4 ms·

As a rule of thumb, any popsci book hyped up by techbro/Joe Rogan/Lex Friedman/etc. types is going to be riddled with factual errors and "creative" interpretati

As a rule of thumb, any popsci book hyped up by techbro/Joe Rogan/Lex Friedman/etc. types is going to be riddled with factual errors and "creative" interpretations, especially if it's about longevity, nutrition, health, etc.

have_faith 4y ago
What does Lex have to do with the book?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- reducesuffering 4y ago
  The book's author was on Lex's podcast.
  - have_faith 4y ago
    Did Lex hype it up?
k__ 4y ago
Isn't Friedman the counterexample to Rogan?
- sooheon 4y ago
  He's the tuxedo winnie the pooh meme version of Rogan.
- fortuna86 4y ago
  No he's the same right wing perspective, just with less jokes.
  - __blockcipher__ 4y ago
    Neither Rogan nor Fridman are really "right wing", but of the two Fridman is certainly not. We're talking about a guy who spearheaded the "masks 4 all" push back at the beginning of COVID. If we're assigning arbitrary labels that definitely falls on the left half of the spectrum.
    - fortuna86 4y ago
      Ok, i'll be specific. Both are hopefully naive about the dangers of lending their platforms to extremists, and have egos large enough to believe that they can confront and debunk false information faster than it can spread via their discussions (they can't). And for every border line irresponsible "left wing" guest they have, they have 10 "right wing" ones. Ye, Glenn Greenwald, Alex Berenson, Bari, Taibbi, etc. etc. Perhaps right wing isn't the right label for this new emerging ideology. It seems to be a mix of cynical grifting (ironic given Taibbi's last book) and the politics of grievance and rejection by elites (therefore war must be raged against them) mixed with culture war BS (these days mostly anti-trans rhetoric). This cocktail of mystery seems to mostly live on the right of the political spectrum. But when you dig a little deeper, most of these individuals were always right wing, they just played along with left wing dogma to be able to succeed in their media roles. Not unlike Trump, knowing that if he wanted to succeed in Hollywood and Manhattan real estate he'd have to vote democrat visibly. But that was never who he was. > We're talking about a guy who spearheaded the "masks 4 all" push back at the beginning of COVID. Also, what is left wing about the idea that masks help prevent the spread of respiratory viruses? I also thought that fell into the category of basic science literacy.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
- tpush 4y ago
  No, absolutely not. Both are willing to host absolute nutjobs and grifters if it brings eyeballs/money to their podcast.
ryanklee 4y ago
I'm so sick of this cohort. They are obvious smugglers of bunk and loose thinking by bad actors. Sincerity is a paper thin cover and it's starting to rain.
- actinium226 4y ago
  And so your reply is ad hominem attacks?
  - ryanklee 4y ago
    Not really sure how you see me arguing anything whatsoever. My only statement is how I'm displeased with a group of podcaster personalities. That's not an ad hominem, that's me saying Lex F and Joe Rogan are features of an unhealthy media landscape. I generally go out of my way to say this whenever given the chance, especially in contexts where this is unlikely to be the majority opinion.
    - actinium226 4y ago
      You call them "smugglers" accuse them of "loose thinking" and attack their sincerity. I'm sick of cynical folks who don't understand that Lex, Joe, etc. are putting themselves out there and are willing to be wrong, but sincerely and genuinely believe that it's better to move the conversation forward than to sit idly by. Their sincerity is not paper thin, in fact it's thicc af. Youngin language aside, there's so much cynicism and echo chambers out there and these people are actually trying to fight that. It's commendable what they do.
      - ryanklee 4y ago
        I understand. But they are naive, misguided, conflicted, and stuffed with money. There is no evidence that giving platforms to hucksters, Nazis, racists, or conspiracy theorists moves any conversation forward in any helpful manner. But there's lots of evidence that giving lies more airtime gives those lies more teeth and those teeth more flesh to chew on. These idiots are eroding the populace's ability to reject malicious actors right out. Which is what we should be doing. There is no need to rehash the fact that hating Jews is a bad thing. Lex should apologize and take a course in media literacy.
pastor_bob 4y ago
talm'bout leggs fridman bappa? Smartest guy I ever met
- lexandstuff 4y ago
  Thank 'em.
xyzzyz 4y ago
Good thing then that Why We Sleep was hyped by always reliable and accurate New York Times, so we know we can trust it: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/10/books/review/snooze-michael-mcgirr-sleep-dreams.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/10/books/review/snooze-micha... I mean, this Mathew Walker guy has been thoroughly vetted for accuracy by the diligent fact checkers from places known for integrity, like CNN https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/videos/tv/2020/10/15/matthew-walker-sleep-immune-covid.cnn https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/videos/tv/2020/10/15/matthew-walker-... or NPR https://www.npr.org/2017/10/16/558152847/why-we-sleep https://www.npr.org/2017/10/16/558152847/why-we-sleep More seriously, though, of course it’s true that smart and confident sounding people are going to dupe Joe Rogan. He doesn’t even pretend to be any sort of intellectual or rational truth-seeker. It is more concerning that such lousy kind of “expertise” as exhibited by Dr. Matthew Walker is more than good enough to dupe mainstream media organizations as well, but to anyone paying attention, this should not come as any sort of surprise: public trust in experts has been in free fall for more than a decade, and really accelerated in last 3 years. The thing you should ponder about, which you won’t, is that your first instinct here is to slander your ideological opponents, using slurs like “tech bros”.
- horns4lyfe 4y ago
  Why is surprising that those organizations were duped though? Are people laboring under the assumption that reporters are smarter than everyone else? Because that’s definitely a mistake.
trts 4y ago
I think I've seen this guy appear on at least a half dozen shows and podcasts including Lex, Tim Ferris, Sam Harris, Fresh Air, TED Radio, Hidden Brain... seems like 5 years or so ago he was everywhere. This site lists 67 appearances: https://www.owltail.com/people/Uw4Ky-matthew-walker/appearances https://www.owltail.com/people/Uw4Ky-matthew-walker/appearan... In general the media has very low science literacy and loves someone credentialed, self-assured, and with an erudite accent and story to tell that can easily fill airtime. Acknowledging that junk science has managed to platform itself on some of the podcasts you mentioned, for myself I'd say that the long-form format at least allows for a greater possibility that the b.s. will out itself over 1.5-2 hours, versus a show like TED Radio Hour that is happy to bundle up a few nice sounding stories into something they can slip a Blackrock ad into.
monksy 4y ago
I was going to say the same thing. I hate to argue against the interviewer (anyone should be able to get out there and create content), but at some point you have to question how much research are they doing and the desire to get on there to promote.
throwaway_75369 4y ago
Hmm - I'm not sure if it supports or opposes your point, but Walker was also supported and interviewed by Andrew Huberman. https://hubermanlab.com/dr-matthew-walker-the-science-and-practice-of-perfecting-your-sleep/ https://hubermanlab.com/dr-matthew-walker-the-science-and-pr... Huberman has always been kind of interesting to me; his list of topics immediately makes him look like a bro-science peddler, but the guy kicks off all of his podcasts by talking about how he's a Stanford Neuroscience professor, and he reads all the journals himself - not exactly daring someone to oppose him, but you have to admit he's willing to risk some really high credentials by putting himself out there like that. Of course, like nearly everyone else, I don't go read the studies myself and go hunting for math mistakes and misrepresentation, so it's still all a big appeal to authority.

