1 00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:01,800 Bradley van Paridon: What is up, Brad fans, how you doing? How 2 00:00:01,800 --> 00:00:04,620 you livin? I hope you had a wonderful summer. We are back 3 00:00:04,620 --> 00:00:10,380 from our sort of summer break, and this is an episode that was 4 00:00:10,380 --> 00:00:15,060 recorded earlier in the summer, and it revolves around science 5 00:00:15,060 --> 00:00:19,980 communication. Obviously, that's a common theme on this show, and 6 00:00:20,040 --> 00:00:25,160 it was the idea for it came from coverage I was seeing over the 7 00:00:25,160 --> 00:00:29,780 summer of Jonathan haidt's new book, The anxious generation. 8 00:00:29,780 --> 00:00:33,320 And just to be clear, we're not going to discuss the content of 9 00:00:33,320 --> 00:00:38,600 the book at all. To give you some context, Jonathan Haidt is 10 00:00:38,600 --> 00:00:45,160 a very well known social science researcher, and his work that 11 00:00:45,160 --> 00:00:50,860 has become so popular really focuses on the issues of social 12 00:00:50,860 --> 00:00:55,420 media and children and so his major thesis, I guess, if I 13 00:00:55,420 --> 00:00:58,840 could paraphrase it very quickly, is that the reason 14 00:00:58,840 --> 00:01:02,580 we're seeing so much anxiety, depression, these kind of things 15 00:01:02,580 --> 00:01:09,120 in teenagers. Is the way that kids are not being allowed free 16 00:01:09,120 --> 00:01:12,720 play. They're overly coddled, let's say, overly protected. And 17 00:01:12,720 --> 00:01:16,200 then also, there's a there's a big influence of social media in 18 00:01:16,200 --> 00:01:19,200 this sort of going from a sort of, what we would call, like the 19 00:01:19,200 --> 00:01:21,680 old school way of growing up where you're outside playing, 20 00:01:21,680 --> 00:01:24,920 tumbling around, scraping your knees, to everything being 21 00:01:24,920 --> 00:01:29,660 online and digital. And he makes the case that this is, this is 22 00:01:29,660 --> 00:01:34,280 not good. But again, we're not going to discuss the content of 23 00:01:34,280 --> 00:01:37,700 the of that argument or of this research. But really, this book, 24 00:01:37,700 --> 00:01:41,020 this latest book of his, becomes a New York Times bestseller. 25 00:01:41,020 --> 00:01:44,200 It's, it's all over the media. You can see it. I'm seeing it in 26 00:01:44,200 --> 00:01:46,660 a lot of my feeds, and I know that that's, you know, 27 00:01:46,780 --> 00:01:50,860 algorithmic, algorithmically driven, so maybe people aren't 28 00:01:50,860 --> 00:01:53,500 seeing it, or whatever. But it did jump into the mainstream, 29 00:01:53,860 --> 00:01:59,800 and then I started to see smaller outlets like PBS and 30 00:01:59,800 --> 00:02:04,800 some more niche sort of science news outlets publishing the 31 00:02:04,800 --> 00:02:08,880 critiques, you know, the researchers that disagree with 32 00:02:08,880 --> 00:02:13,560 his thesis, and it was very clear that the critiques were 33 00:02:13,560 --> 00:02:18,000 not jumping into the mainstream, like his argument was jumping 34 00:02:18,000 --> 00:02:20,960 into the mainstream. And that got me thinking about, well, 35 00:02:20,960 --> 00:02:24,620 what do we how do we handle these issues? When we say, you 36 00:02:24,620 --> 00:02:28,880 know, like, let's say the phrase we all heard during covid, the 37 00:02:28,880 --> 00:02:32,600 science isn't settled. And very rarely is the science, you know, 38 00:02:32,600 --> 00:02:35,120 settled, right? Like, that's kind of one of the hallmarks of 39 00:02:35,120 --> 00:02:37,640 science. And then you get into the process of science, well, 40 00:02:37,640 --> 00:02:42,220 why isn't it settled? How can we say, you know, one thing is more 41 00:02:42,220 --> 00:02:46,000 likely than the other. You know, can we make concrete statements 42 00:02:46,000 --> 00:02:48,520 when it comes to health and raising our kids and all of 43 00:02:48,520 --> 00:02:50,980 these things that are important to us? And so all of these 44 00:02:50,980 --> 00:02:54,820 questions started bubbling up into into my mind, and I had 45 00:02:54,820 --> 00:02:59,800 this really set of questions and format that I was going to do 46 00:02:59,800 --> 00:03:04,680 for this episode with our guest, who is Jay Ingram. People who 47 00:03:04,680 --> 00:03:08,880 have listened to the show before know Jay. People who grew up in 48 00:03:08,880 --> 00:03:13,380 Canada or live in Canada know Jay. He's a long time science 49 00:03:13,380 --> 00:03:18,660 journalist broadcaster. He hosted TV shows in Canada, Daily 50 00:03:18,660 --> 00:03:22,520 Planet, the first ever daily science news show for multiple 51 00:03:22,520 --> 00:03:27,740 years, 14, I believe, and he's written books. He's been on the 52 00:03:27,740 --> 00:03:32,120 radio, the flagship science program for the CBC quirks and 53 00:03:32,120 --> 00:03:35,360 quarks. He was a longtime host of that. He's been all over, and 54 00:03:35,360 --> 00:03:40,480 he's one of the first people to really give me a shot, a push, 55 00:03:40,480 --> 00:03:44,320 let's say, into doing this career. So I always love talking 56 00:03:44,560 --> 00:03:48,280 with Jay, because he's a good friend, good mentor, and he's 57 00:03:48,280 --> 00:03:51,460 got a ton of experience in this. He's been doing this for a long, 58 00:03:51,820 --> 00:03:57,880 long time. So I had this plan of walking through all of these 59 00:03:57,880 --> 00:04:02,460 sort of questions, focusing on Jonathan heights book as the 60 00:04:02,460 --> 00:04:06,240 sort of case study. You know, why is this popular versus other 61 00:04:06,240 --> 00:04:10,620 things? What? How does the critique get more popular? If 62 00:04:10,620 --> 00:04:13,380 that's if that's your goal, how are you trying to do that? And 63 00:04:13,380 --> 00:04:17,520 very quickly into the conversation, we went in a lot 64 00:04:17,520 --> 00:04:20,420 of different places. And so I kind of threw the script out in 65 00:04:20,420 --> 00:04:23,000 a good way. This is a good thing, because, like I said, Jay 66 00:04:23,000 --> 00:04:25,640 has been doing this a long time, and he has a lot of interesting 67 00:04:25,700 --> 00:04:29,780 thoughts. And so we had a really good conversation about this. We 68 00:04:29,780 --> 00:04:32,840 covered, well, we tried to cover, because a lot of these 69 00:04:32,840 --> 00:04:35,420 things we don't really, we still, we're working through 70 00:04:35,420 --> 00:04:38,300 them, right? It's a work in progress, just like science 71 00:04:38,300 --> 00:04:43,360 itself. We covered what do you do if you're a scientist, as a 72 00:04:43,360 --> 00:04:46,480 researcher, someone with an informed opinion who wants to 73 00:04:46,480 --> 00:04:50,440 disagree? What's the best way to do that? How do you get your 74 00:04:50,440 --> 00:04:54,700 message out there? We use examples of some of the big 75 00:04:54,700 --> 00:04:57,880 science podcasts, the Andrew hubermans, the LEX Friedmans, 76 00:04:57,880 --> 00:05:01,020 these kind of things we talk about. So you know, what's the 77 00:05:01,020 --> 00:05:03,720 best way to deal with that? Why are scientists, maybe sometimes 78 00:05:03,720 --> 00:05:08,400 wary of going on these shows we really focus on, like, what do 79 00:05:08,400 --> 00:05:11,640 you need to make a proper critique? Right? Like, how do 80 00:05:11,640 --> 00:05:15,780 you present a proper critique of something? Let's say that you 81 00:05:16,020 --> 00:05:18,540 science that is in the mainstream, that that you 82 00:05:18,540 --> 00:05:21,800 disagree with, and at the crux of that is you need to be able 83 00:05:21,800 --> 00:05:27,140 to communicate the process. And Jay says, in this, in all the 84 00:05:27,140 --> 00:05:30,500 years of doing this, he's yet to find a really good way to 85 00:05:30,500 --> 00:05:35,360 communicate the process of science, right? And I think 86 00:05:35,360 --> 00:05:39,800 that's a really important point. And then we go on to, again, put 87 00:05:39,800 --> 00:05:42,640 this in the context of some examples, health misinformation, 88 00:05:42,640 --> 00:05:46,120 there's so much out there, and people are, you know, really 89 00:05:46,120 --> 00:05:49,000 ready to, you know, jump on board with some stuff that maybe 90 00:05:49,000 --> 00:05:51,640 doesn't have a lot of scientific rigor behind it. And, you know, 91 00:05:51,640 --> 00:05:53,860 they want to question the professional scientists when it 92 00:05:53,860 --> 00:05:57,100 comes to health. But yet, like, how do you, then, how do you, 93 00:05:57,100 --> 00:06:00,180 how do you combat that with, again, process stories, which is 94 00:06:00,180 --> 00:06:05,400 very boring and difficult to do. We talk a lot about audience. 95 00:06:05,460 --> 00:06:08,100 How do you attract an audience outside of the people that are 96 00:06:08,100 --> 00:06:13,200 just already interested in science? We talk about the 97 00:06:13,200 --> 00:06:17,100 isolation of the scientific community and the scientific 98 00:06:17,100 --> 00:06:21,380 media community. You know, the myths that we kind of have, that 99 00:06:21,380 --> 00:06:25,760 we we need to use. We always need to put phrases in our 100 00:06:25,760 --> 00:06:28,700 articles that, like more research is needed, or, you 101 00:06:28,700 --> 00:06:34,460 know, this research is going to might one day lead to a better 102 00:06:34,460 --> 00:06:37,400 robot or a better drone, or something like, it's just, 103 00:06:37,400 --> 00:06:40,600 there's always these taglines that we put in because the 104 00:06:40,600 --> 00:06:42,940 scientific community, the science media community, 105 00:06:42,940 --> 00:06:45,340 believes, well, that's what you have to do in order to make 106 00:06:45,340 --> 00:06:48,040 people interested in the science. And maybe that's true, 107 00:06:48,040 --> 00:06:54,100 but I don't know. And Jay also talks about some positive case 108 00:06:54,100 --> 00:06:59,320 studies. There was a Lancet Commission on dementia that he 109 00:06:59,320 --> 00:07:03,660 mentions, and it's this big, but, well, he'll explain it, but 110 00:07:03,660 --> 00:07:08,100 it's a big body of research that that continually gets updated on 111 00:07:08,100 --> 00:07:12,480 dementia risks. And he talks about how this is an interesting 112 00:07:13,440 --> 00:07:16,200 way for scientists to be presenting their work, because 113 00:07:16,200 --> 00:07:19,080 they go into, you know, all of these things, the risks, how 114 00:07:19,080 --> 00:07:21,920 they change, how they how some things are now new risks, some 115 00:07:21,920 --> 00:07:24,500 things were maybe taking off the list, but it really kind of 116 00:07:24,500 --> 00:07:29,060 shows the slow moving process of