the silo want to step outside the narrative, they are afraid for their career vector to do so. Just my $0.02. Thanks for your excellent vids BTW.
Thank you for the video. I really appreciate your knowledge from your academic and professional background. This is beyond all that. Tbh I don't know those "life mentor" podcast much till you mentioned them. Personally, I find a lot of those "diary CEO" contents or rather titles are rather narcissistic and boring.
I think that, of any matter worth discussing, even the lowly frequenter of a coffee shop, or an uneducated taxi driver, should voice their opinions and get the attention society assigns to them. When a subject is being discussed in a society, this happens in many levels, depending on the IQ and education of the participants. In a beauty parlor, the level is not backed by evidence, rather than emotion, the same subject in the church is about some vague absolute morals, is science it's with data and research. You cannot argue all the time with data and research, this is only how a small subset of people speak (I like to include myself to that). When I hear a taxi driver that knows why bitcoin is going to the moon, I am joyfully participating to the conversation knowing that it's just to pass the time and it's more or less of zero value to science. Maybe someone else would learn something. Maybe someone would be mislead and have to enquire a bit more to get to the deeper truth. I find that quite fine.
No. You sound like the Topic Police. Not a good look.
I do agree that personal opinion should be labeled as such, making the distinction between personal and learned opinion. I discovered you only recently. Thank you for the work you do, nerdy input included.
Neil DeGrasse Tyson is like the poster boy for this
Could not agree more. Jordan bloody Peterson too
And then some............once you are considered an "expert" or "authority" then no matter what lunacy spills from your lips you must be believed without question.
NDGT is a perfect example of being entrapped by a cult of celebrity. There are 1000s more people on various social media platforms that have fallen into this trap. It seems to be a hazard of gaining the attention of a wide swath of people.
Agree. For me , his arrogance comes through vividly. He might be a great theoretical physicist, but heck what do I know, I am just a practical engineer...
@@rafaelinguti4585 😀 Amazing how theory can be sold as fact if you deliver it with enough authority and fancy letters after your name...........
Much needed area of discussion. I have a PhD in cancer bio and I distinctly remember when my mentor advised me to say “I don’t know.” Or just give disclaimers when making educated guesses with references. This skill is absent on social media. Or media influencers use data incorrectly.
Too true
I was just in a discussion with someone yesterday about the sentence, I don't know. That's where the field of science began, by saying "I don't know." It's a valid sentence, full of integrity.
Thank you. This is why I always say educate yourself and think critically. Be a student vs follower. Tribalism is also spreading in the world esp on social media. This creates another barrier to open respectful debates on anything incl science.
@@jmc8076 That's an understatement.
My #1 non-urgent goal when working with a new coworker, especially an intern or a junior, is to make sure they feel comfortable with ignorance. "I don't know" is one part of it. #2 I want them to feel comfortable with being wrong. "We all make mistakes." is part of it. When these morals are presented unconsciously in the right way it's like a vacuum has sucked all of the anxiety out of the room. They're happy and comfortable and enjoy not only me but the work as well. It's really important we have this kind of humility when doing any sort of deep work, especially work that saves lives.
But I always get my Health Advice from Entertainers and Politicians. They're Experts on Everything.
Too many people survive in brainwashing mode and can never apply critical thinking to investigate anything.
hehe 😄
😆
Well, there was that time your arm rotted off after you tried that covid treatment Trump recommended, but other than that you're in good health 😁
but isn't the author of this video doing the same thing: talk about a subject he has no expertise in and was never asked about it? I believe that indeed should be mentioned at start that the podcast is about opinions and not facts, but opinions of an experts/smart person are more likely to have substance in them because of the way they are used to filter information and voice their thoughts on a studied subject. Also smart people read a lot, are curios and often go outside of their field to get indpiration and satisfy their thirst for knowledge. A expert in a field can easily become an expert in another field because of their work ethic and mindset, not just because of their knowledge
The word "expert" has no meaning anymore. I should know, I am an expert.
I spent a great deal of my adult life as a person that was in a position that would be designated as an "expert" in a scientific discipline in a legal setting. There was a process for doing so. One thing I rapidly learned was that the idea of "expertise" was largely bullshit. To me, especially in science, an "expert" is someone that has an acute understanding of and appreciation for the limits of their (and others) knowledge. Its why I roll my eyes and instantly shut off anyone relying on their authority as an "expert" in anything, its just a sign of arrogance.
I'm finding it more and more relevant that most people including the experts should shut up! hehehe Jupiter
😂
Not you though Superman, always like your Channel ❤
Absolutely.
an "expert" is someone that has an acute understanding of and appreciation for the limits of their (and others) knowledge.
--well put. that should be on a t-shirt as a required uniform for every guest on Triggernometry, JRE etc.
this is why most people blindly believe the "experts": they think they also have to be an expert to disagree with an expert on a given topic or subject.