have_faith 4y ago

What does Lex have to do with the book?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
reducesuffering 4y ago
The book's author was on Lex's podcast.
- have_faith 4y ago
  Did Lex hype it up?

k__ 4y ago

Isn't Friedman the counterexample to Rogan?

sooheon 4y ago
He's the tuxedo winnie the pooh meme version of Rogan.
fortuna86 4y ago
No he's the same right wing perspective, just with less jokes.
- __blockcipher__ 4y ago
  Neither Rogan nor Fridman are really "right wing", but of the two Fridman is certainly not. We're talking about a guy who spearheaded the "masks 4 all" push back at the beginning of COVID. If we're assigning arbitrary labels that definitely falls on the left half of the spectrum.
  - fortuna86 4y ago
    Ok, i'll be specific. Both are hopefully naive about the dangers of lending their platforms to extremists, and have egos large enough to believe that they can confront and debunk false information faster than it can spread via their discussions (they can't). And for every border line irresponsible "left wing" guest they have, they have 10 "right wing" ones. Ye, Glenn Greenwald, Alex Berenson, Bari, Taibbi, etc. etc. Perhaps right wing isn't the right label for this new emerging ideology. It seems to be a mix of cynical grifting (ironic given Taibbi's last book) and the politics of grievance and rejection by elites (therefore war must be raged against them) mixed with culture war BS (these days mostly anti-trans rhetoric). This cocktail of mystery seems to mostly live on the right of the political spectrum. But when you dig a little deeper, most of these individuals were always right wing, they just played along with left wing dogma to be able to succeed in their media roles. Not unlike Trump, knowing that if he wanted to succeed in Hollywood and Manhattan real estate he'd have to vote democrat visibly. But that was never who he was. > We're talking about a guy who spearheaded the "masks 4 all" push back at the beginning of COVID. Also, what is left wing about the idea that masks help prevent the spread of respiratory viruses? I also thought that fell into the category of basic science literacy.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
tpush 4y ago
No, absolutely not. Both are willing to host absolute nutjobs and grifters if it brings eyeballs/money to their podcast.

ryanklee 4y ago

I'm so sick of this cohort. They are obvious smugglers of bunk and loose thinking by bad actors. Sincerity is a paper thin cover and it's starting to rain.

