Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

adamsky1997 t1_j1awzp1 wrote

I enjoyed reading your article and I think the point made is a very important one. I feel we get this more and more in the public discourse, with people like Joe Rogan (or L. Fridman, Andrew Huberman) inviting guests to their podcasts and discussing topics way way outside of their field of expertise. Because of large listening base, these people start spouting their own uninformed opinions on variety of topics, and un-critical listener will think they are listening to experts...

4

thenousman OP t1_j1b41f4 wrote

Thanks! Indeed, that is concerning. I also know people who have become vaccine hesitant after listening to various athletes promoting vaccine skepticism on social media and that was deeply concerning!

3

iusedtoknowsuffering t1_j1dig4s wrote

Isn’t there a difference between a comedy podcast like Rogan’s and an “expert testimony” in a court of law? If I’m listening to a comedy podcast, I always have a giant banner in my head that says “these are idiots who are providing you with entertainment, and everything they say should be taken with a grain of salt.”

1

adamsky1997 t1_j1divhh wrote

Of course there is, but the audience is not the court of law but the general public who then go and vote in elections.

Lex Fridman is really vile, he asserts himself as a scientists, computer researcher etc, and his podcasts were first about that. But then he expanded to psychology, politics, sociology, topics which he has zero authority in

2

iusedtoknowsuffering t1_j1e0n7p wrote

Does Fridman make assertions in the fields of psychology/politics/sociology? Or does he invite experts from those fields onto his podcast and interview them with curious, probing questions?

0