Unless you’ve been off planet last few years, experts even (especially?) in their field have shown to be less than optimally reliable.
Especially when they have conflicts of interest.
And having your compensation depend upon agreement with government opinions is such a conflict. One that is NEVER disclosed.
What is your suggestion? Only listen to non-experts? "Do your own research" despite the requisite knowledge for any given field requiring years and years of study thereby almost guaranteeing you'll introduce errors into your thinking?
@@broccoli7263 we could just try encouraging critical thinking and allow for challenging experts, who should then be able to support their assertions with reason and evidence (honest data not data cherry picked by bureaucrats). Not sure why you would immediately imply a false dichotomy of either blindly and unquestioning trusting "experts" or "only listen to non-experts", as if those are the only 2 solutions?
The vaccine did not kill people
@@broccoli7263 Listen to everyone, believe no one. "Do your own research" does not require any degree, especially when it comes to diet where you can just do a "case study" on yourself. If it works, it works, if it doesn't it doesn't. Individuals are not just a bunch of averages on a piece of paper.
I was involved in postgraduate medical education for many years. The then editor of the British Medical Journal, Dr Richard Smith, wrote an excellent editorial about Continuing Medical Education in which he argued that the 3 most important words in medical education are, 'I don't know', because until you accept that you don't know, you can't begin to open your mind to learn.
I love this idea of the self correcting podcast!
Yes, sounds like a lot of fun!
I've definitely noticed this as well as the (near?) opposite.
It drives crazy when I'm listening to a news segment and the ONLY people who are interviewed are _other news personnel_ and they are interviewed as if they were experts.
Drives me absolutely insane because they get so much confidently wrong
"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on."
Great discussion.
My thoughts as a lawyer: science needs an ethical code of conduct. May I humbly suggest that for talking to non-experts scientists should be required to 1. describe to the audience what your expertise is at the start of any conversation, 2. not talk about things that you are not expert in (or at least provide an industrial strength warning regarding the limits of your expertise), 3. in areas where you are an expert, give the audience a sense of the uncertainties in your field of study (i.e., steel-man some of the opposing views within your area of study and indicate that "we are still trying to work out what the real answer is here" type language), and 4. if something is on the edge of your field of study, indicate this fact and give your thoughts on this area with references and deference to other researchers who are experts in the area and don't be dogmatic about your thoughts. Science is cool because of what we don't know. Unfortunately, there is pressure to show certainty when you get into these types of environments. Scientists need this type of ethical code to basically give them an out on succumbing to that pressure.
I love this. This is a great way to set the context.
"Scientists need this type of ethical code to basically give them an out on succumbing to that pressure." - I have a deep disdain for your framing here, in that you are basically referring to scientists like children, who require some sort of guide to navigating conversations. Scientists are adults and even further they are free individuals. As such, they can navigate conversations like an adult can. On their own.
The audience also happens to be mainly adults, and they can parse information for themselves. Even a teenager has the basic reasoning capability that you are alluding to in your concern-post. People don't need some lawyer telling them what they can/should say or listen to. If you do, then stop projecting your own shortcomings onto others. This was a very dollar store lawyer "expert" opinion you gave.
@@NotMyFault2 " I have a deep disdain for your framing here" That's quite an emotional reaction to a suggestion about whether or not scientists need a professional ethics code. You might want to think about what that says about you.
Have you ever taken a class on professional ethics? At least in the legal context (and I'm sure it also applies to other professions), one of the first things you are told is that the ethical rules are not only to protect your clients, but often, and perhaps more importantly, to protect you from your clients. This is hardly a new topic or concept and I would suggest that your seemingly libertarian concern should probably extend to all professional ethics codes. Would you also suggest that doctor's not be required to disclose risks to patients because they are adults and could go on the internet and find out the information themselves?
A few other minor points.
Firstly, the only professional ethics codes that are enforced by lawyers are those that are for lawyers. Outside of a lawsuit, psychologists self police psychologists and accountants self police accountants. , Secondly, this "dollar store lawyer" graduated in the top 10% of his class from the third ranked law school in the US at the time and, when I was practicing, my billable rates were several orders of magnitude higher than a dollar/hour, but thanks for asking.
@@HD46409 Fantastic dismal that you have deployed here. Simply hand-waving my response as "emotional". That way, you can appeal to logos, while simultaneously appearing like anything that you originally said was mature in any way. The bottom-line is that you are crying about what individuals have to say. No amount of obfuscating will cover that up - professional, expert, or otherwise.
My response to your nonsense about protection, is who exactly needs protection in the context of individuals, claiming to be experts, speaking their experiences, thoughts, and opinions? The only person that I can think of here is the expert in question themselves. To which my response is no, there is no protection required here, because they can simply choose to not speak, if they don't want to. No one is forcing them to speak.
