Random Thoughts

Plenty of ink has been spilled to describe the perils of modern-day media consumption habits. Convenient echo chambers, dangerous confirmation bias, and reliance on comfortable narratives. Popular media jockeys provide a podium to self-described truth-seeking crusaders, all while driving book sales of pseudo-scientific revelations. Poor dietary choices will compound over time and yield harmful results to one's body. Careless intake of information will affect one's cognition.

A case in point is a recent podcast by Joe Rogan. Experience #2294 - Dr. Suzanne Humphries. The link isn't provided on purpose.

While not in a position to object to the message on technical grounds, my beef is with the format and the host. 

1) In an interview, as opposed to a debate, where two guests present opposite views, it's the job of the host to be more challenging to the narrative. This especially holds when important information is being presented. A guest is not telling a colorful personal story, but rather serious scientific claims with far-reaching consequences. A higher level of scrutiny is required but was missing in action.

2) Given the lack of a critical approach from the host, the entire thing appears as a gigantic marketing campaign. Especially when a guest has a book to sell. One can only speculate what the host's cut is.

3) Bullshit asymmetry principle aka Brandolini's law. It is impossible for an average listener without subject matter expertise to evaluate technical claims outside one's knowledge. Thus anyone who sounds intelligent, with proper credentials, and an eloquent communication style will immediately be trusted. The question then comes, why does a medical doctor talk about highly technical medical stuff not in front of peers (or a person with a medical degree) capable of mounting a challenge, but before the general public? Could it be because it's harder to fool experts? Or perhaps they have already rejected the thesis, while the audience is oblivious to that, thanks to a nodding host.

4) Sensationalism. It's boring to have a guest demonstrating a state of modern science, supported by years of research and statistics. The viewership will go down and drag monetization. This is not a professional publication targeting a niche audience. The anti-establishment egos need a scratch too. Panem et circenses.

5) This one is counterfactual. Imagine for a moment that a two-hour-long discussion is around the topic of Flat Earth. Don't laugh. A guest would throw a myriad of "scientific" discoveries supporting the claim. Talk about countless hours spent in archives studying the wisdom of the ancients. Present numerous experiments buttressing the validity of the argument. All while the same manner of acceptance and support exhibited by the host, acknowledging the expert's confession. Giving credibility to the message, under the fig leaf of curiosity. That's how the episode felt.

It's a charade. All of it.

This great article goes over claims made by Dr. Suzanna and debunks them, one by one. Ideally, this should be the job of a host, but instead, we end up with bullshit propagated in a free-speech society. This has political and other consequences.

It's not hard to seek out rebuttals. It should be habitual, just like washing hands. Add debunked to anything and google it. Validate credentials and the reputation of a messenger. Inquire into methodology, assumptions, and sponsors if you must. The most difficult part is to realize and accept being wrong for all this time

If the above feels like a cherry-picked attack on a single episode then watch this video where a former Joe Rogan fan explains why he has stopped following him.

#BraveNewWorld
April 2025

www.group-telegram.com/us/random_from_sherlock.com/640

222 viewsedited  Apr 6 at 20:42

Plenty of ink has been spilled to describe the perils of modern-day media consumption habits. Convenient echo chambers, dangerous confirmation bias, and reliance on comfortable narratives. Popular media jockeys provide a podium to self-described truth-seeking crusaders, all while driving book sales of pseudo-scientific revelations. Poor dietary choices will compound over time and yield harmful results to one's body. Careless intake of information will affect one's cognition.

A case in point is a recent podcast by Joe Rogan. Experience #2294 - Dr. Suzanne Humphries. The link isn't provided on purpose.

While not in a position to object to the message on technical grounds, my beef is with the format and the host. 

1) In an interview, as opposed to a debate, where two guests present opposite views, it's the job of the host to be more challenging to the narrative. This especially holds when important information is being presented. A guest is not telling a colorful personal story, but rather serious scientific claims with far-reaching consequences. A higher level of scrutiny is required but was missing in action.

2) Given the lack of a critical approach from the host, the entire thing appears as a gigantic marketing campaign. Especially when a guest has a book to sell. One can only speculate what the host's cut is.

3) Bullshit asymmetry principle aka Brandolini's law. It is impossible for an average listener without subject matter expertise to evaluate technical claims outside one's knowledge. Thus anyone who sounds intelligent, with proper credentials, and an eloquent communication style will immediately be trusted. The question then comes, why does a medical doctor talk about highly technical medical stuff not in front of peers (or a person with a medical degree) capable of mounting a challenge, but before the general public? Could it be because it's harder to fool experts? Or perhaps they have already rejected the thesis, while the audience is oblivious to that, thanks to a nodding host.

4) Sensationalism. It's boring to have a guest demonstrating a state of modern science, supported by years of research and statistics. The viewership will go down and drag monetization. This is not a professional publication targeting a niche audience. The anti-establishment egos need a scratch too. Panem et circenses.

5) This one is counterfactual. Imagine for a moment that a two-hour-long discussion is around the topic of Flat Earth. Don't laugh. A guest would throw a myriad of "scientific" discoveries supporting the claim. Talk about countless hours spent in archives studying the wisdom of the ancients. Present numerous experiments buttressing the validity of the argument. All while the same manner of acceptance and support exhibited by the host, acknowledging the expert's confession. Giving credibility to the message, under the fig leaf of curiosity. That's how the episode felt.

It's a charade. All of it.

This great article goes over claims made by Dr. Suzanna and debunks them, one by one. Ideally, this should be the job of a host, but instead, we end up with bullshit propagated in a free-speech society. This has political and other consequences.

It's not hard to seek out rebuttals. It should be habitual, just like washing hands. Add debunked to anything and google it. Validate credentials and the reputation of a messenger. Inquire into methodology, assumptions, and sponsors if you must. The most difficult part is to realize and accept being wrong for all this time

If the above feels like a cherry-picked attack on a single episode then watch this video where a former Joe Rogan fan explains why he has stopped following him.

#BraveNewWorld
April 2025

BY Random Thoughts