science and is a nice 117 00:07:29,720 --> 00:07:33,500 communication format. And he mentions the defy dementia 118 00:07:33,500 --> 00:07:36,980 podcast that he is hosting, which will be linked in the show 119 00:07:36,980 --> 00:07:40,840 notes, so you can, you can take a look at that. And he talks 120 00:07:40,840 --> 00:07:43,840 about the approach that they're doing there of not beating 121 00:07:43,840 --> 00:07:46,180 people over the head with advice, but really just trying 122 00:07:46,180 --> 00:07:51,280 to present everything in a way that the people can then, you 123 00:07:51,280 --> 00:07:54,100 know, make their own decisions about, you know, some of these 124 00:07:54,160 --> 00:07:57,040 dementia risks and stuff like that. And so it's some really 125 00:07:57,040 --> 00:08:00,040 great insight into science communication, but there's also 126 00:08:00,040 --> 00:08:04,020 some really interesting dementia facts in there too. So 127 00:08:04,020 --> 00:08:09,540 definitely worth listening to that section. As always, I 128 00:08:09,540 --> 00:08:12,360 really, really enjoy talking with Jay Ingram, like I said, 129 00:08:12,360 --> 00:08:17,340 he's got a wealth of experience and knowledge in this area. And 130 00:08:18,240 --> 00:08:22,100 like many episodes where we kind of talk about the nuts and bolts 131 00:08:22,100 --> 00:08:25,520 of science communication, it sometimes feels like we don't 132 00:08:25,520 --> 00:08:28,340 have solid answers, and I think that that, you know that's true, 133 00:08:28,340 --> 00:08:32,660 we probably won't right. But this conversation, for me, 134 00:08:32,660 --> 00:08:38,240 definitely shows where we could focus our attention and what new 135 00:08:38,240 --> 00:08:44,080 things might we might try in order to maybe break out of some 136 00:08:44,080 --> 00:08:49,960 of the myths, like I said, that we all have in this field, but 137 00:08:49,960 --> 00:08:55,180 then also for an audience, you know, that likes to consume, you 138 00:08:55,180 --> 00:08:58,360 know, science stuff, I assume that's why, why you're listening 139 00:08:58,360 --> 00:09:02,700 to this show. It's a good reminder of the things to look 140 00:09:02,700 --> 00:09:08,100 for, right? And I think seeing how professional science, you 141 00:09:08,100 --> 00:09:12,660 know, media, journalists and scientists, think about data and 142 00:09:13,140 --> 00:09:16,200 the struggles of how the struggles we have of how to 143 00:09:16,200 --> 00:09:21,380 present it to audiences, is informative for audiences to to 144 00:09:21,380 --> 00:09:25,040 see. You know what it is that we're trying to get across, and 145 00:09:25,100 --> 00:09:27,260 you know you can comment, you can get in touch with the show 146 00:09:27,260 --> 00:09:29,480 about what it is that you would like to see. How would you like 147 00:09:29,480 --> 00:09:34,280 to see these, these topics handled? So with that, please 148 00:09:34,580 --> 00:09:37,760 get in touch with the show at two Brad for you on x and 149 00:09:37,760 --> 00:09:44,800 Instagram. You can email the show to Bradford u@gmail.com and 150 00:09:44,800 --> 00:09:48,700 you can please comment, subscribe, like, follow all of 151 00:09:48,700 --> 00:09:51,340 that stuff wherever you're getting your podcast that really 152 00:09:51,340 --> 00:09:57,220 helps the show. And yeah, that would be great. We would love to 153 00:09:57,220 --> 00:09:58,420 hear from you. So 154 00:09:59,620 --> 00:10:03,360 without. Any further ramblings on by me. Here is my 155 00:10:03,360 --> 00:10:05,760 conversation with Jay Ingram. 156 00:10:13,920 --> 00:10:17,820 All right, Jay, welcome back. It's always a always a pleasure 157 00:10:17,820 --> 00:10:20,420 to see you, and thanks for taking the time. How are you? 158 00:10:20,420 --> 00:10:20,780 I'm 159 00:10:20,780 --> 00:10:24,560 Jay Ingram: well, thanks and thanks for having me back on. I 160 00:10:24,560 --> 00:10:28,340 must, I must have passed the test the last time. Hey, 161 00:10:28,340 --> 00:10:30,020 Bradley van Paridon: you're one of the few people that just keep 162 00:10:30,020 --> 00:10:30,920 saying yes, so 163 00:10:33,500 --> 00:10:34,520 Jay Ingram: I qualify. 164 00:10:36,200 --> 00:10:39,020 Bradley van Paridon: Well, hey, I think the audience you know 165 00:10:39,020 --> 00:10:40,960 that has followed since the beginning of the show knows you 166 00:10:40,960 --> 00:10:43,720 by now. Broadcaster, writer, you've been in science 167 00:10:43,720 --> 00:10:47,800 communication, science journalism for decades in 168 00:10:47,800 --> 00:10:50,800 Canada, and I'm sure you've worked in some other places as 169 00:10:50,800 --> 00:10:54,040 well, but the Canadian audience will know you very well. But 170 00:10:54,400 --> 00:10:58,180 yes, you do say yes to come on. So that's a that's a bonus for 171 00:10:58,180 --> 00:11:01,440 me, but I always really enjoy these kind of conversations, 172 00:11:01,440 --> 00:11:05,520 because today we're going to again, have this idea of kind of 173 00:11:05,520 --> 00:11:08,760 getting into the weeds of science communication. You know, 174 00:11:08,760 --> 00:11:11,940 what works, what doesn't work? There's some of these questions 175 00:11:11,940 --> 00:11:14,640 that kind of float around, and have been floating around, maybe 176 00:11:14,640 --> 00:11:19,320 more closer to the surface since, since covid, but that we 177 00:11:19,320 --> 00:11:22,940 don't really have a lot of good answers to but yet I feel like 178 00:11:22,940 --> 00:11:25,280 we should discuss them. We should probe them. We should 179 00:11:25,280 --> 00:11:28,760 talk about them. And the one that I want to bring up today is 180 00:11:28,760 --> 00:11:34,460 this idea of, how do we present, you know, topics that maybe 181 00:11:34,460 --> 00:11:36,860 aren't settled, right? So that's, that's a phrase that 182 00:11:36,860 --> 00:11:39,620 gets turned around, the science isn't settled. How do we discuss 183 00:11:39,620 --> 00:11:42,460 these things? Obviously, this was a big thing with covid. I 184 00:11:42,700 --> 00:11:45,100 don't want to really talk about covid, because I think people 185 00:11:45,100 --> 00:11:48,460 are kind of sick of it. And I wanted to take a look at a case 186 00:11:48,460 --> 00:11:50,680 study that's maybe a bit different, because covid was 187 00:11:50,680 --> 00:11:54,100 very acute. It seemed more obvious that, yes, we don't know 188 00:11:54,100 --> 00:11:57,280 what's going on. That was as much as people maybe forget that 189 00:11:57,280 --> 00:11:59,500 was a lot of, a bit of the mantra at the beginning, right? 190 00:11:59,500 --> 00:12:01,800 We don't know what's going on. What I want to talk to you about 191 00:12:01,800 --> 00:12:05,580 today is, well, the case study would be a book by Jonathan 192 00:12:05,580 --> 00:12:08,940 Haidt, who is a pretty famous, I'd say, public intellectual 193 00:12:08,940 --> 00:12:13,320 researcher, and he's written a book about the influence of 194 00:12:13,320 --> 00:12:18,540 social media on the development of teens, the prevalence or The 195 00:12:18,540 --> 00:12:23,060 increase of teen depression, this kind of topics you've 196 00:12:23,060 --> 00:12:26,120 probably heard of before, and he's making a very strong link 197 00:12:26,120 --> 00:12:29,840 in the book. His argument is big part of it is social media and 198 00:12:29,840 --> 00:12:34,460 kids not having sort of free play anymore. It's become very, 199 00:12:34,460 --> 00:12:38,540 very popular, I think a lot of people. It's on New York Times 200 00:12:38,540 --> 00:12:41,920 bestsellers, but then sporadically here and there I 201 00:12:41,920 --> 00:12:44,920 see sort of the other side, right? Researchers being like, 202 00:12:44,920 --> 00:12:48,220 well, it's not that simple. And, you know, they have their ideas. 203 00:12:48,220 --> 00:12:52,480 But what I notice is that the critiques don't fall into the 204 00:12:52,480 --> 00:12:55,840 mainstream. There are usually in, you know, science news, very 205 00:12:55,840 --> 00:12:58,600 dedicated science news, or, you know, PBS, you know, some 206 00:12:58,600 --> 00:13:03,540 smaller news channels. So this is kind of this dilemma that I 207 00:13:03,540 --> 00:13:06,900 wanted to maybe discuss with you today. Is, you got this, this 208 00:13:06,900 --> 00:13:10,440 big hit book, you're a big public, you know, intellectual 209 00:13:10,560 --> 00:13:13,560 scientist, but does that tell the whole story? And what does 210 00:13:13,560 --> 00:13:16,800 an audience do when presented with a figure like this, who has 211 00:13:16,800 --> 00:13:20,360 a book that's probably written very compelling, how do they 212 00:13:20,360 --> 00:13:24,020 tease out? Well, is this the whole story? Do they even care? 213 00:13:24,440 --> 00:13:27,620 And so I thought maybe a good way to start if you don't have, 214 00:13:27,740 --> 00:13:31,340 you know, just general thoughts at the beginning, as I've thrown 215 00:13:31,340 --> 00:13:35,780 all this at you, my idea to start the conversation was 216 00:13:35,780 --> 00:13:40,900 actually to sort of brainstorm. Well, what is it about a science 217 00:13:40,900 --> 00:13:45,460 topic like this, that vaults it into the mainstream, that puts 218 00:13:45,460 --> 00:13:49,060 it into, you know, a New York Times bestseller, puts it on the 219 00:13:49,060 --> 00:13:51,880 tongues of everybody who's talking on social media and 220 00:13:51,880 --> 00:13:56,380 stuff that's not necessarily the science. The first thing that 221 00:13:56,380 --> 00:14:00,100 comes to mind is, is the scientist a likable and good 222 00:14:00,100 --> 00:14:03,900 communicator? Because that's going to go a long way to get 223 00:14:03,900 --> 00:14:07,680 those ideas out there, even if the ideas are controversial or, 224 00:14:07,680 --> 00:14:11,760 let's say, not totally as settled as they might be 225 00:14:11,760 --> 00:14:12,480 presenting them. 226 00:14:12,600 --> 00:14:17,340 Jay Ingram: So as you said, height is a public intellectual, 227 00:14:18,000 --> 00:14:21,140 you don't get that kind of status by saying irrelevant 228 00:14:21,140 --> 00:14:27,800 things or not saying them very well. And so, you know, while I 229 00:14:27,800 --> 00:14:31,460 haven't read his book, I do know that he's advocating pretty 230 00:14:31,460 --> 00:14:39,800 strongly for no cell phone use. You know, among young people as 231 00:14:39,800 --> 00:14:44,440 he thinks that the connection between phones and social media 232 00:14:44,740 --> 00:14:47,920 and distraction and polarization, those are all 233 00:14:47,920 --> 00:14:54,160 connected. And, you know, one of your questions in there was, you 234 00:14:54,160 --> 00:14:58,180 know, how do, how does an individual like him have an 235 00:14:58,180 --> 00:15:02,700 impact? Well, if he's. Actually suggest, I'm suggesting that 236 00:15:03,840 --> 00:15:07,560 cell phone use should be dramatically curbed, 237 00:15:07,860 --> 00:15:11,940 particularly in schools. I guess you're going to get people's 238 00:15:11,940 --> 00:15:17,640 attention, because not only every kid might be affected by, 239 00:15:18,000 --> 00:15:21,260 you know, such a movement, but school administrators, school 240 00:15:21,260 --> 00:15:26,420 teachers, and then everybody, every parent who's concerned 241 00:15:26,420 --> 00:15:31,700 about how their kid is growing up, maturing and learning. So, 242 00:15:31,760 --> 00:15:36,740 you know, if you, if you write about something that is so that 243 00:15:36,740 --> 00:15:40,360 so broadly affects people, I think you're bound to get 244 00:15:40,360 --> 00:15:44,260 attention. He's a big name already. He's a good writer. 