You're analogy to the doctor/patient conversation is absolutely absurd. When purported experts on a given subject go on a podcast, they are not creating a doctor-patient agreement to take care of someone else's health, nor are they giving out individualized advice for audience members in a healthcare like setting. The very nature of the conversation is completely different. If someone what the speaker says that way, then that is on the person who perceived the information that way. Not the speaker.
Also, I would just like to point out the hidden assumption here that you made, which is that the advice/speech that an expert is giving is so dangerous that it requires an ethics code of some sort. This is, again, patently absurd. No one is going to die from hearing bad information. No one is going to suffer life-altering consequences from hearing bad information.
Lastly, regarding your pay rate. Just because you are paid well above the level of intellect you have displayed here does not then indicate that you have not given a terrible opinion here. There are several lawyers in the US, who's opinion/advice is not worth what they are charging. Graduating in the top of your class is not the own you think it is. This is like bragging about getting straight A's on your report card, as if it solidifies that you are smart. It doesn't.
We all hope for the ethics to be there, so in spirit we would all agree. The problem is, everyone says they are ethical.
We can all think of examples in recent history of scientists falsifying their own studies and selling their work for many millions of dollars. Some are in prison now for doing just that.
This is the kind of thing you have to wait and see for yourself, sometimes much later.
Oh damn! I was not expecting a Physionic and Voidzilla crossover episode! I really like when experts get to the edges of their expertise. There is lots of room for great discussion, but sometimes they will go well outside their expertise without qualification. The good ones will qualify any statements they make, and reference what they do know about it about other experts or known studies.
Community notes on X is a good example of dealing with this issue.
What is that?
@@Physionicbasically you can "reply" to a tweet with some additional info/clarification and then it gets sorta of vetted by the community as "giving important context", etc. For example someone might post a video that implies something and then someone says that the video is 12 years old and it was staged.
I love the self correcting podcast idea. Wow. Please keep it up. Thank you.🙏
One things that I find EXTREMELY frustrating is that many RUclips that I might find interesting don't give their credentials in the About section. If one wishes to speak with authority on a subject, then one should give the potential audience the credentials that gives them that authority. For instance, people that rely on their title of "Dr.", but turn out to be chiropractors, burying that info in some off platform website. My personal preference is to not listen to chiropractors on any subject. ,
Well you could also cite your sources. You don't have to have a PHD in something to be well informed about it. You just need to cite sources.
@@adrianaslund8605 What on earth would need a citation in the above comment? I apologize if you feel that I attacked you personally.
I generally agree about chiropractors. But Peter Attila had a chiropractor on his podcast who appeared to be quite knowledgeable about foot issues. I'm in no position to be sure of her expertise. But I'm willing to believe that there may be some exceptions amongst the chiropractors.
@@4124V4TA-SNPCA-x Nailed it!
I've noticed this too. I used to enjoy diary of a ceo but then I noticed he started to focus more on sensationalism and going viral rather than providing real value
Same... Some of his podcasts were genuinely interesting and informative, but then they veered off into other topics that didn't seem relevant to the guest speaker's expertise. I stopped watching once I noticed that he had started bringing on grifters and snake oil salesmen to drive clicks and views... Pretty disappointed in Steven Bartlett, to be honest. With such a large audience comes great responsibility, but he doesn't seem to really care about consistent quality. He mostly just seems too care about consistent growth of his channel.
@@sundiataq the most confusing thing for me is how claims to be a CEO business owner but he seems to spend so much time on the podcast.
I trusted him more when the podcast was a side project. Now it's clear that the podcast is made with the sole effort of making a bunch of money
I've stopped listening to Diary of a Ceo because the signal to noise ratio is far too low.
The problem with this sort of credentialism is that it is often used to shut down opinions that are unpopular with "the powers that be", and in fact this type of thinking has been marshaled in the last few years to support general practices that are profoundly detrimental to society (widespread censorship campaigns for example). It's also a problem because often those most credentialed are also the most susceptible to being captured by, say, field-wide economic incentives--and so there is a social good in being able to hear from "non-experts" who are free to call out the whole field for its excesses or quackery.
And lastly I'll add, while many experts really are such myopic hyper-specialized bores that they haven't studied any other topics than those about which they publish, there is a minority of genuinely well-rounded polymaths who study many topics in-depth, even if they may only have a PhD in one of them (or perhaps none!). In my experience the people whose focus has been more methodological in nature are pretty good at taking the analytical methods they know and applying them to many disparate topics; some of these applications are more appropriate than others, but very rarely is the entire exercise valueless or somehow "dangerous" to be discussed on a podcast.