actinium226 4y ago
And so your reply is ad hominem attacks?
- ryanklee 4y ago
  Not really sure how you see me arguing anything whatsoever. My only statement is how I'm displeased with a group of podcaster personalities. That's not an ad hominem, that's me saying Lex F and Joe Rogan are features of an unhealthy media landscape. I generally go out of my way to say this whenever given the chance, especially in contexts where this is unlikely to be the majority opinion.
  - actinium226 4y ago
    You call them "smugglers" accuse them of "loose thinking" and attack their sincerity. I'm sick of cynical folks who don't understand that Lex, Joe, etc. are putting themselves out there and are willing to be wrong, but sincerely and genuinely believe that it's better to move the conversation forward than to sit idly by. Their sincerity is not paper thin, in fact it's thicc af. Youngin language aside, there's so much cynicism and echo chambers out there and these people are actually trying to fight that. It's commendable what they do.
    - ryanklee 4y ago
      I understand. But they are naive, misguided, conflicted, and stuffed with money. There is no evidence that giving platforms to hucksters, Nazis, racists, or conspiracy theorists moves any conversation forward in any helpful manner. But there's lots of evidence that giving lies more airtime gives those lies more teeth and those teeth more flesh to chew on. These idiots are eroding the populace's ability to reject malicious actors right out. Which is what we should be doing. There is no need to rehash the fact that hating Jews is a bad thing. Lex should apologize and take a course in media literacy.

pastor_bob 4y ago

talm'bout leggs fridman bappa? Smartest guy I ever met

lexandstuff 4y ago
Thank 'em.

xyzzyz 4y ago

Good thing then that Why We Sleep was hyped by always reliable and accurate New York Times, so we know we can trust it: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/10/books/review/snooze-michael-mcgirr-sleep-dreams.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/10/books/review/snooze-micha... I mean, this Mathew Walker guy has been thoroughly vetted for accuracy by the diligent fact checkers from places known for integrity, like CNN https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/videos/tv/2020/10/15/matthew-walker-sleep-immune-covid.cnn https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/videos/tv/2020/10/15/matthew-walker-... or NPR https://www.npr.org/2017/10/16/558152847/why-we-sleep https://www.npr.org/2017/10/16/558152847/why-we-sleep More seriously, though, of course it’s true that smart and confident sounding people are going to dupe Joe Rogan. He doesn’t even pretend to be any sort of intellectual or rational truth-seeker. It is more concerning that such lousy kind of “expertise” as exhibited by Dr. Matthew Walker is more than good enough to dupe mainstream media organizations as well, but to anyone paying attention, this should not come as any sort of surprise: public trust in experts has been in free fall for more than a decade, and really accelerated in last 3 years. The thing you should ponder about, which you won’t, is that your first instinct here is to slander your ideological opponents, using slurs like “tech bros”.

horns4lyfe 4y ago
Why is surprising that those organizations were duped though? Are people laboring under the assumption that reporters are smarter than everyone else? Because that’s definitely a mistake.

trts 4y ago

I think I've seen this guy appear on at least a half dozen shows and podcasts including Lex, Tim Ferris, Sam Harris, Fresh Air, TED Radio, Hidden Brain... seems like 5 years or so ago he was everywhere. This site lists 67 appearances: https://www.owltail.com/people/Uw4Ky-matthew-walker/appearances https://www.owltail.com/people/Uw4Ky-matthew-walker/appearan... In general the media has very low science literacy and loves someone credentialed, self-assured, and with an erudite accent and story to tell that can easily fill airtime. Acknowledging that junk science has managed to platform itself on some of the podcasts you mentioned, for myself I'd say that the long-form format at least allows for a greater possibility that the b.s. will out itself over 1.5-2 hours, versus a show like TED Radio Hour that is happy to bundle up a few nice sounding stories into something they can slip a Blackrock ad into.

monksy 4y ago

I was going to say the same thing. I hate to argue against the interviewer (anyone should be able to get out there and create content), but at some point you have to question how much research are they doing and the desire to get on there to promote.

throwaway_75369 4y ago

Hmm - I'm not sure if it supports or opposes your point, but Walker was also supported and interviewed by Andrew Huberman. https://hubermanlab.com/dr-matthew-walker-the-science-and-practice-of-perfecting-your-sleep/ https://hubermanlab.com/dr-matthew-walker-the-science-and-pr... Huberman has always been kind of interesting to me; his list of topics immediately makes him look like a bro-science peddler, but the guy kicks off all of his podcasts by talking about how he's a Stanford Neuroscience professor, and he reads all the journals himself - not exactly daring someone to oppose him, but you have to admit he's willing to risk some really high credentials by putting himself out there like that. Of course, like nearly everyone else, I don't go read the studies myself and go hunting for math mistakes and misrepresentation, so it's still all a big appeal to authority.