245 00:15:44,320 --> 00:15:48,340 That's why he's a big name. So I think this is the combination. 246 00:15:48,580 --> 00:15:55,420 But you know, if we're going to talk about science and its 247 00:15:55,420 --> 00:16:01,860 impact on people, you know, I'm not sure that that is the best 248 00:16:01,860 --> 00:16:06,120 book simply because it's more, as you said, social science than 249 00:16:06,480 --> 00:16:11,820 than science, and you know, as opposed to that, how about, I'm 250 00:16:11,820 --> 00:16:18,600 going back a ways for this, but how about Stephen Hawking's or 251 00:16:18,600 --> 00:16:23,540 Carl sagan's books about the universe now, and you can 252 00:16:23,540 --> 00:16:27,140 immediately see the disjunct there, because books about the 253 00:16:27,140 --> 00:16:28,220 universe don't affect 254 00:16:28,520 --> 00:16:29,300 Bradley van Paridon: Exactly, yeah. 255 00:16:30,980 --> 00:16:33,500 Jay Ingram: I mean, unless you're unless you're planning to 256 00:16:33,500 --> 00:16:34,640 be immortal. So 257 00:16:34,940 --> 00:16:36,800 Bradley van Paridon: you know, it just or have some kind of 258 00:16:36,800 --> 00:16:39,200 existential angst. Yeah, exactly. 259 00:16:39,200 --> 00:16:42,580 Jay Ingram: But I'm not going to get into existential angst about 260 00:16:42,580 --> 00:16:46,120 the sun consuming the earth in 4 billion years, you know, and 261 00:16:46,120 --> 00:16:53,320 just, I don't care. So, so then, so one of the questions, which 262 00:16:53,320 --> 00:16:57,580 isn't exactly the question you asked me, but nonetheless, is, 263 00:16:58,300 --> 00:17:02,100 how is it that books like that that have, unlike hate's book, 264 00:17:02,100 --> 00:17:07,080 have no impact, like, really, other than, you know, prompting 265 00:17:07,080 --> 00:17:12,300 a conversation with people, have no impact on your life. And you 266 00:17:12,300 --> 00:17:16,740 know, somewhere, and I've actually always been curious as 267 00:17:16,740 --> 00:17:22,940 to why astronomy and cosmology, and even setting aside the 268 00:17:22,940 --> 00:17:27,620 search for extraterrestrials, just stuff about the universe 269 00:17:27,620 --> 00:17:29,960 and the evolution of the universe and the origin of the 270 00:17:29,960 --> 00:17:35,240 universe. Why is it so popular? And, you know, I wonder if 271 00:17:35,240 --> 00:17:43,060 perhaps it's popular because it's both spectacular in time, 272 00:17:43,360 --> 00:17:48,160 range and size and everything else. It's actually, well, it is 273 00:17:48,160 --> 00:17:52,780 beyond our comprehension, and we sort of understand that, but 274 00:17:52,780 --> 00:17:56,860 also because it doesn't challenge anybody, other than 275 00:17:56,860 --> 00:18:01,380 Flat Earthers or people who believe that, you know, the 276 00:18:01,380 --> 00:18:07,860 universe was created in 4004 BC. I mean, you know those people 277 00:18:07,860 --> 00:18:12,420 aside, and even the people who are Creationists can latch onto 278 00:18:12,420 --> 00:18:17,700 a book, a Stephen Hawking book, and say, This is the glory of 279 00:18:17,700 --> 00:18:23,000 God that he's talking about. You know, what other entity could do 280 00:18:23,000 --> 00:18:31,820 this, but for most people, it is an item of curiosity, and maybe 281 00:18:31,820 --> 00:18:35,900 mind blowing curiosity. But it stops there. It doesn't say 282 00:18:35,900 --> 00:18:38,660 anything about the price of groceries or how you're going to 283 00:18:38,660 --> 00:18:47,080 lead your day. And so a lot of science, it well, at least that 284 00:18:47,080 --> 00:18:51,520 branch of science, astronomy and cosmology, succeeds for reasons 285 00:18:51,520 --> 00:18:55,840 that I'm I'm not totally clear on, but let me give you another 286 00:18:55,840 --> 00:18:59,620 example that that hews a bit closer to this line, which is 287 00:19:01,120 --> 00:19:05,160 you probably know about Huberman and his amazingly popular 288 00:19:05,160 --> 00:19:10,740 podcast, which sometimes infuriates people. And there was 289 00:19:10,740 --> 00:19:18,840 a recent case, he did a podcast on on marijuana and its effects, 290 00:19:19,440 --> 00:19:26,000 and I started seeing on X comments by neuroscientists, 291 00:19:26,060 --> 00:19:31,400 some of whom I know, deploring how inaccurate and misleading 292 00:19:31,400 --> 00:19:37,880 this entire podcast was. And besides noticing these comments, 293 00:19:37,880 --> 00:19:41,020 I also noticed they were talking to each other, two other 294 00:19:41,020 --> 00:19:46,480 neuroscientists lamenting this scar on neuroscience that had 295 00:19:46,480 --> 00:19:49,960 just been perpetrated by Huberman. And so one of these 296 00:19:49,960 --> 00:19:57,220 people, and I can you know he's he's already publicly linked to 297 00:19:57,220 --> 00:20:00,480 this, so I can name him, a guy named Matt Hill. At the 298 00:20:00,480 --> 00:20:07,380 University of Calgary, who is really a bona fide THC expert. 299 00:20:07,560 --> 00:20:10,920 He's been researching cannabinoids forever. That's 300 00:20:10,920 --> 00:20:14,580 basically his career. He's well established. He's well 301 00:20:14,580 --> 00:20:19,620 respected. And I knew him, so, you know, I just didn't I said 302 00:20:19,620 --> 00:20:23,300 to him, I don't know that I was the first person to say this, 303 00:20:23,300 --> 00:20:27,560 but I said you should actually talk directly to Huberman and 304 00:20:27,620 --> 00:20:32,060 ask to be on a show, because telling other neuroscientists is 305 00:20:32,060 --> 00:20:38,480 going nowhere. So he did get in touch with Huberman. I haven't 306 00:20:38,480 --> 00:20:42,040 listened to the results yet, but he was on huberman's Show. I 307 00:20:42,040 --> 00:20:46,120 don't even know if that episode has been released yet, but you 308 00:20:46,120 --> 00:20:51,640 know, in terms of, how do you try and set the record straight? 309 00:20:51,640 --> 00:20:54,640 And you mentioned, you know, the beginnings of covid and how 310 00:20:54,640 --> 00:20:58,000 there was a lot of uncertainty, and so it's not just setting the 311 00:20:58,000 --> 00:21:03,240 record straight, but trying to keep people up to date without 312 00:21:03,300 --> 00:21:07,560 misleading them in one direction or the other. I thought that was 313 00:21:07,560 --> 00:21:13,260 probably the best he could do, because, and this relates to 314 00:21:13,260 --> 00:21:17,940 hate as well, people that have a platform already are in a very, 315 00:21:17,940 --> 00:21:23,600 very powerful, sometimes impregnable position. And, you 316 00:21:23,600 --> 00:21:26,720 know, my bet would be, even though I thought Matt Hill did 317 00:21:26,720 --> 00:21:32,180 exactly the right thing by going on Huberman. In the long run, is 318 00:21:32,180 --> 00:21:35,600 Huberman going to lose an audience over this? I really 319 00:21:35,600 --> 00:21:40,240 doubt it. I think he's going to go on. You know, he and Lex 320 00:21:40,240 --> 00:21:43,900 Friedman and other people like that have enormous audiences for 321 00:21:43,900 --> 00:21:48,160 good reason. I mean, they do really interesting podcasts on 322 00:21:48,160 --> 00:21:53,680 whether they're they're all true or not. Talking here more about 323 00:21:53,680 --> 00:21:59,620 Huberman than Friedman is up for grabs. I mean, you know, who 324 00:21:59,620 --> 00:22:06,000 knows? But they're very difficult to dislodge, and so 325 00:22:06,060 --> 00:22:13,320 reputation has a huge role to play. And you know, if I don't 326 00:22:13,320 --> 00:22:18,120 think there are many scientists who have a, you know, a huge 327 00:22:18,120 --> 00:22:24,200 audience and continually come out with untruths, but that is 328 00:22:24,200 --> 00:22:29,000 one of the most important things to think about, is if you 329 00:22:29,000 --> 00:22:32,900 disagree, if a scientist disagrees with what other 330 00:22:33,020 --> 00:22:38,240 scientists are saying, how do you approach that? You know it 331 00:22:38,240 --> 00:22:43,660 reminds me of The what now seem to be very rare debates between 332 00:22:43,660 --> 00:22:51,700 creationists and evolutionists. And I've attended such things, 333 00:22:52,060 --> 00:22:55,900 and it quickly became clear to me that they're absolutely 334 00:22:55,900 --> 00:23:00,240 pointless, because there will never be a single person in the 335 00:23:00,240 --> 00:23:04,620 audience who changes his or her mind as a result of the debate. 