In general I think it's time for us to stop underestimating the intelligence of the public. Being a layperson doesn't make you some helpless rube, totally incapable of critically evaluating information and synthesizing it from many sources. The impulse to somehow "protect" the delicate minds of common people from ideas we don't agree with is more than unnecessary and hubristic, it's actually very dangerous.
0:52 Andrew Huberman comes to mind.
Money money money
But Huberman has a critical mind, analyses research and further clarifies his own doubts with experts on the field before delivering information. That's quite different from what's being talked about here. Even when he's not an expert, he might be the next best thing closest to it, which is way different from self-proclaimed experts and charlatans.
@@user-ii7xc1ry3x He frequently talks about things he has no expertise in, like nutrition, without citing a source, therefore relying on his audience's trust in him instead of actually producing data to back up his claims.
@@user-ii7xc1ry3xhe also talks with great confidence on things he has no business discussing at all. Whilst I think his intentions are good, and his info is definitely a net positive to the world, he also could benefit greatly from reigning it in at times when he’s clearly speaking out of turn.
That man is the worst. I watched the first two of his podcasts and realized the man is a grifting weirdo. I've been vindicated on the weirdo part, and I can't wait until it becomes obvious to everyone that he's grifting. I find it sad and fascinating how many people have tried to adopt his daily routines based on flimsy science.
There’s also a (admittedly less important) subcategory of expert that I come across. The expert who has not kept up with his field for various reasons but still presumes to be an expert. I’ve seen this most often with retired scientists and doctors but also with people who have changed careers. They sometimes (often?) express “expert” opinion that is no longer valid.
Diary of a CEO has so many quacks on! Great take, much needed video.
He is like Will Smith pretending to be a Brit
@@MrDjhealth I love the dude, I just don't like 70% of his guests
Best teacher I ever had was my anatomy and physiology teacher in nursing school. Extremely knowledgeable and a very engaging teacher. One time I asked him a question (don't remember what, some out of left field random one) he didn't know the answer to. He straight up told me "I don't know but I'll let you know tomorrow". And he did follow up on that the next day with a good answer.
Experts become experts because they don't know something, research it and once they learn it, move on to the next thing they don't know. You have to remain humble to be considered an expert in any field.
The viewer shouldn't ask 'which expert can I trust?' or 'can I trust an expert with an opinion outside his field of expertise?' - it should always be 'does this person make sense?' after putting their claims through their own BS detector - after all, experts disagree often - ask a vegan doctor what he thinks about a carnivore doctor - they both exist. Experts are useful but should not be raised to level of infallible gurus.
Eric did say he was guessing and he might have expertise in dating in earlier times which he could give a perspective of.
Exactly, he is one of the few that hedge their words and offer caveats for the things they say. Even so, I think that people have the right to express opinions for what they are worth. If society/market values their opinions a lot, so be it. Who are we to say "stop speaking it's not your area of expertise" - especially when they have explicitly said that they are not an expert.
@@ctsirkass It is really helpful to know the level of knowledge. I heard today someone say about some unamed experts that their feeling was that there was a causal effect of some drug on male adolesents, but nothing was offered as far as what that second hand feeling was based on. So, being critical I'm intrigued, but I'm not going to say to my godson, don't do that thing because of some thirdhand information from someone who knows something about a similar topic.
@@ReadingDave When an expert tells me how they "feel" about some topic I roll my eyes. I want their intellectual evaluation, not their emotional one.
Now I understand that this may be nit-picky and that people use "feel" in the place of though to express opinion. But at the very least I see it as a sign of sloppiness in expression and hence makes me question their thinking.
@@wturber That is a fair expectation if the talk is suppose to be all technical and proven. How would you like them to pose hypotheses? Or would you rather not hear what they are investigating next nor of their process?
@@ReadingDave Not at all. I don't want to know what someone feels about a hypothesis. I want to know what they think. When they use those two works to mean the same thing it seems sloppy to me. That's a red flag for me. Not a fatal flaw. Just a red flag.
Thank you Nick!
I also love your style, and that music at the end of this was so perfect 😊
Glad to see you discussed this necessary topic.
love this vid... especially the last bit about who to listen to. Thank you.
I think people are interested in the thoughts of people they consider smart. The viewer has to decide
Wow! Really great. I always love your content. Thank you.
Excellent video!
Love, love, love the two phase podcast idea you suggested. For what it’s worth, your interview with me might make a great candidate given I had sent along my studies being referenced (although I think that was by memory before it had aired, so there might be some I still need to send). As you already know, I’m not only open to being checked against my hypotheses, but I actively encourage it from strong researchers like yourself (provided it gets a fair shake, of course).
Haha, I think we'd have to finish our discussion first considering we only got halfway through :) I appreciate the feedback, Dave. I'm hoping to dedicate more time to this once my PhD is over.
