Joe Rogan - suggestions to switch my sibling to better media
Joe Rogan - suggestions to switch my sibling to better media
My 27 yr old sibling is a hard core follower of Joe Rogan 💩
What are some progressive channels/people/content that I could have my sibling start watching instead?
Preferably something that has a similar flavor - example: male host, muscular, easy to digest. I think that will make the transition easier.
My personal preferences are Seth Meyers and John Oliver, but Last Week Tonight (John Oliver) is even a heavy watch for me sometimes!
[No Andrew Hubbard. He’s another fake.]
Thank you!
You're viewing a single thread.
Funny that you want a muscular male host, 😅
Currently my most favourite podcast is Andrew Huberman's, which would probably fit the muscular male criteria.
It's also very progressive in the sense that it is basically about science-based protocols to become a healthier human being both physically and mentally.
I strongly recommend listening on YouTube with sponsorblock if possible.
So far, the only truly bad episode was the one with Zuckerberg (that I have found) because, you know, there is really not much to learn from him, specially considering the topics of the podcast.
Oh, I just saw your comment about him, 😅, always interested in seeing evidence on his fakeness.
Huberman just got outed as a big time aerial cheater and quasi bogus scientist just FYI. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/andrew-huberman-podcast-stanford-joe-rogan.html
OMG that is a long, paywalled read. Do I have to go through all that? Will try, tho, and report back.
It's really worth it.
Just got done reading it. (Try adding "12ft.io/" before the URL for a better experience).
Please, everyone, read it fully.
Why does 95% of the text focus on his personal life? What about the podcast's credibility?
There are countless clips of Joe Rogan showcasing his ignorance. Show me Huberman's lies or dangerous advice.
I'm not defending Andrew, but his content is mostly well-reviewed and delivered with delicacy for such complicated topics. If you have SEEN otherwise, tell me.
Again, don't link to articles about his personal life, because now I sadly know all of it and it bores me to death 😅
The fact he doesn't actually use the lab and it kind of has folded is something worth noting. Also wouldn't you think from the article he's pretty dishonest?
So Veritasium is also a liar because they don't have a lab? I am not going to comment on personal life issues unless there is a legal case there, which there isn't, so the probability of it being bullshit for clicks is high.
Huberman has been a guest on Rogan's podcast and seems to be in the same circles with overlapping guests and ideas. He also peddles pseudoscience and random supplements, so I'm not sure this helps OP's sibling escape the misinformation sphere.
There's also a pretty alarming piece in NY magazine (paywalled) that goes into how much he lies in his personal life to build a narrative that seems to align with the agenda he pushes on his show.
So now everyone that has been on Joe Rogan is a right wing fascist? Cause I couldn't imagine Neil deGrasse Tysson like that.
In terms of the pseudoscience and supplements... It clearly shows people don't watch his stuff. I am SURE it's not perfect, but most of it is clearly WELL referenced on the show description, and anything that hasn't been officially approved he states that clearly with CONSTANT warnings to PLEASE CONSULT A PROFESSIONAL.
I hate Joe Rogan. I hate fascist propaganda. Yes, Huberman makes money with his podcast, all podcasts are business, all big ones, at least.
All the claims about his personal life seem to me like journalists trying to come up with vector attacks to a famous figure for clicks, just like it happens with any other celebrity.
Yeah, he may be a terrible boyfriend, but Einstein married his cousin and Oppenheimer was a cheater and we live in this amazing (or horrible) world thanks to them.
First, he's not in the right wing Rogan group but he's definitely in the grifter circle that preys on insecure young men.
Lol this guy is not Albert Einstein. He spends too much time podcasting and being an influencer for that to ever be the case. The best case you can make for him is as a scientific communicator, but he has been frequently shown to spread shoddy science and pseudoscientific claims about things like sunscreen damaging the brain.
His personal life is very relevant here because it shows he's a pathological liar:
- He had a primary partner who was in a serious relationship with him and on IVF so they could have a baby, but he was cheating on her with FIVE other women
- These women all believed they were in an exclusive relationship with him and he spun an astounding web of lies to maintain these relationships
- He exposed all of these women to a form of HPV that can cause cancer for women, without telling them that he was a carrier or that he was having unprotected sex with all of these other people (is this the kind of health advisor you want?)
The reason why these 3 points matter are that they show a shocking pattern of deceit. The man was lying like it was oxygen to him, just so he could maintain six ostensibly monogamous relationships. He's also a danger to public health, yet giving millions health advice every week.
He has claimed to have been a bad kid who was locked up in an institution with conditions so bad that kids around him were dying/taking their own lives. That was entirely fabricated. He has more hard-luck stories about how his life was rough as a kid, but he found some hidden truth and became an academic and professional success. But the NY Mag article demonstrates he had a very privileged upbringing and neither his parents nor the kids who grew up with him know what he's talking about. He's obviously an upper-middle class guy selling a rags-to-riches story to his followers. It's classic grifter stuff. "I used to be troubled and unsuccessful, until I found this thing. You can be like me if you do whatever I tell you and buy whatever I'm selling."
This man lies in public about his upbringing to convince people of a narrative about his success. He lies in private to all of these people who care about him. That should concern his daily listeners and fans. If he's lying this much, why wouldn't he lie to you? This isn't a case of a few minor embellishment and a mistress either, this is disturbing shit he's doing because it suits him. Someone like that should not be the trusted advisor of millions about anything, let alone how to be healthy and successful.