336 00:23:05,820 --> 00:23:10,200 They and they're really speaking over each other anyway, right 337 00:23:10,500 --> 00:23:14,820 around each other. But the point is, they're fixed in their 338 00:23:14,820 --> 00:23:17,940 views. No evolutionist is going to become a creationist, and 339 00:23:17,940 --> 00:23:22,220 vice versa. And so you have to be very careful. You have to 340 00:23:22,220 --> 00:23:26,240 pick your spot. I don't like what this person is saying. I 341 00:23:26,240 --> 00:23:31,280 think it's misleading. How do I address it? And you know, going 342 00:23:31,280 --> 00:23:35,360 back to the fundamental principle of communication, 343 00:23:36,020 --> 00:23:41,980 who's the audience? Who are you trying to reach in your you know 344 00:23:41,980 --> 00:23:45,160 your disagreement. I mean, that's where Matt Hill did the 345 00:23:45,160 --> 00:23:49,300 right thing. Go to the source. Get on the air with the source, 346 00:23:49,540 --> 00:23:53,140 and that is your best chance, because you're then, you're then 347 00:23:53,140 --> 00:23:56,680 at least reaching the audience that Huberman previously 348 00:23:56,680 --> 00:24:01,140 reached. Now, whether they listen to you or not is another 349 00:24:01,140 --> 00:24:03,180 question over which you have no control, because 350 00:24:04,140 --> 00:24:05,880 Bradley van Paridon: that's what I was going to say too. Is that, 351 00:24:05,880 --> 00:24:08,820 like, as much as, you know, I feel like some of those 352 00:24:08,820 --> 00:24:11,700 podcasts, you know, the Huberman, the Friedman's, you 353 00:24:11,700 --> 00:24:16,740 know, you could put something even less loosely, you know, 354 00:24:17,100 --> 00:24:21,560 linked to science, but the Joe Rogan stuff, you know, it's, the 355 00:24:21,560 --> 00:24:23,900 people that listening to that have already made up their mind 356 00:24:23,900 --> 00:24:26,480 too, right? Like, whether you're pro marijuana or against 357 00:24:26,480 --> 00:24:30,020 marijuana, you hear both episodes, I would I wonder if 358 00:24:30,020 --> 00:24:33,140 anyone even listens to the to the counter episode. You know, 359 00:24:33,140 --> 00:24:36,560 they they've listened to the episode on, you know, the bad 360 00:24:36,560 --> 00:24:39,080 things about marijuana that fits their belief. They hear someone 361 00:24:39,080 --> 00:24:41,480 that's going to come on and argue the other side. Do they 362 00:24:41,480 --> 00:24:44,620 even listen to it? I don't know. So it just it feels like a bit 363 00:24:44,620 --> 00:24:46,900 of an Yeah, damned if you 364 00:24:47,320 --> 00:24:50,980 Jay Ingram: so the you know, Huberman retains all the control 365 00:24:51,100 --> 00:24:55,360 if he called his and hills discussion when we don't know 366 00:24:55,360 --> 00:24:58,480 how he's going to format it, but if he called it more on 367 00:24:58,480 --> 00:24:59,620 marijuana, people would 368 00:24:59,620 --> 00:25:01,020 Bradley van Paridon: listen. That's true, yeah. 369 00:25:02,100 --> 00:25:05,520 Jay Ingram: But you know you mentioned Joe Rogan, so I've 370 00:25:05,520 --> 00:25:11,580 listened to one Joe Rogan podcast, and it's because I was 371 00:25:11,580 --> 00:25:17,760 researching these efforts largely centered in Silicon 372 00:25:17,760 --> 00:25:20,160 Valley to extend the human life 373 00:25:20,460 --> 00:25:24,020 Bradley van Paridon: span. Yeah, big topic to show, yeah, yeah, 374 00:25:24,020 --> 00:25:25,460 yeah. Well, and 375 00:25:26,000 --> 00:25:30,020 Jay Ingram: so he invited a guy who whose work or whose 376 00:25:30,260 --> 00:25:33,440 theories, at least I was familiar with, and I just wanted 377 00:25:33,440 --> 00:25:37,580 to get a little bit better depth. And it was a really good 378 00:25:37,580 --> 00:25:43,000 interview. And, you know, so when people disparage Rogan, 379 00:25:43,960 --> 00:25:48,220 they seldom take that second stamp of saying, Well, okay, you 380 00:25:48,220 --> 00:25:51,940 know, I saw this ridiculous comment he made on X actually, 381 00:25:51,940 --> 00:25:56,500 this was yesterday about how Canada's going down the toilet 382 00:25:56,500 --> 00:26:01,560 because of its game. Yeah. Well, you know, I mean the it is 383 00:26:01,560 --> 00:26:04,620 tempting to take a comment like that and say, I'll never listen 384 00:26:04,620 --> 00:26:09,240 to this. BSN, but the point is, there are people that don't know 385 00:26:09,240 --> 00:26:11,880 anything about Canada, which would include a large part of 386 00:26:11,880 --> 00:26:15,840 his audience, and they were interested in the in this aging 387 00:26:15,840 --> 00:26:19,380 topic. And it was a good, clear interview, and he got a lot of 388 00:26:19,380 --> 00:26:23,480 information that one would want to know. So again, you have to 389 00:26:23,480 --> 00:26:27,860 consider the audience. And you know, who's ever an analyzed a 390 00:26:27,860 --> 00:26:33,620 Joe Rogan audience to see if there's a split between those 391 00:26:33,620 --> 00:26:38,540 who listen to his political nonsense and those who listen to 392 00:26:38,540 --> 00:26:42,640 the guest? Yeah, because you know, there, I don't know, but 393 00:26:42,640 --> 00:26:46,780 there may be quite a difference. I mean, so it's, yeah, it's, I 394 00:26:46,780 --> 00:26:49,720 mean, if you're asking the general question of, how does a 395 00:26:49,720 --> 00:26:55,900 disgruntled scientist try to counteract stuff that he thinks 396 00:26:55,900 --> 00:27:02,400 is inaccurate or even inflammatory and wrong. How best 397 00:27:02,400 --> 00:27:04,380 to do it. It's a tricky landscape. 398 00:27:04,680 --> 00:27:07,800 Bradley van Paridon: Yeah, yeah. I mean, yeah, without going too 399 00:27:07,800 --> 00:27:11,280 far into all of the discussions of the different podcasts, I 400 00:27:11,880 --> 00:27:15,300 feel like I should say too, like I've listened to a lot of Joe 401 00:27:15,300 --> 00:27:19,260 Rogan and I was, you know, it's kind of what got me into 402 00:27:19,260 --> 00:27:22,700 podcasting, and especially when he had those scientific guests 403 00:27:22,700 --> 00:27:25,040 on, and he generally did a really good job of, you know, 404 00:27:25,040 --> 00:27:28,280 being the being the dumb guy in the room and asking the question 405 00:27:28,280 --> 00:27:31,460 that the audience wants to hear. You know, once did they got this 406 00:27:31,520 --> 00:27:37,100 chance to hear this big science person. So I just, I really like 407 00:27:37,100 --> 00:27:40,360 that point, and that split in the audience of who's listening 408 00:27:40,360 --> 00:27:42,400 to the guest and who's listening? Because that was what 409 00:27:42,400 --> 00:27:45,760 I fell into, was the camp of listening to the guest, and then 410 00:27:45,760 --> 00:27:48,700 eventually got so frustrated with all of the other nonsense 411 00:27:48,700 --> 00:27:54,220 that I just stopped listening altogether. But it's one thing I 412 00:27:54,220 --> 00:27:59,440 think, for you know, as I think it's a great example you have of 413 00:27:59,560 --> 00:28:02,460 a scientist who's like, let me I need to correct the record. Or, 414 00:28:02,640 --> 00:28:05,880 you know, if you're just speaking to your peers and 415 00:28:05,880 --> 00:28:09,120 lamenting the fact that this is out there, then, yeah, it's 416 00:28:09,120 --> 00:28:11,760 that's going to do nothing. So that was one of the thoughts I 417 00:28:11,760 --> 00:28:14,460 had on my notes over this episode, you know, was, what do 418 00:28:14,460 --> 00:28:17,460 you do? What's your what's your responsibility? If you feel like 419 00:28:17,460 --> 00:28:20,240 you need to get that other side out there. And so going to the 420 00:28:20,240 --> 00:28:24,860 source. Going to places where you heard this information is 421 00:28:24,860 --> 00:28:29,480 one thing, but it's, I wonder, how many people, yeah, like, 422 00:28:29,480 --> 00:28:32,360 didn't if, maybe, if you didn't give that prompt, or, you know, 423 00:28:32,360 --> 00:28:37,340 didn't give that advice, how many people would be, you know, 424 00:28:37,400 --> 00:28:39,980 would know what to do, or would know how to do it, or know how 425 00:28:39,980 --> 00:28:43,900 to reach out to media in any sense, and then how much of it 426 00:28:43,900 --> 00:28:47,020 is on the media itself to sort of get that other side. As 427 00:28:47,020 --> 00:28:51,040 someone that works in science journalism, I feel like, you 428 00:28:51,040 --> 00:28:54,040 know that if I'm as a freelancer, if I saw that other 429 00:28:54,040 --> 00:28:56,860 side to a big topic, I would be like, Oh, that's something I 430 00:28:56,860 --> 00:29:00,360 could pitch. You know, that's something that would gain some 431 00:29:00,360 --> 00:29:03,900 interest because it's the counter side, but it never seems 432 00:29:03,900 --> 00:29:08,040 to get as much interest as the initial thing, right? 433 00:29:09,060 --> 00:29:11,820 Jay Ingram: So let me so there's two things there. What? What 434 00:29:11,820 --> 00:29:15,900 does a scientist do? What does the media do? And I'll talk 435 00:29:15,900 --> 00:29:18,600 about the scientists. And if I forget to get to the media, you 436 00:29:18,600 --> 00:29:22,640 can remind Yeah. So one of the things I noticed about the matt 437 00:29:22,640 --> 00:29:27,440 Hill, Huberman thing was that the neuroscientists talking to 438 00:29:27,440 --> 00:29:30,980 Matt because there was a kind of a discussion about, should he 439 00:29:30,980 --> 00:29:34,940 What should he do? How should he do it? They were intimidated. 440 00:29:35,540 --> 00:29:39,560 Seemed to me. They were worried that Rogan was going to sorry. 441 00:29:40,040 --> 00:29:47,140 Huberman, interchangeable. Yeah, we you. Huberman was going to 442 00:29:47,140 --> 00:29:52,420 edit it in a way that made matt look bad. And they were saying, 443 00:29:52,420 --> 00:29:57,280 and this wasn't a bad idea, but it reflects an attitude, oh, you 444 00:29:57,280 --> 00:30:00,480 should. You should be recording it at the same time. Right? So 445 00:30:00,480 --> 00:30:04,560 then, if he edits it in a way that makes you look wrong, well, 446 00:30:04,560 --> 00:30:07,980 you can counter, you know, which, of course, implied, oh, 447 00:30:07,980 --> 00:30:11,580 my god. How long is this thing going to go on with a dwindling 448 00:30:11,580 --> 00:30:16,440 audience, the whole time? But it reflected an attitude that when, 449 00:30:16,920 --> 00:30:21,440 and it's partly right, if you're going to take on someone with a 450 00:30:21,440 --> 00:30:28,220 giant audience, you have to be care. You have to be sure that 451 00:30:28,220 --> 00:30:31,520 you're going to get some sort of fair hearing, even though I 452 00:30:31,520 --> 00:30:37,820 think it's the only way to do it. Now, you know, there are a 453 00:30:37,820 --> 00:30:43,660 lot of scientists, cannabinoid researchers who don't care what 454 00:30:43,660 --> 00:30:49,480 Huberman says, and even if they knew that he had broadcast, you 455 00:30:49,480 --> 00:30:54,700 know, falsehoods, they would just say, well, it's not up to 456 00:30:54,700 --> 00:30:58,780 me to do that, you know, I'm doing my research. I have my 457 00:30:58,780 --> 00:31:02,820 grant money to do my research. I teach classes. I get paid for 458 00:31:02,820 --> 00:31:07,980 doing that. That's what I do. And, you know, that's fine. I 459 00:31:07,980 --> 00:31:13,380 mean, I've, I've met, I haven't met, a huge number of scientists 460 00:31:13,380 --> 00:31:17,580 who scan the public media all the time, looking for things 461 00:31:17,580 --> 00:31:22,040 that they feel they should respond to. And I would just add 462 00:31:22,040 --> 00:31:24,680 to that, seeing as though we're basically talking about 463 00:31:24,680 --> 00:31:30,860 everything here, there are people who are quite public in 464 00:31:30,860 --> 00:31:38,420 their efforts to combat mis and disinformation, and I think 465 00:31:38,420 --> 00:31:43,000 They're ignoring who is the audience as well, because they 466 00:31:43,060 --> 00:31:49,540 regularly post on X here's more information that conservative 467 00:31:49,540 --> 00:31:53,860 Paul conservative people are more accepting of misinformation 468 00:31:53,860 --> 00:31:56,800 than people who aren't conservative. Well, just think 469 00:31:56,800 --> 00:32:02,160 about that for a sec. Who's going to pay any attention to 470 00:32:02,160 --> 00:32:06,240 that? The people who aren't conservatives will have just had 471 00:32:06,240 --> 00:32:10,920 their ideas confirmed. So big deal you've confirmed. You've 472 00:32:10,920 --> 00:32:14,820 entrenched them in their already held opinion. And there's not 473 00:32:14,820 --> 00:32:18,420 really much point in doing that. Conservatives will look at it 474 00:32:18,420 --> 00:32:19,500 and say, Oh, well, you know, 475 00:32:20,640 --> 00:32:23,060 Bradley van Paridon: he's a lib more Yeah, more liberal 476 00:32:23,060 --> 00:32:24,020 nonsense, yeah, 477 00:32:24,200 --> 00:32:27,440 Jay Ingram: and, yeah, yeah. And, you know, woke, yeah, and 478 00:32:27,560 --> 00:32:33,860 just and disregard it. So, so why? Why are you doing it? I 479 00:32:33,860 --> 00:32:37,880 mean, I think it's laudable to try and combat misinformation. 