@@Physionic I agree and would love to! Let’s connect again shortly. I’ll be sure not to have a time limit next time… (we might end up geeking out 2x as long lol)
It happens all the time, but it has always happened. Journalists are a perfect example. They have always been used on TV programmes as experts on a subject xyz
Should you avoid stepping on the landmine you are warning others to stay away from? "Otherwise the listener is highly prone to believe..." Are you an expert in audience credulity?
If I read hundreds of comments under interviews of quacks that I know are quacks, because they're talking in my field and I've read the research, it seems reasonable for me to deduce many people are highly prone to believing quacks. So, yes, I am able to make that statement within my field. :)
Well said. When someone heads down the “Expert” track there’s both the need to continually self promote as well as often the “Ego effect” of starting to believe your limited expertise extends to other topics…when it doesn’t.
You've convinced me to subscribe. I love your podcast idea.
Sounds great. Yes, please. Do some before-and-after self-correcting interviews. ❤
Like David Sinclair
The con man LOL
That was a tough pill for me to swallow. I believed him for a long time.
@@Syntaxstic I think I believed him for a minute but never bought anything he pushes like resveratrole
@@user-es1hk6ok5w But a credentialed and cited "expert." The problem, IMO, is so-called experts misinforming more than it is people wandering "from their lane". The typical layperson can see someone wandering from their lane very easily and can tag what they say as non-expert fairly easily. With credentialed experts, it is a lot harder.
Also, the science is never "settled". I hear experts who claim to be "the Science" and who are later shown to be wrong. We are always learning and evolving. So one should say, "The data we have at this point seems to indicate...." The other issue we have is that many studies, as you often point out, were poorly done or were clearly biased in favor of a desired outcome.
I think this is just another manifestation of what he's saying. Some experts are WAY too sure of themselves even when talking about things that are somewhat close to their field study, but actually they don't even know much about it. They're also willing to set public health policy on things that they're not really that sure about. Everyone needs a bit more humble pie.
@@nichtsistkostenlos6565 Exactly. 👍🏻
You are absolutely correct.
Thanks! I enjoy your current format, but also like your suggestion to a Part 1 (interview) with a followup, Part 2 (the data). I think that would be very useful in solidifying your findings. Anyhow, I actually don't mind your 5 hour, 'self chats', either, but that might just be me! Keep being you!
This is super cool man. Because I'm an interviewer. And I really never asked to be an interviewer but it just kind of fell in my lap and I'm running with it now for 4 years straight. I tried to explore my interviewee and I can only hope that they speak clearly within their Lane. And I think it's my responsibility to clarify when possible whether they are an expert or what they are an expert in. I try to focus on what they appear to know a lot about and that usually stems out of the conversation so I'm depending on them to take me there and I do what I can to guide them. You have me thinking about it a little more is good because future interviews are going to be even more important. I want to really set the premise strong with what lane they're in.
An expert is one who knows more and more about less and less until he knows absolutely everything about nothing.”
― Nicholas Butler
James knew a lot about rocks. He was asked about rocks and gave a lot of answers. Then he was asked about trees, turns out he knew a lot about trees too! But everyone said what he had to say about trees was incorrect because he knows about rocks.
I have learnt to search and listen to specialists that present facts backed by studies and meta analyses.
I learnt a lot of your seminars that are related to my health conditions, like type 2 diabetes , high cholesterol, and high blood pressure.
Thank you again for your shared knowledge.
Thomas Sowell wrote about this topic in 2010 in his book, Intellectuals & Society. I recommend his interview with the Hoover Institute.
The lack of self-awareness in this one is incredible.
Great info and 100% agreed. That is the main reason I tend to only follow You Tube Videos put out by you, Dr Gil Carvalho, and Layne Norton
Given that I watched this all the way through to the end, you must be doing something right ! Although I must say that I am already convinced that your content is well worth it. 😊
Great idea for the podcast. Definitely something I like to listen to. I hope it is doable for you time wise - not having a big team behind you like so many others.
The great podcasters you mentioned are all people I listen too and passed my humble fact checking. (many failed😅).I‘m not as skilled in study interpretation though as you are. I miss details or just lack some knowledge.
Great subject to discuss. I recently watched a certain health influencer (we'll call him Thomas) interview the daughter of a (in)famous Canadian psychologist talk about Carnivore/Lion diet. What was interesting to me is that the interviewer kept baiting her to make bold comments and she kept on pushing back and saying, 'this just works for me, I'm N=1, I can't tell you it will work for everyone.' Good for her, bad for the interviewer.
This topic bothers me for long time and finally you confirm my observation on this mater! Thank you sir!