You cannot take an article and say it's true and therefore "Andrew bad". It doesn't work like that. I've seen that article a million times already. It presents no proof, it's just a reddit comment as an article for clicks.
The sunscreen thing, here's the first link that comes up when you search online:
Taken together, this review advocates revisiting the current safety and regulation of specific sunscreens and investing in alternative UV protection technologies.
In any case I am sure he wasn't saying ALL SUNSCREEN IS BAD but you know, people are going to build up their stories.
No, his personal life isn't relevant if all he does in his podcast is condense evidence about a subject, with all relevant sources right there.
The article is based on interviews and quotes from people who actually know him. Journalism is based on interviewing sources and reporting what they said. I don't know why you think it's equivalent to a Reddit comment but I suspect it's because you're blinded by your admiration for this man.
You linked to a review paper of existing research in the area and its conclusion is: we don't know enough to speak authoritatively about this, more research is needed. From the paper:
Although most studies reviewed in this paper reported adverse neurotoxic effects of UV filters at concentrations substantially higher that those observed in environment and human tissues, these studies should not be disregarded, as they afford potential pathomechanisms which might occur in other conditions or sensitive populations.
Aka, these studies only found that it's toxic in doses no human would use as sunscreen.
Unfortunately, the effects of repeated, long-term and low-dose exposures to single compounds and mixtures of various UV filters is also poorly studied.
Aka we don't actually know what the effects are for regular use.
But we do know that skin cancer is a real concern for people, and sunscreen has been proven to help. Until there is actual research showing sunscreen is toxic at normal usage volumes, it's deeply irresponsible of Huberman to advocate against it. Or make claims that haven't been proven in the literature.
His personal life is relevant because it proves he's a pathological liar. He's also lying on podcast appearances when he talks about his upbringing. If you want to take life advice from a proven and prolific fabricator that's your prerogative, but he is not someone that should be promoted in a public forum like this
Good journalism would be an article going through all the papers from the Huberman podcasts and his analysis of them (which he always cites if it's been peer-reviewed, etc) and debunking all the misinformation. But nope. It's all about talking to enough people hoping they say some crap about the personal life about a private person, cherry picking information and building up a story from that.
The sunscreen thing, I just passed the first link that came to me, showing that in fact there is proof of bad agents in sunscreen.
If you go check the video of Huberman and sunscreen, very easy to find, you'll see how he literally says that sunscreen is important because you don't want to get cancer, it's just that SOME SUNSCREEN has been found to have toxic components that may cross the blood-brain barrier, and he simply advices to BUY A GOOD SUNSCREEN.
See how this "journalism" works? They pick those little things and extrapolate into madness instead of doing actual work. Because why would you do the actual journalism if there is an easier way to get clicks?
And I am sure one could find some contradicting science to Huberman's podcasts and I would LOVE to see that. In fact, I think Huberman would love that too. That's science!!
Science is not about "finding contradicting science." It's not about spouting off on subjects that are not within your research expertise and waiting to be proven wrong. It's not a 'debate me bro' your facts vs mine endeavour.
The worst thing this guy has done is convince a bunch of people, primarily young men, that they too can spout off about scientific matters they barely understand. See also: Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson and all the other PhD-turned-grifter figures
First of all: yes, science is about constantly trying to disprove hypotheses. That is what the guys at CERN are doing, that is what people at Stanford are doing. What else could it be?
If you think Huberman is giving these people a right to spout off scientific matters and that's horrible, then we should cancel Veritasium, we should cancel Sabine Hossenfelder, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Brian Cox, MinutePhysics, VSauce, all TED speeches, damn, BURN every science book and magazine, cause it is making people have opinions about these evil things!!
The people who are disproving the hypotheses are doing so through peer-reviewed studies in a research setting. They are not doing it on podcasts.
No, I mostly just think it's horrible in Huberman's case. Most of the people you listed aren't prolific liars who prey on young men to sell a no-fap, buy-my-supplements lifestyle to. I've literally never seen a Brian Cox fan expend as much energy in defence of the man as you Huberman listeners. He's more akin to grifters like Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson who trade on their PhD credentials to make claims that go behind their area of expertise and talk almost exclusively to lost and lonely young men who are looking for guidance.
I am not defending the man. I am just trying to get to the meat of why there is so much hate on him.
All that young men, nofap, supplement-seller thing is NOWHERE in his podcast. It just shows that people are just reading clickbait article titles. Please watch one of his episodes about sleep, or alcohol, or whatever. I've explained it in many comments already. This dude is REALLY careful about what he puts in his podcasts, and it shows.
BTW, none of his advice has ever said anything losely related to Peterson's rethoric of male superiority thingie, and I don't even know who that Sam Harris is.
I can tell you something tho. So far in all discussions, NO ONE has brought up what I believe is Huberman's biggest mistake: bringing Zuckerberg in. That was a very bad episode, but everyone (I even remember Veritasium f*cking it up hard once) deserves to make mistakes sometimes (particularly if no illegal action was taken). I think (hope) he learned his lesson because every comment was clear. No highlight videos were made out of that episode which clearly shows they probably realised the mistake.