480 00:32:37,880 --> 00:32:44,140 My point only is that's not the right way to do it so and then 481 00:32:44,140 --> 00:32:48,520 on the other side of the coin, just to sort of try and, you 482 00:32:48,520 --> 00:32:52,240 know, paint a family portrait of the kinds of people that are 483 00:32:52,240 --> 00:32:57,580 involved in these topics. You know, David Suzuki has been 484 00:32:57,940 --> 00:33:06,420 savaged by politicians for a decade. Was he ever wrong? He 485 00:33:06,420 --> 00:33:11,340 may have stated things, you know, strongly, but he was never 486 00:33:11,340 --> 00:33:15,540 really wrong as we you know, I sit here in Calgary and we have 487 00:33:15,720 --> 00:33:21,140 like, eight straight days and plus 30 temperatures. You know, 488 00:33:21,200 --> 00:33:26,720 no one can reasonably or rationally claim at this point 489 00:33:27,080 --> 00:33:31,880 that there's no effect on of climate change. And so what do 490 00:33:31,880 --> 00:33:37,760 you do about that? It's it's an asymmetric battle. He's using 491 00:33:37,760 --> 00:33:42,520 scientific data people will always to buttress his argument, 492 00:33:43,420 --> 00:33:48,340 his opponents will always find something. Oh, yeah, sure. Well, 493 00:33:48,340 --> 00:33:51,880 there was a heat wave in 1927 where the temperatures were 494 00:33:51,880 --> 00:33:56,980 exactly the same as they are today. All of this stuff that is 495 00:33:57,340 --> 00:34:04,620 irrelevant. And the problem is opponents of science don't 496 00:34:04,620 --> 00:34:09,120 really dig very deep into the data, and this is where you have 497 00:34:09,120 --> 00:34:16,560 a problem in expressing dissatisfaction with somebody's 498 00:34:16,560 --> 00:34:20,780 work, because you have to get into the process of science. 499 00:34:20,960 --> 00:34:24,260 Hey, we're not sure what's happening right now. That kind 500 00:34:24,260 --> 00:34:29,480 of admission that that no scientist wants to make, and you 501 00:34:29,480 --> 00:34:33,560 have to, people have to understand before you approach 502 00:34:33,560 --> 00:34:37,220 them with some sort of, you know, Contra argument to what's 503 00:34:37,220 --> 00:34:40,720 prevalent. They have to understand a little bit about 504 00:34:40,720 --> 00:34:45,340 the process of science and getting across the process of 505 00:34:45,340 --> 00:34:49,540 science, I don't think has ever been done very well, 506 00:34:50,860 --> 00:34:53,800 Bradley van Paridon: yeah, and I think, but so then this is kind 507 00:34:53,800 --> 00:34:58,900 of, I don't know that I have, I've had recent episodes of 508 00:34:58,960 --> 00:35:04,740 delved. More into the the process of science communication 509 00:35:04,860 --> 00:35:08,640 and all these kind of topics. And I, oh, I always struggle at 510 00:35:08,640 --> 00:35:11,220 about this point in the episode where it starts to look really 511 00:35:11,220 --> 00:35:14,460 bleak, you know, like, what are we? What's the point, really? 512 00:35:15,240 --> 00:35:19,320 Because, especially when you think about you did these big 513 00:35:19,320 --> 00:35:22,400 topics, you know, like, and we, at the beginning, touched on 514 00:35:22,400 --> 00:35:26,180 why, you know, it's going to reach a huge audience. When you 515 00:35:26,180 --> 00:35:30,020 talk about raising kids, or, you know, health, you know, health 516 00:35:30,020 --> 00:35:33,140 stuff is, is like, Huberman, you know, who's a neuroscientist, 517 00:35:33,140 --> 00:35:36,260 and now it's kind of the whole thing is, like optimizing your 518 00:35:36,260 --> 00:35:38,960 health, and like hacking the body, and like all this. So 519 00:35:38,960 --> 00:35:43,420 there's tons of stuff going on there that is, I'd say dubious, 520 00:35:43,420 --> 00:35:48,460 or at least we'll say unsettled science, right? Like it's, you 521 00:35:48,460 --> 00:35:53,980 get one or two studies, and it's like, Okay, this looks good. But 522 00:35:54,340 --> 00:35:56,860 as we know, the process of science would take longer and 523 00:35:56,860 --> 00:35:59,620 longer and longer for these things to play out. So without 524 00:35:59,620 --> 00:36:03,360 having to explain that process without being able to explain 525 00:36:03,360 --> 00:36:08,700 that process. Like, where do you go to find that audience to, you 526 00:36:08,700 --> 00:36:11,940 know, do that work? Let's say, of explaining the process so you 527 00:36:11,940 --> 00:36:14,100 can get that little bit of knowledge. Because, like you 528 00:36:14,100 --> 00:36:16,500 said, Twitter's not going to do it. You can go to the source, 529 00:36:16,500 --> 00:36:19,740 but I don't know. So it just feels like, if that's the way 530 00:36:19,740 --> 00:36:21,980 that you have to sort of approach critiquing these 531 00:36:21,980 --> 00:36:24,980 things. But how do you get anybody to pay attention to 532 00:36:24,980 --> 00:36:25,280 that? 533 00:36:25,880 --> 00:36:29,420 Jay Ingram: I don't know. I mean, the thing is, what that 534 00:36:29,420 --> 00:36:36,500 requires is a long read, some in depth, and you need some really 535 00:36:36,500 --> 00:36:42,700 concrete examples of how science evolves, and people already know 536 00:36:42,700 --> 00:36:47,020 this. I mean, we were talking earlier about, you know, the 537 00:36:47,020 --> 00:36:52,780 universe, and why is it? Why is it so? Why are images and ideas 538 00:36:53,020 --> 00:36:56,440 about the universe so compelling? The other day, I was 539 00:36:56,440 --> 00:37:00,720 reading that, if you you know a certain way of treating quantum 540 00:37:00,720 --> 00:37:07,440 mechanics might show that time is an illusion. Okay, well, you 541 00:37:07,440 --> 00:37:12,660 know, if you looked at the equivalent statement in medical 542 00:37:12,660 --> 00:37:15,720 science, it would be pretty dramatic. It would be something 543 00:37:15,720 --> 00:37:19,080 like, you must never eat another potato for the rest of your 544 00:37:19,080 --> 00:37:22,640 life, or something like that. We've been wrong. Time is an 545 00:37:22,640 --> 00:37:27,500 illusion. But, you know, saying that time is an illusion affects 546 00:37:27,500 --> 00:37:32,300 nobody. Yeah, they still get up at seven in the morning, yeah, 547 00:37:32,360 --> 00:37:35,300 and have breakfast and, you know, go out and work or do 548 00:37:35,300 --> 00:37:36,140 whatever. The train is 549 00:37:36,140 --> 00:37:38,060 Bradley van Paridon: still going to show up at 730 whether you're 550 00:37:38,060 --> 00:37:38,900 there or not. Yeah, 551 00:37:39,920 --> 00:37:42,460 Jay Ingram: exactly. It might be an illusion, but the train's 552 00:37:42,460 --> 00:37:47,680 going to be there anyway. Whereas if you say you're eating 553 00:37:47,680 --> 00:37:53,800 all the wrong food, you know that's something that hits 554 00:37:53,800 --> 00:37:57,220 people, and people don't like being told that what they're 555 00:37:57,220 --> 00:38:01,920 doing is wrong, and so either people that sort of have an 556 00:38:01,920 --> 00:38:08,520 interest in the backdrop to that. You know, we used to think 557 00:38:08,520 --> 00:38:11,700 this, then it evolved to this, and now we've come to that. I 558 00:38:11,700 --> 00:38:15,840 accept that, but people who haven't paid much attention and 559 00:38:15,840 --> 00:38:21,140 are being told that their diet is terrible are likely going to 560 00:38:21,140 --> 00:38:26,480 question the science. I don't know. I've thought about this 561 00:38:26,660 --> 00:38:31,040 quite a lot with the help of some other friends of mine, 562 00:38:31,040 --> 00:38:35,360 about how to do the process of science, and I haven't yet hit 563 00:38:35,360 --> 00:38:42,760 on what would seem to be a good vehicle for that, because comes 564 00:38:42,760 --> 00:38:49,480 back to, you know, the idea that those who already believe that 565 00:38:49,540 --> 00:38:54,100 or understand that science is a process and our ideas are 566 00:38:54,100 --> 00:38:59,560 inevitably going to change are cool with that, and those who 567 00:38:59,560 --> 00:39:04,500 want To know whether the vaccine is 100% safe or not, are not 568 00:39:04,500 --> 00:39:08,160 going to be cool with that. But you know, there's a huge amount 569 00:39:08,160 --> 00:39:12,300 of willful misunderstanding going on too. There is no 570 00:39:12,300 --> 00:39:16,800 vaccine that is safe 100% safe. It's gotten to the point where 571 00:39:17,280 --> 00:39:22,400 advocates of the covid vaccines are afraid to say that, yeah, 572 00:39:22,460 --> 00:39:27,800 because you cannot in this battle between anti vaxxers and 573 00:39:29,300 --> 00:39:34,940 reasonable people, there's, there's no common ground there. 574 00:39:34,940 --> 00:39:41,440 You know, it's just, it's two islands of people hurling words 575 00:39:41,440 --> 00:39:44,560 at each other, and so I don't really know now, you also 576 00:39:44,560 --> 00:39:52,720 mentioned the role of the media. So you know, if you're if you're 577 00:39:52,720 --> 00:39:57,400 working for a magazine or one of the few online newspapers that 578 00:39:57,400 --> 00:40:01,320 still has a science correspondent, you. Yeah. Again, 579 00:40:01,320 --> 00:40:05,880 you're talking to your people, right? A science column in a in 580 00:40:05,880 --> 00:40:09,780 a news in an online newspaper, only attracts people who are 581 00:40:09,780 --> 00:40:13,140 kind of interested in science, yeah? So they'll accept it from 582 00:40:13,140 --> 00:40:17,880 you. You know, you know, there's always this throwaway phrase, of 583 00:40:17,880 --> 00:40:21,080 course, we need to do more research, yeah? You know, which 584 00:40:21,080 --> 00:40:24,440 is one of those phrases that no, nobody pays any attention to. I 585 00:40:24,440 --> 00:40:24,860 found 586 00:40:24,860 --> 00:40:26,540 Bradley van Paridon: I'm trying to find so many different ways 587 00:40:26,540 --> 00:40:29,720 of writing that exact thing without saying those words just 588 00:40:29,780 --> 00:40:32,420 just because it's like every article. 