I was having this thought too about self-correcting discussions as a whole. As long as both parties agree to have a conversation where they both check with available scientific data where one of the parties thinks the other is wrong in its statement that is awesome. It's like what we have in software development. You can't write software without double-checking some things and especially when we are on a call we would constantly check how something is done before implementing something and then testing it even but I doubt you have to be that precise as long as the data is there.
@Physionic Nic, first of all, I thank you for all the knowledge you have shared on your podcasts. It has had a direct beneficial effect on my health!
Second, I think you have a great idea here. The great challenge of the internet is knowing what various opinions are based upon. You have a great format for showing what yours are based upon, and this could be a further extension.
I’d love to see how it works out. If it, or some modified version of it, catches on, it might set a new type of standard for other people and other topics of discussion as well. What a great improvement that would be!
I always look forward to your analytical views
your efforts are much appreciated
I appreciate your expert opinion on this topic ❤
A few afterthoughts:
Oftentimes experts in certain fields become entrapped in their own world of accumulated knowledge and experience. Sometimes the greatest breakthroughs originate from outside their fields precisely because someone looks at an issue from a fresh unhindered mind where the accumulated biases and entrapment of what is 'known' are bypassed.
Corruption, careerism / career protection and intellectual inbreeding in academia can sometime become rampant where theories are politicized and turned into facts and presented to the world as such...with deleterious consequences for society. Expert are believed because they've been able baffle with very well learned and researched bullshit that can bowl over very large institutions. The soft sciences (social sciences( are particularly vulnerable to this dynamic. 'Critical Theories' promoting 'Critical Social Justice' is one prevalent example.
Another example is in the field of mental health where changes in brain chemistry are widely touted as major causes of mental illness when in fact there is virtually no evidence that couldn't just as easily be explained as mental illness causing changes in brain chemistry.
Some fields, such as economics are also very prone to biases where ivory tower thinking becomes quite divorced from the real world that most people live in.
Agreed that people from outside a field can make great contributions. I don’t think people shouldn’t have opinions and introduce new ideas, but they still have to justify those ideas with data, not just float ideas and not qualify those ideas.
I feel like some experts don't want to bound to their area of expertise, because making a bold claim outside of it can bring you more audience and "expand" your percieved area of expertise, thus making you some kind of guru, especially when appearing on a famous podcast. I'd say, it's a cheat shortcut to being more recognisable, while building your image/personal brand.
It's classic "circular economy" Attia will have some exercise expert on his show who will explain to him all about some exercise program. Wait a while and Attia is the expert explaining it to someone like Huberman, who subsequently pops up on a third podcast as the expert - and round and around it goes
appeal to authority a very very common logical fallacy especially in advertising.
I call it the peripheral knowledge fallacy. They think their expertise area is actually larger than the real zone where they are experts. It probably has a real name...
People are inundated with freely available opinions and viewpoints that we've become exhausted and apathetic.
I stick with you because you have such a respect for the truth, although it is rarely straight forward. You do not trash talk which is so important. I’m grateful for you and can’t thank you enough.
As someone born in 1961, I find the crusade to protect the truth quite curious. One phrase I heard regularly while growing up was "Don't believe anything you hear, and only half what you read [or see]." With the addition of a law degree, my internal bullshitometer has become exquisitely sensitive. Its little red light will start to flicker when there are only a couple parts per million of the magical substance in the air. I am utterly capable of distinguishing assertions of fact from the proffering of opinion. Moreover, I subject the former to intense analysis, and this includes supporting evidence. Now, you don't need a law degree to become a discriminating consumer of the stuff that falls out of people's mouths. When I was in high school (long before the host of this channel was born), they offered courses in rhetoric, an academic discipline that teaches you how to analyze arguments, to include the contexts in which these arguments appear. I believe the subject has largely fallen out of favor (proffering an opinion here) because schools in general are no longer interested in creating discriminating consumers of information. Sad but seemingly true, especially considering that rhetoric would do even STEM types good.
Oh, years ago, there was also a little saying about opinions that made an analogy to a certain anatomical structure.
Yes. There are certain styles of presentation that set off my "Spidey senses." When they go off, they are very often proved correct. But the problem is that they don't always trigger. So people's BS is quite clever and well constructed. I can, unfortunately, be fooled. I watch magic acts routinely to remind myself of how easy it is to for me to be fooled.
Completely agree, even outside of the podcast world, people should be much more cognizant of qualifying what they're saying with their actual level of understanding. I fail at this myself from time to time, but do try in my own conversations to clearly indicate how sure I am of things and I try to challenge my own assumptions especially when I'm sharing information with others. Also, as the title indicates, if I don't actually know very much about something, I just won't talk about it, or when asked I'll say "I'm not really sure" or "I really don't know much about this", which is something that people seem allergic to doing these days.