589 00:40:33,860 --> 00:40:37,400 Jay Ingram: I think if you're going to tackle it, I think you 590 00:40:37,400 --> 00:40:43,060 should write an article just on that and and nothing else. And 591 00:40:43,060 --> 00:40:48,580 take some sort of headline that everybody is paying attention to 592 00:40:48,820 --> 00:40:52,360 and just say right out. You know, we don't know how long 593 00:40:52,360 --> 00:40:57,400 this is going to be seen to be nearly 100% true, and we don't 594 00:40:57,400 --> 00:41:00,840 know how long it's going to be before it's only 75% true. But 595 00:41:00,840 --> 00:41:04,200 that is inevitable. Yeah, somebody's got to say that. So 596 00:41:04,200 --> 00:41:07,500 maybe it should be you, because, you know, throwing away, of 597 00:41:07,500 --> 00:41:10,200 course, more research needs to be done. It's right up there 598 00:41:10,200 --> 00:41:17,340 with we think this study of dragonfly flight may lend itself 599 00:41:17,340 --> 00:41:24,320 to creating new, more mobile mailbox. But that, you know 600 00:41:24,320 --> 00:41:27,800 what? That's an actually, usually an outright lie, yeah, 601 00:41:27,800 --> 00:41:32,840 but it's, it's just an effort. It just shows the the isolation 602 00:41:33,200 --> 00:41:38,300 in some senses of the scientific community, where some writer, it 603 00:41:38,300 --> 00:41:43,180 may not be the scientist, but it might be thinks, unless you 604 00:41:43,180 --> 00:41:45,880 connect it to robots, people aren't going to care, yeah, 605 00:41:46,240 --> 00:41:51,760 well, you're right. Most people don't care about how dragonflies 606 00:41:51,760 --> 00:41:55,300 are amazing flyers. They see them, they think, oh, that's 607 00:41:55,300 --> 00:41:57,820 kind of cool. It can fly backwards. They don't think 608 00:41:57,820 --> 00:42:04,260 about how and and, you know, probably if asked, Should $2 609 00:42:04,260 --> 00:42:10,320 million be dispensed to figure out how they might say no, until 610 00:42:10,320 --> 00:42:15,240 you say, but it might make better robots. I'm sorry. I 611 00:42:15,240 --> 00:42:20,480 shouldn't laugh, because it's not a funny topic. But I, and 612 00:42:20,480 --> 00:42:23,480 maybe it's clear from the way I've been talking, I've had 613 00:42:23,960 --> 00:42:28,640 trouble sorting out exactly how you should do this. I can give 614 00:42:28,640 --> 00:42:31,820 you an example of where I think people have been very careful, 615 00:42:32,660 --> 00:42:38,420 and that is the Lancet Commission on dementia risks. So 616 00:42:38,420 --> 00:42:43,360 they came out in 2017 and the lancet commissions are huge 617 00:42:43,360 --> 00:42:47,260 arrays of international scientists who evaluate data 618 00:42:47,500 --> 00:42:52,720 around a topic. And in 2017 they published a list of risks for 619 00:42:52,720 --> 00:42:57,220 dementia that you can do something about you like you 620 00:42:57,220 --> 00:43:02,460 Bradley something about in your life. And then in 2020 they 621 00:43:02,460 --> 00:43:05,760 updated it and had a added a couple more, and they've just, 622 00:43:06,060 --> 00:43:10,860 it's embargoed, as you and I speak, but they've added a 623 00:43:10,860 --> 00:43:15,540 couple more risks and solidified the evidence around some of the 624 00:43:15,540 --> 00:43:18,960 risks they previously identified. And that's really 625 00:43:18,960 --> 00:43:19,980 what I like about it. 626 00:43:20,220 --> 00:43:22,640 Bradley van Paridon: I'm afraid to look at telling me to not 627 00:43:22,640 --> 00:43:24,680 drink beer. And I don't know if I'm ready for that. 628 00:43:26,540 --> 00:43:31,040 Jay Ingram: They're allowing you to drink some beer, okay, all 629 00:43:31,040 --> 00:43:34,820 right, just not a lot, but if you smoke, you should stop. 630 00:43:34,820 --> 00:43:37,100 Bradley van Paridon: Yeah, that's quit that decades ago. 631 00:43:38,120 --> 00:43:44,020 Jay Ingram: If you do things that increase your risk of 632 00:43:44,020 --> 00:43:47,860 traumatic brain injury, you should stop. No if you have 633 00:43:47,860 --> 00:43:52,000 diabetes, you should stop. Anyway. I'm not going to get all 634 00:43:52,420 --> 00:43:57,700 14 risks, but my point is that they've done this in a very 635 00:43:58,780 --> 00:44:05,880 steady, thorough way, and not just adding risks, but also 636 00:44:05,880 --> 00:44:10,560 reviewing the previous risks and evaluating them in light of 637 00:44:10,740 --> 00:44:17,160 evidence that has accumulated since 2017, 2020, and so on. And 638 00:44:17,160 --> 00:44:22,280 so I have a particular interest in this because I'm doing a 639 00:44:22,280 --> 00:44:27,680 podcast called defy dementia, where we are communicating with 640 00:44:27,680 --> 00:44:33,140 people about these risks and what you could and should do in 641 00:44:33,140 --> 00:44:39,980 your life to reduce your risk of dementia or even reduce your 642 00:44:41,300 --> 00:44:46,120 progression, even if you've been diagnosed with mild cognitive 643 00:44:46,120 --> 00:44:50,080 impairment or dementia. So it's a great example, and it is 644 00:44:50,080 --> 00:44:54,460 getting the press, at least, mostly in the UK, but it sort of 645 00:44:55,240 --> 00:45:00,240 comes over to North America as well, that these and. You know 646 00:45:00,240 --> 00:45:05,280 what they're they're not always changes in your life that people 647 00:45:05,280 --> 00:45:11,040 want to hear. You know, I I like having 12 drinks a week? Well, 648 00:45:11,040 --> 00:45:14,760 maybe that's too many. You should stop smoking. If you've 649 00:45:14,760 --> 00:45:18,660 got a wood stove and there's smoke all over the place, you're 650 00:45:18,660 --> 00:45:21,200 increasing your risk of dementias. You might want to do 651 00:45:21,200 --> 00:45:24,980 something about that so, you know, but they're not, they're 652 00:45:24,980 --> 00:45:30,740 not telling you you must. You're not saying, I'm going to get, 653 00:45:30,740 --> 00:45:35,420 I'm going to, you know, add a carbon tax to your life, because 654 00:45:35,780 --> 00:45:38,660 there's really good evidence that that would help fight 655 00:45:38,660 --> 00:45:41,500 climate change. They're not doing it that way. They're just 656 00:45:41,500 --> 00:45:47,140 saying, Look, here are the risks. We encourage you. We 657 00:45:47,140 --> 00:45:52,120 don't force you. We encourage you to take some steps, and 658 00:45:52,120 --> 00:45:56,080 you'll be better off, and so will your kids and your family 659 00:45:56,080 --> 00:46:02,220 and anybody else who might end up being a caregiver. So so 660 00:46:02,220 --> 00:46:04,560 that's one topic, yeah. And, I 661 00:46:04,560 --> 00:46:06,540 Bradley van Paridon: mean, and I think, you know, as much as I 662 00:46:06,540 --> 00:46:08,820 said, the medical space, there's a lot of stuff that's 663 00:46:08,820 --> 00:46:11,820 frustrating in communication. That's also an example of where, 664 00:46:11,820 --> 00:46:15,120 because your people want that information. It's the same thing 665 00:46:15,120 --> 00:46:17,520 with the height book right to kind of just bring it back to 666 00:46:17,520 --> 00:46:21,500 that people want to know about. What should I do with my kids? I 667 00:46:21,500 --> 00:46:25,640 think, in some ways, now that I'm a father, people want too 668 00:46:25,640 --> 00:46:29,360 much to be told what's the right thing. There's so much 669 00:46:29,360 --> 00:46:32,300 information out there. But anyway, that's another topic, 670 00:46:32,720 --> 00:46:36,020 but it's, I think this then comes to audience. So you the 671 00:46:36,020 --> 00:46:38,420 people that are going to seek out this information on 672 00:46:38,420 --> 00:46:42,040 dementia, probably, you know, I would guess a lot of them maybe 673 00:46:42,040 --> 00:46:44,620 have experience with it in their life, or something like that. So 674 00:46:44,620 --> 00:46:46,540 they're going to see that. They're going to respond to 675 00:46:46,540 --> 00:46:51,520 that. Again, how does that get into sort of the mainstream, you 676 00:46:51,520 --> 00:46:54,580 know, like, if you're, if your goal as someone who's who's done 677 00:46:54,580 --> 00:46:57,760 this research, who's done this, this panel, whatever, I can't 678 00:46:57,760 --> 00:47:00,720 remember what you called the consortium, whatever, um, the 679 00:47:00,720 --> 00:47:03,660 goal would, obviously, we should get this out there to as many 680 00:47:03,660 --> 00:47:06,780 people as possible, because it's good, you know, it's the best 681 00:47:06,780 --> 00:47:09,840 information we have. You know, what is the, I guess, the 682 00:47:09,840 --> 00:47:13,620 vehicles to do that. And this brings me to a question that 683 00:47:13,680 --> 00:47:18,360 I've juggled with in the last little bit, again, in previous 684 00:47:18,360 --> 00:47:22,340 episodes and stuff, is, well, does everybody need to know 685 00:47:22,340 --> 00:47:25,580 everything you know when it comes to science and science 686 00:47:25,580 --> 00:47:29,000 news, this would seem like a topic that would you would want 687 00:47:29,000 --> 00:47:33,860 to know about. And it seems to me, more and more that like what 688 00:47:33,860 --> 00:47:36,620 you want to call it, legacy media, traditional media, the 689 00:47:36,620 --> 00:47:44,200 news media, that cycle, that way of of covering topics doesn't 690 00:47:44,200 --> 00:47:48,880 work for this material, like it's just, it's you square peg, 691 00:47:48,880 --> 00:47:51,400 round hole kind of thing. It's just, it's not going to work. 692 00:47:51,400 --> 00:47:53,680 You're not going to be able to get that nuance. You're not 693 00:47:53,680 --> 00:47:57,700 going to be able to find those audiences. So then, what is it? 694 00:47:57,700 --> 00:48:00,900 Because Twitter or X, I don't know if that's the spot 695 00:48:00,960 --> 00:48:03,660 podcasts, I think are great, but people have to find your 696 00:48:03,660 --> 00:48:07,200 podcast. I don't know this. This seems, again, like one of those. 697 00:48:07,620 --> 00:48:11,340 I'm throwing a bunch of stuff up here, and that many of us have 698 00:48:11,340 --> 00:48:11,940 the well, 699 00:48:13,140 --> 00:48:18,780 Jay Ingram: so if I could just go back to the lifestyle risks 700 00:48:18,780 --> 00:48:25,100 for dementia, one of the IT, one of the values, and I've already 701 00:48:25,100 --> 00:48:30,620 said this, is that it has a consistency. It isn't just a one 702 00:48:30,620 --> 00:48:35,180 time thing. So it comes back and people remember it vaguely from 703 00:48:35,180 --> 00:48:37,940 the time before, so they might be more interested in how it's 704 00:48:37,940 --> 00:48:45,160 evolved. So you are nailing the science evolves subject down by 705 00:48:45,160 --> 00:48:49,000 that. But the other thing is that, and you mentioned that, 706 00:48:49,000 --> 00:48:51,760 oh, in the audience, there's probably a lot of people have 707 00:48:51,760 --> 00:48:55,900 had dementia in their lives. Is there anybody living today who 708 00:48:55,900 --> 00:48:58,960 hasn't had dementia in their family somewhere, or their 709 00:48:58,960 --> 00:49:04,260 friends? I doubt it. I've never, I've never spoken to an audience 710 00:49:04,260 --> 00:49:07,920 where somebody put up their hands that have no connection 711 00:49:07,920 --> 00:49:12,120 with dementia whatsoever. Yeah, and even if you didn't, and you 712 00:49:12,120 --> 00:49:19,260 realize the amount of money that would be saved if a healthcare 713 00:49:19,260 --> 00:49:23,540 system managed to persuade people to change their 714 00:49:23,540 --> 00:49:29,780 lifestyles such that the result would be dementia in general, 715 00:49:29,780 --> 00:49:35,000 would be delayed by five years. The amount of savings would be 716 00:49:35,000 --> 00:49:38,480 absolutely incredible. There's going to be 150 million people 717 00:49:38,480 --> 00:49:43,720 with dementia by 2050 the shortage of caregivers by 2030 718 00:49:44,380 --> 00:49:51,520 is in the US is estimated to be well over 100,000 so it has 719 00:49:51,580 --> 00:49:57,400 multiple benefits. It's not just you, you may not get dementia, 720 00:49:57,400 --> 00:50:03,540 it's society might. Not get as much dementia. So I think that 721 00:50:03,660 --> 00:50:09,060 when a story has those kinds of attributes, that it's people 722 00:50:09,060 --> 00:50:13,020 have some experience. I mean, if you had a if you had an 723 00:50:13,140 --> 00:50:19,260 equivalent periodic report telling people what your future 724 00:50:21,540 --> 00:50:25,100 income would be or something like that. You would eat that 725 00:50:25,100 --> 00:50:29,540 up, especially if you'd seen over a period of five or six 726 00:50:29,540 --> 00:50:34,100 years that it had turned out to be accurate. It's just that, you 727 00:50:34,100 --> 00:50:40,180 know, there are many stories that are quite so reliable and 728 00:50:40,180 --> 00:50:46,540 personal. And I think those are two, two aspects of a topic now 729 00:50:46,540 --> 00:50:51,760 where you know you mentioned legacy media, I think New York 730 00:50:51,760 --> 00:50:57,040 Times, Washington Post papers like that are still, are still 731 00:50:57,040 --> 00:51:00,900 effective. There are these. They're the equivalent in Europe 732 00:51:00,900 --> 00:51:09,120 and the UK. But you know, are like, do 20 year olds read that 733 00:51:09,120 --> 00:51:13,560 sort of stuff? And how do you get see? It doesn't really 734 00:51:13,560 --> 00:51:17,820 matter. Talk, social media, legacy media, a book, whatever. 735 00:51:18,840 --> 00:51:25,700 The format is less important than the age group and the 736 00:51:25,700 --> 00:51:29,960 interests of the audience you're trying to get. So, you know, a 737 00:51:29,960 --> 00:51:35,180 book will resonate with some people, tonight's article will 738 00:51:35,180 --> 00:51:41,740 resonate with some people, and I don't think a single person can 739 00:51:42,340 --> 00:51:46,360 be so well. First of all, working 24 hours a day. 740 00:51:46,960 --> 00:51:52,900 Secondly, researching every source of information to try and 741 00:51:52,900 --> 00:51:58,180 hit the best one. Because inevitably, in science, some 742 00:51:58,180 --> 00:52:02,460 topics should be on one medium, then some topics should be on a 743 00:52:02,460 --> 00:52:07,980 different one. And you'd have to be an awfully erudite journalist 744 00:52:08,220 --> 00:52:12,000 to know instantly when you came across a story where it should 745 00:52:12,000 --> 00:52:16,440 be put and you'd also have to be incredibly skilled to be able to 746 00:52:16,440 --> 00:52:17,040 put it there. 747 00:52:18,300 --> 00:52:20,240 Bradley van Paridon: Yeah, well, and so then this is kind of like 748 00:52:20,240 --> 00:52:23,360 it makes me, you know, again, in some of these thoughts, is like, 749 00:52:23,360 --> 00:52:27,500 so, you know, the science section of a paper, okay, so New 750 00:52:27,500 --> 00:52:29,780 York Times, Washington Post, they probably have a really good 751 00:52:29,780 --> 00:52:33,740 science correspondent that is, is versed in science like that, 752 00:52:33,740 --> 00:52:37,880 knows that beat really well, right? Whereas maybe even, like, 753 00:52:38,360 --> 00:52:42,880 something like the CBC or, you know, let's go down the list. If 754 00:52:42,880 --> 00:52:45,820 they even have a science there, maybe it's somebody that you 755 00:52:45,820 --> 00:52:49,180 know did health or did environment or something before, 756 00:52:49,180 --> 00:52:52,840 but it's not, you know, is not there. So there's that lack of, 757 00:52:53,380 --> 00:52:57,880 of, you know, knowledge in the institutions, in those 758 00:52:57,880 --> 00:53:00,420 institutions there. And then you have, you know, some of the 759 00:53:00,420 --> 00:53:04,800 stuff that I do, which is your very dedicated science news 760 00:53:05,160 --> 00:53:08,580 magazines, you know, the scientific Americans, the the 761 00:53:08,580 --> 00:53:11,820 chemistry worlds, you know, like the the places. So it's like, I 762 00:53:11,820 --> 00:53:16,260 don't expect, you know, even, yeah, I know my mom reads some 763 00:53:16,260 --> 00:53:19,800 of them. But you know, people in my in my peer group, you know, 764 00:53:19,800 --> 00:53:22,160 like, outside of that, I don't think they're reading, they're 765 00:53:22,400 --> 00:53:24,740 going to be reading the stuff I put out in chemistry world, 766 00:53:24,740 --> 00:53:27,200 right? Because it doesn't matter to them, that kind of thing. But 767 00:53:27,200 --> 00:53:34,100 this is, I guess, I'm trying to think about where, yeah, placing 768 00:53:34,100 --> 00:53:36,620 different topics and different things area in different 769 00:53:36,620 --> 00:53:39,680 mediums. And I think our audience has a lot to do with 770 00:53:39,680 --> 00:53:42,320 it, as you know, with the social media stuff like, if you want to 771 00:53:42,320 --> 00:53:44,500 hit young people, hit young people, you got to be on Tiktok. 772 00:53:44,560 --> 00:53:48,040 If you want to get the older people, maybe podcasts, 773 00:53:48,040 --> 00:53:52,600 millennials, podcasts, that kind of thing. But, yeah, I don't 774 00:53:52,600 --> 00:53:57,940 know. I think it's, it's it's tough, because I agree with what 775 00:53:57,940 --> 00:54:00,840 you were saying earlier. This noble pursuit of, sort of 776 00:54:00,840 --> 00:54:05,040 wanting to get the correct thing out there and get people to sort 777 00:54:05,040 --> 00:54:10,260 of understand, you know, what it means when we say it's not 778 00:54:10,260 --> 00:54:14,640 settled, and why, you know, maybe, maybe don't change your 779 00:54:14,640 --> 00:54:18,660 whole life. You know, style based on a Huberman podcast. I 780 00:54:18,660 --> 00:54:21,080 feel like there's a lot of people that are probably ping 781 00:54:21,080 --> 00:54:26,000 ponging from, you know, diet to diet, to hack to hack, you know, 782 00:54:26,120 --> 00:54:29,360 and you're never seeing any results, but constantly being 783 00:54:29,360 --> 00:54:34,700 like, I'm doing it, maybe a series of something, like a 784 00:54:34,700 --> 00:54:37,520 YouTube series or something, or a couple series of videos I'm 785 00:54:38,240 --> 00:54:40,840 dabbling into YouTube now. So maybe this is me convincing 786 00:54:40,840 --> 00:54:43,780 myself to do this, but explaining the difference in the 787 00:54:43,780 --> 00:54:46,120 different studies? Right? Because, like, what's a meta 788 00:54:46,120 --> 00:54:50,140 analysis versus a review versus a clinical trial versus which 789 00:54:50,140 --> 00:54:53,620 sounds incredibly boring, I think, to a lot of people, but 790 00:54:53,920 --> 00:54:58,420 how if you knew the differences between that your ability to 791 00:54:58,420 --> 00:55:02,340 then look at a Huberman. Podcast and look at the the journals 792 00:55:02,340 --> 00:55:06,180 quickly that they're citing there, and say, Oh yeah, maybe 793 00:55:06,180 --> 00:55:08,700 the weight of evidence, not so so much on that. But this one 794 00:55:08,700 --> 00:55:11,760 has a systemic review, you know, that kind of meta analysis, that 795 00:55:11,760 --> 00:55:14,280 kind of thing, so but, I mean, how do you teach people that? 796 00:55:14,280 --> 00:55:19,320 Because that seems like super boring. Well, you it is. Thank 797 00:55:19,320 --> 00:55:20,480 you. You 798 00:55:20,480 --> 00:55:23,120 Jay Ingram: can't, well, you can't do it that way. What you'd 799 00:55:23,120 --> 00:55:31,820 have to do is when you feel compelled to respond to 800 00:55:32,060 --> 00:55:36,620 statements coming from somebody that you think are inaccurate or 801 00:55:36,620 --> 00:55:41,200 gloss over the truth or whatever. It's only then, when 802 00:55:41,260 --> 00:55:46,540 the story is in the news, that it's really appropriate to start 803 00:55:46,540 --> 00:55:52,660 talking about meta analyzes, or, you know, retrospective trials. 804 00:55:52,660 --> 00:55:56,380 Yeah, use that. I had an interesting here's an 805 00:55:56,380 --> 00:56:00,600 interesting example, again, drawn from dementia studies 806 00:56:01,800 --> 00:56:07,680 showing that there was one study about alcohol, so you'll be 807 00:56:07,680 --> 00:56:08,340 interested in 808 00:56:08,940 --> 00:56:10,140 Bradley van Paridon: this. You saw my eyes 809 00:56:13,080 --> 00:56:17,100 Jay Ingram: that consumption over consumption of alcohol was 810 00:56:17,100 --> 00:56:24,320 definitely a risk, but so was abstinence. Now that's puzzling, 811 00:56:24,380 --> 00:56:30,080 right? It's puzzling until you realize that a lot of people who 812 00:56:30,080 --> 00:56:36,860 are abstinent are so because they had to stop drinking, and 813 00:56:36,860 --> 00:56:41,680 as a result, they have a backlog of damage done by the alcohol 814 00:56:41,800 --> 00:56:47,920 before they became abstinent. And so that's a tiny example of 815 00:56:47,920 --> 00:56:52,480 how you have to scrutinize the participants in a study to 816 00:56:52,480 --> 00:56:56,320 really get an accurate picture of what the study is all about. 