Go for it! 👍
'Absolutely, positively"
It's like Silicon Valley and the Internet has never heard of the Hawthorn Effect. Add in Observer Bias and here we are still missing the impact of these perceptual dynamics on modern reality.
To be fair people do develop a reputation when they do this, like Neil deGrasse Tyson is known for speaking with authority on things he doesn't know much about for years and being very wrong and there are blogs going back at least 7 years correcting him.
Yep. There's value in public discourse uncovering the failures.
It sounds like a perfect podcast idea i would love to see.
There’s another problem with experts. Someone can be a true expert and have an interpretation of their subject that’s not representative, yet present that interpretation as unqualified truth. An example of this is Sabine Hossenfelder, who has perfectly valid views, but should repeatedly make it clear that there are valid disagreements.
Totally agree in most cases. It also happens when channels run out of content in their field of expertise. AthleanX used to be a great fitness channel but they ran out of content so brought in an assistant and began contracting themselves from video to video, turning informative resistance training advice into boring “entertainment”. On Monday he says stretching too much is killing your gains and on Tuesday he says you’re not stretching enough and that’s killing your gains.
You are spot-on on your observations.
The problem with the claims of non-experts is the classic ego and psychology problem.
You see, these guys have a reputation and they show up on many podcasts and in time they naturally trap themselves in a situation that they HAVE to say something sensational, different, antithetical on almost every question they have been asked.
You see, these guys have a REPUTATION and they have to defend it at all times. It's clearly an EGO problem.
Take this simple example: When a interviewer is asked a question about the health effects of Gluten on the body: They say that "Oh you should NEVER consume Gluten at all times!"
However this is clearly an exaggerated response while they should have said... "There is nothing to worry about as long as you consume wheat at reasonable amounts and if you are not a person with CELIAC disease"
Why don't they say this obvious line ?
Well I mentioned before: They have an EGO problem because they have been on the internet for many years and they have a REPUTATION to defend and son on and so forth.
Let's also not forget the sad part of what those "experts" suggest is they also tend to first believe their claims THEMSELVES because of their ego problem. They first deceive themselves by doing so.... and then as you also mentioned in your video, Physionic, they also poison-deceive other people who watch their video as well...
I also agree on reliable people you mentioned in this video especially: Your channel and Gil Carvalho's youtube channel is a real gem.
Didn't watch on other people you mentioned but I clearly will.
Thanks.
Something happens in courtrooms and in politics
This issue is endemic among the intelligentsia. By that I mean people with a doctoral degree. Nearly every person I have ever met with a doctoral degree believes that they are expert on almost every topic.
Great video but there is a giant spider on your wall, get out now!
😂
I had to go back and look at other videos, it's there in all of them 😂
Can you do an episode looking at all the evidence about vaping and it's health effects? Important to note: assume a "clean" vape juice, no bad extra chemicals from low quality/foreign vape juices, just assume a very basic "relatively" safe vape liquid, vegetable glycerine, ppg, nicotine, and a "relatively" safe (gras) flavoring.
You are totally correct 👏👏👏
"I don't know." My second favorite, complete sentence. The first is, "No."
Right on!
So flattering to hear that I'm an expert too! 🤓
😁😁👍
The level of discernment in the general population is sad to see.
People were largely conditioned to not question the "experts" by the very institutions that should have encouraged them to think critically. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy that most people default to.
@@reggie7716: Assuming expertise doesn't exist or doesn't matter and is FAR worse, re "The Death of Expertise". Another issue magnified by the internet.
(Science denial is objectively just nonsense, when it's fact free babble. Not that flat-earthers, anti-vaxxers, young-earth creationists, and self claimed "experts" of MANY types would be willing to admit that very often. And especially the huge cottage industry of reality denial for a political agenda.)
@@reggie7716 I disagree partially with that insofar as, for appeal to authority to even be meaningful as a fallacy, it presupposes a clear identification of who or what an authority is. I know people personally for whom anyone that is posting on social media and who makes them feel strongly--that they have an emotive reaction to and identify with, that social media personality is suddenly a credible source to be heeded. If credibility and authority have that low of a bar, then instead of a fallacy of appealing to an authority, per se, the real function is closer to everyone's inclinations and emotions being their own authority. That used to just be described as "uneducated."
Sad yes. But understandable. What's harder to understand is the crap that passes peer review.
people were saying that in Ancient Greece. probably in caveman times as well...
The amount of "experts" in health/fitness/nutrition is just sad. I know we've always had some bad actors in this industry, but for at least the last decade and a half if not more, we've seen the internet cause the number of "expert-backed fads" to skyrocket.
We need a high well-enforced standards.
What do you mean by "well enforced."
6:45 Absolutely agreed!
Transparency is key:
*Did you invite the expert to have him actually talk about their area of expertise?*
Good, that's what most people expect from a podcast about a certain topic.