817 00:56:56,680 --> 00:57:02,520 And so if I were, if I were to to tackle the issue of, how do 818 00:57:02,520 --> 00:57:07,560 you get across the the idiosyncrasies, that's not quite 819 00:57:07,560 --> 00:57:12,240 the right word, but the detailed structure of a study that allows 820 00:57:12,240 --> 00:57:15,720 somebody to make statements about it. You have to have the 821 00:57:15,720 --> 00:57:20,100 study there, and in people's minds, you can't come at it 822 00:57:20,280 --> 00:57:24,860 because you know, doing it as, here's a here's a meta analysis, 823 00:57:24,980 --> 00:57:28,340 here's this, here's that, that's too much like being in school, 824 00:57:28,400 --> 00:57:32,540 yeah, yeah, you know. And you know, you hated it when you were 825 00:57:32,540 --> 00:57:36,860 in school, and it was only later, some of us realized that 826 00:57:36,860 --> 00:57:40,300 was actually kind of interesting and important, yeah, but people 827 00:57:40,300 --> 00:57:43,900 are too busy to be sent back to school. Yeah, they don't want 828 00:57:43,900 --> 00:57:49,840 to. So exactly, whereas, if you know not, I don't want to 829 00:57:49,840 --> 00:57:53,440 belabor the Huberman example, but an example like that where 830 00:57:53,440 --> 00:57:57,160 you feel like somebody's disseminating false information, 831 00:57:58,420 --> 00:58:02,640 take one component of it and say, Here's how that was arrived 832 00:58:02,640 --> 00:58:07,080 at. Here's why. There are problems with that. Then it 833 00:58:07,080 --> 00:58:11,040 becomes much more interesting. It's much more of a solving a 834 00:58:11,040 --> 00:58:15,120 mystery, a detective story. Yeah, yeah. And you know, you we 835 00:58:15,120 --> 00:58:21,860 can't, we can't forget that in all of this, you have to be 836 00:58:21,860 --> 00:58:23,180 telling stories. Yes, 837 00:58:23,480 --> 00:58:26,480 Bradley van Paridon: yeah, yeah, exactly. I think, you know, I 838 00:58:26,480 --> 00:58:29,720 think in politics, they talk about the process story, right? 839 00:58:29,720 --> 00:58:33,020 That that gets put out there in PR and stuff. Every once in a 840 00:58:33,020 --> 00:58:36,260 while, they do a process story of how they arrived at these 841 00:58:36,260 --> 00:58:38,780 conclusions. And obviously, there's different, it's a 842 00:58:38,780 --> 00:58:41,320 different realm and a different, you know, reason why you would 843 00:58:41,320 --> 00:58:43,780 put some of those out, but that's kind of what I'm thinking 844 00:58:43,780 --> 00:58:45,820 of. And it just made me think something that I've been 845 00:58:45,820 --> 00:58:48,280 thinking a lot of. This is my last thought before I let you 846 00:58:48,280 --> 00:58:55,000 go. Is just, what can you know, people like me, science 847 00:58:55,060 --> 00:58:58,000 journalists, science people in science media, let's say science 848 00:58:58,000 --> 00:59:01,140 communication. Or who are you know, passionate about it, 849 00:59:03,180 --> 00:59:08,640 learning from other areas, you know, like learning from sports 850 00:59:08,640 --> 00:59:12,720 broadcasting or, you know, these just other entertainment 851 00:59:12,720 --> 00:59:17,520 mediums. I think that thinking maybe a little outside the box 852 00:59:17,520 --> 00:59:20,900 and trying to grab from from different places, it's never 853 00:59:20,900 --> 00:59:23,900 going to be a perfect fit, perfect analogy, you know, but I 854 00:59:23,900 --> 00:59:27,680 feel like there's, there's a lot left on the table that that 855 00:59:27,800 --> 00:59:31,460 people in the science space haven't explored. Well, 856 00:59:31,460 --> 00:59:34,880 Jay Ingram: yeah, because, and again, I'm repeating myself, but 857 00:59:34,880 --> 00:59:40,420 it's because they don't think of a, the audience and B, that 858 00:59:40,420 --> 00:59:47,020 every, every story is about people. You know, I posted TV 859 00:59:47,020 --> 00:59:51,700 show in Canada called Daily Planet for like, 16 years, and 860 00:59:53,620 --> 00:59:57,280 it was said to be a science show, but it wasn't. It was a 861 00:59:57,280 --> 01:00:03,000 people show, like every single. Television program ever. It's 862 01:00:03,000 --> 01:00:06,660 just that the people had some sort of connection, sometimes 863 01:00:07,080 --> 01:00:12,300 remote, sometimes intimate, to science and technology. And so 864 01:00:12,300 --> 01:00:17,100 unless you pin your, you know, just you're you're disturbed by 865 01:00:17,100 --> 01:00:20,720 something, unless you pin that on some kind of story with some 866 01:00:20,720 --> 01:00:26,000 kinds of people in it, the rest the audience isn't going to be 867 01:00:26,000 --> 01:00:31,940 interested. And so, you know, I think you're absolutely right. 868 01:00:32,300 --> 01:00:38,180 Look at sports. I mean, really a lot of sports coverage is pretty 869 01:00:38,840 --> 01:00:39,560 tedious, 870 01:00:39,680 --> 01:00:41,200 Bradley van Paridon: yeah, but people love it. But, 871 01:00:41,200 --> 01:00:44,200 Jay Ingram: you know, people love it, but why do they love 872 01:00:44,200 --> 01:00:48,100 it? Well, for one thing, they have a strong allegiance to a 873 01:00:48,100 --> 01:00:52,780 team, yeah, for completely irrational reasons, this team, 874 01:00:52,780 --> 01:00:55,900 which is owned by some billionaire, happens to be 875 01:00:55,900 --> 01:01:00,540 located in my town, yeah? So I love them, and I hate all the 876 01:01:00,540 --> 01:01:03,720 others, even though, if I met the players in this team, I'd 877 01:01:03,720 --> 01:01:07,620 probably hate most of them too. It doesn't matter you've got it 878 01:01:07,620 --> 01:01:09,240 you've Yeah, I know, 879 01:01:10,200 --> 01:01:11,340 Bradley van Paridon: of course go Oilers. 880 01:01:13,200 --> 01:01:18,600 Jay Ingram: The that allegiance is what drives people's 881 01:01:19,140 --> 01:01:23,120 attention and thoughts and in the same way, if you set aside 882 01:01:23,120 --> 01:01:28,100 sports and look at how polarized the political world is right 883 01:01:28,100 --> 01:01:31,760 now, that's all about allegiance, and it's allegiance 884 01:01:31,820 --> 01:01:36,800 to some kind of nebulous idea. But it's mostly because, hey, I 885 01:01:36,800 --> 01:01:39,680 agree with all these other people who are saying these 886 01:01:39,680 --> 01:01:45,400 things. It it does not involve analysis there. You know, more 887 01:01:45,400 --> 01:01:50,860 sports fans love their team come hell or high water than actually 888 01:01:50,860 --> 01:01:54,400 start thinking about, you know, that player that everyone loves 889 01:01:54,400 --> 01:01:58,540 is really ineffective, that, Oh, let's talk about the Blue Jays. 890 01:01:58,960 --> 01:02:02,700 Their management is terrible, yeah, they have a bad team 891 01:02:02,880 --> 01:02:08,940 again, yeah, surely, you know, and acute writers pick that up, 892 01:02:09,120 --> 01:02:12,900 but it's their beat, yeah, right. And so they already have 893 01:02:13,020 --> 01:02:17,040 an audience. And this is the problem when you're trying to do 894 01:02:17,040 --> 01:02:22,040 equivalent things in science, is that the audience, the the 895 01:02:22,040 --> 01:02:26,420 number of committed audience members is much left, so much 896 01:02:26,420 --> 01:02:29,240 less, yeah, so some of those techniques aren't going to work, 897 01:02:29,240 --> 01:02:32,360 yeah, and that's, I'm glad, that's your last question, 898 01:02:32,360 --> 01:02:34,220 because I can't think of anything else. 899 01:02:35,600 --> 01:02:38,300 Bradley van Paridon: Well, you said yes to coming on the 900 01:02:38,300 --> 01:02:41,200 podcast, so that was enough for me, and I've taken up your time 901 01:02:41,200 --> 01:02:46,180 now. So I again, I want to put this part as I'm saying goodbye 902 01:02:46,180 --> 01:02:48,340 to you, to the audience, you know, listening to these, 903 01:02:48,340 --> 01:02:50,440 because I think they've listened to a few of these where I've 904 01:02:50,440 --> 01:02:52,540 brought up a lot of these questions, and I put them to 905 01:02:52,540 --> 01:02:55,420 other people in this field, and people I respect and that I 906 01:02:55,420 --> 01:02:59,800 think have more experience than me, but, yeah, we don't have 907 01:02:59,860 --> 01:03:03,300 proper answers. So it always ends up feeling a little, you 908 01:03:03,300 --> 01:03:07,200 know, maybe inconclusive, but that's kind of the topic that 909 01:03:07,200 --> 01:03:10,380 we're talking about, is that these things evolve, they go on 910 01:03:10,380 --> 01:03:13,440 and on. So Thanks for, thanks for putting in your two cents, 911 01:03:13,440 --> 01:03:16,500 and thanks for, you know, maybe pushing, maybe pushing me a 912 01:03:16,500 --> 01:03:19,620 little bit closer to something, and maybe pushing the audience a 913 01:03:19,620 --> 01:03:22,880 little bit closer to some kind of answers or resolution here, 914 01:03:23,300 --> 01:03:25,820 Jay, it's it's always a pleasure to see you. Thank you. 915 01:03:26,540 --> 01:03:29,540 Jay Ingram: Thanks a lot. Brad. Give me some easier questions. 916 01:03:29,540 --> 01:03:29,720 Well, 917 01:03:29,720 --> 01:03:32,060 Bradley van Paridon: if you want to do a whole show about the 918 01:03:32,060 --> 01:03:36,740 Edmonton Oilers and how this year is definitely the year that 919 01:03:36,740 --> 01:03:37,280 we win it, 920 01:03:38,540 --> 01:03:40,960 Jay Ingram: we could do that. Yeah, they're not my team. 921 01:03:41,320 --> 01:03:42,880 Bradley van Paridon: It's not your team. All right, fair 922 01:03:42,880 --> 01:03:49,960 enough. There we have it. Thank you so much for tuning in to 923 01:03:49,960 --> 01:03:53,560 this episode. Thank you, as always, to the freak motif for 924 01:03:53,560 --> 01:03:58,360 the music, Sebastian Abood for our logo and design. And please 925 01:03:58,420 --> 01:04:01,560 let us know. Let me know what you thought. Reach out at two 926 01:04:01,560 --> 01:04:04,980 grad for you on x and Instagram. You can email the show to 927 01:04:04,980 --> 01:04:09,000 Bradford. You@gmail.com like, follow, subscribe on those 928 01:04:09,000 --> 01:04:12,180 platforms. Wherever you get your podcast, leave a review, that 929 01:04:12,180 --> 01:04:15,420 kind of stuff that really helps us. You can look at two Brad for 930 01:04:15,420 --> 01:04:18,780 you on YouTube, we're slowly going to start populating that 931 01:04:18,780 --> 01:04:22,220 page with more and more videos, more content, and please 932 01:04:22,700 --> 01:04:26,720 subscribe there and leave us comments. Let us know what it is 933 01:04:26,720 --> 01:04:29,720 that you like, don't like and want to see. I'm trying to adapt 934 01:04:29,720 --> 01:04:34,940 everything to my audience, as we learned in this episode, is so, 935 01:04:34,940 --> 01:04:40,100 so important. So thank you so much for joining us and well, 936 01:04:40,160 --> 01:04:44,440 until next time, stay safe. Be good to each other. Bye for now 937 01:04:44,440 --> 01:04:44,560 you.