*Did you just invite them to talk about something else, **_or_** tend to switch topics?*
Then avoid creating the false impression that they know anything more about that topic than the next guy _once_ they leave their area of expertise.
Of course, we should also encourage the viewer to be more critical of the content they are watching. But this is about responsibility when spreading information in the information age, especially when you have a big audience.
The insidiousness of pseudo-experts is even larger, so hearing the word "expert" should make anyone listening wary in general.
I like what you do and the way you do it. I'm not adverse to making changes, but also not excited about it either. It might help clarify some muddy waters... maybe.🧐
I'm not a paid subscriber yet. As this period Vis a bit tough. But I follow your work with avid interest and admire your way of thinking. Your idea as brilliant and very timely. I look forward to seeing it in development.
Thanks, Nick - I appreciate you.
I really love the self correcting podcast idea. I additionally truly enjoy your content as it is now. 👍
100% agree, studying medicine doesn't mean they have authority to educate anyone in history and vice-versa
some of the weight is on the listener too but primarily in the expert or pseudo-expert saying whatever
I’m fine with “Take this with a grain of salt.” But yes, at least DO that when you know people have put an aura of expertise on you.
Andy Galpin does an awesome job of this. Anything i've ever heard from him where its not his wheelhouse hes very clear about it.
The problem is that internet fame now carries over across domains and platforms, and allows distribution of media too easily. Before the internet, Eric Weinstein would only be known in hedge fund/math/physics spheres and would be able to enjoy respect/reputability/notoriety when in contact with others in those fields. Now he's a media personality/famous speaker/influencer that just so happens to have an expertise in certain fields. His credentials when he's having a 'candid, authentic, genuine (shoot the shit) conversation' on a podcasts are just there for clickbait and context. They are there to boost the credibility and weight of Eric's opinions. The title of his podcast interview might as well be 'Eric the really smart guy tells you his opinions on the current state of things using his giant brain to piece things together'.
Back when we only had TV, talk shows would be thematic, and would bring in a guest to talk about his field. Talking about his personal life and opinions on random topics would never be a thing.
Since there's no gatekeepers and since humans are always gonna crave that human connection and a personal touch, there can now exist a show where Eric and some mouthbreather talk about why they take cold showers in the morning.
I think you just have to accept that humans will always gonna be influenced by status and charisma and they're always gonna consume that kind of semi informational/semi entertainment content in large amounts, just like they'll always eat pizza even though it's not that nutritious.
Personally I've long given up on having any kind of influence on what larger masses of people do and I'm now just focusing on people who are the closest to me.
This type of thing happens in regular conversations too. Everyone thinks they are an expert at everything! And just look at conversations with celebrities. We often give them way too much credit for their political thoughts, or just on what to eat. We, as the listener, must learn to discern the good from the bad, and yes, even with podcast interviews.
It shouldn't be that difficult for an interviewee to distinguish between personal and professional opinions but many just don't.
Interesting ideas. I think the big problem in most areas of human understanding is that there is less science available than the world demands. It's always amusing to watch a rigorous podcast that describes the limits of the known only to find the next video in the youtube list to be from someone confidently proclaiming an answer. That this happens with topics of great importance (economics, climate change, the role of the individual vs. society, etc.), in fact topics that we must have discussions about, is unfortunate, but the world requires decisions, even in the absence of facts.
They are also rarely interested in learning, or questioning their beliefs, or even their data. Very little reflection or simple curiosity.
It can be interesting to hear the thoughts/opinions of seemingly successful/intelligent people on topics outside of their "expertise" area as long as the guest and host repeatedly preface their discussion with "hey you (or I) are not an expert in this area of my (your) question" to inform the listener/viewer. Also, I agree that some people just rapidly spit out stuff that sounds great, but is impossible to fact check (or even understand) in real time is a real problem. Some people I know equate the ability to rapidly spew out impressively sounding stuff with intelligence - that's very unfortunate.
The solution is just don't take anything at face value even if it's an expert saying it.
Frankly, it depends on the purpose of the interview or podcast. Some podcasts are simply attempting to platform specific experts while also having relaxed conversations that will invariably devolve into personal opinions and hot takes.
Realistically, the problem is more with the audience itself and the lack of critical thinking skills in our society as a whole. The first questions anyone should ask when presented with information (even from an expert) are: Is this person in a position to know this? And how did this person come into position of this information or arrive at this opinion? These questions help differentiate between received opinions and information based on data gathering, research, and reliable, independently verifiable sources.
Well, I agree with you that Peter, Atia and Lane Norton agree on 90% of what they share, I also believe they’re very closed minded when it comes to areas of nutrition regarding cardiovascular disease, LDL, and calories. I’ve got to check out the third person, since I’ve not come across that name before