Shownotes
The great science broadcaster and author Jay Ingram joins me once again to talk about science that goes mainstream. Why does do some topics jump out of dedicated science news channels and how should critics respond? Is there any good way to present the process behind science and why is that crucial for critiques of misleading stories. These are some of the topics we explore and Jay provides some positive examples of efforts to communicate the changing nature and long term vision of scientific research.
We pose many questions about how best to tell science stories and not all were answered but just like research, communication is an ever evolving thing as well. Let me know what you think about science media and where you'd like to see change.
This is the only link you need to subscribe to Two Brad For You. Please do rate and review it really helps us out.
If you'd like to support the show with currency click here. We are grateful for that too. Finally, you can check out the website here.
Many thanks to Freak Motif for the music and Sebastian Abboud for the logo.
- Dementia prevention, intervention, and care: 2024 report of the Lancet standing Commission
- Yes, Social Media Really Is a Cause of the Epidemic of Teenage Mental Illness - Jonathan Haidt
- The great rewiring: is social media really behind an epidemic of teenage mental illness?
- Unsettled science on social media - Science
- Defy Dementia Podcast
Transcripts
Bradley van Paridon: What is up, Brad fans, how you doing? How
Speaker:you livin? I hope you had a wonderful summer. We are back
Speaker:from our sort of summer break, and this is an episode that was
Speaker:recorded earlier in the summer, and it revolves around science
Speaker:communication. Obviously, that's a common theme on this show, and
Speaker:it was the idea for it came from coverage I was seeing over the
Speaker:summer of Jonathan haidt's new book, The anxious generation.
Speaker:And just to be clear, we're not going to discuss the content of
Speaker:the book at all. To give you some context, Jonathan Haidt is
Speaker:a very well known social science researcher, and his work that
Speaker:has become so popular really focuses on the issues of social
Speaker:media and children and so his major thesis, I guess, if I
Speaker:could paraphrase it very quickly, is that the reason
Speaker:we're seeing so much anxiety, depression, these kind of things
Speaker:in teenagers. Is the way that kids are not being allowed free
Speaker:play. They're overly coddled, let's say, overly protected. And
Speaker:then also, there's a there's a big influence of social media in
Speaker:this sort of going from a sort of, what we would call, like the
Speaker:old school way of growing up where you're outside playing,
Speaker:tumbling around, scraping your knees, to everything being
Speaker:online and digital. And he makes the case that this is, this is
Speaker:not good. But again, we're not going to discuss the content of
Speaker:the of that argument or of this research. But really, this book,
Speaker:this latest book of his, becomes a New York Times bestseller.
Speaker:It's, it's all over the media. You can see it. I'm seeing it in
Speaker:a lot of my feeds, and I know that that's, you know,
Speaker:algorithmic, algorithmically driven, so maybe people aren't
Speaker:seeing it, or whatever. But it did jump into the mainstream,
Speaker:and then I started to see smaller outlets like PBS and
Speaker:some more niche sort of science news outlets publishing the
Speaker:critiques, you know, the researchers that disagree with
Speaker:his thesis, and it was very clear that the critiques were
Speaker:not jumping into the mainstream, like his argument was jumping
Speaker:into the mainstream. And that got me thinking about, well,
Speaker:what do we how do we handle these issues? When we say, you
Speaker:know, like, let's say the phrase we all heard during covid, the
Speaker:science isn't settled. And very rarely is the science, you know,
Speaker:settled, right? Like, that's kind of one of the hallmarks of
Speaker:science. And then you get into the process of science, well,
Speaker:why isn't it settled? How can we say, you know, one thing is more
Speaker:likely than the other. You know, can we make concrete statements
Speaker:when it comes to health and raising our kids and all of
Speaker:these things that are important to us? And so all of these
Speaker:questions started bubbling up into into my mind, and I had
Speaker:this really set of questions and format that I was going to do
Speaker:for this episode with our guest, who is Jay Ingram. People who
Speaker:have listened to the show before know Jay. People who grew up in
Speaker:Canada or live in Canada know Jay. He's a long time science
Speaker:journalist broadcaster. He hosted TV shows in Canada, Daily
Speaker:Planet, the first ever daily science news show for multiple
Speaker:years, 14, I believe, and he's written books. He's been on the
Speaker:radio, the flagship science program for the CBC quirks and
Speaker:quarks. He was a longtime host of that. He's been all over, and
Speaker:he's one of the first people to really give me a shot, a push,
Speaker:let's say, into doing this career. So I always love talking
Speaker:with Jay, because he's a good friend, good mentor, and he's
Speaker:got a ton of experience in this. He's been doing this for a long,
Speaker:long time. So I had this plan of walking through all of these
Speaker:sort of questions, focusing on Jonathan heights book as the
Speaker:sort of case study. You know, why is this popular versus other
Speaker:things? What? How does the critique get more popular? If
Speaker:that's if that's your goal, how are you trying to do that? And
Speaker:very quickly into the conversation, we went in a lot
Speaker:of different places. And so I kind of threw the script out in
Speaker:a good way. This is a good thing, because, like I said, Jay
Speaker:has been doing this a long time, and he has a lot of interesting
Speaker:thoughts. And so we had a really good conversation about this. We
Speaker:covered, well, we tried to cover, because a lot of these
Speaker:things we don't really, we still, we're working through
Speaker:them, right? It's a work in progress, just like science
Speaker:itself. We covered what do you do if you're a scientist, as a
Speaker:researcher, someone with an informed opinion who wants to
Speaker:disagree? What's the best way to do that? How do you get your
Speaker:message out there? We use examples of some of the big
Speaker:science podcasts, the Andrew hubermans, the LEX Friedmans,
Speaker:these kind of things we talk about. So you know, what's the
Speaker:best way to deal with that? Why are scientists, maybe sometimes
Speaker:wary of going on these shows we really focus on, like, what do
Speaker:you need to make a proper critique? Right? Like, how do
Speaker:you present a proper critique of something? Let's say that you
Speaker:science that is in the mainstream, that that you
Speaker:disagree with, and at the crux of that is you need to be able
Speaker:to communicate the process. And Jay says, in this, in all the
Speaker:years of doing this, he's yet to find a really good way to
Speaker:communicate the process of science, right? And I think
Speaker:that's a really important point. And then we go on to, again, put
Speaker:this in the context of some examples, health misinformation,
Speaker:there's so much out there, and people are, you know, really
Speaker:ready to, you know, jump on board with some stuff that maybe
Speaker:doesn't have a lot of scientific rigor behind it. And, you know,
Speaker:they want to question the professional scientists when it
Speaker:comes to health. But yet, like, how do you, then, how do you,
Speaker:how do you combat that with, again, process stories, which is
Speaker:very boring and difficult to do. We talk a lot about audience.
Speaker:How do you attract an audience outside of the people that are
Speaker:just already interested in science? We talk about the
Speaker:isolation of the scientific community and the scientific
Speaker:media community. You know, the myths that we kind of have, that
Speaker:we we need to use. We always need to put phrases in our
Speaker:articles that, like more research is needed, or, you
Speaker:know, this research is going to might one day lead to a better
Speaker:robot or a better drone, or something like, it's just,
Speaker:there's always these taglines that we put in because the
Speaker:scientific community, the science media community,
Speaker:believes, well, that's what you have to do in order to make
Speaker:people interested in the science. And maybe that's true,
Speaker:but I don't know. And Jay also talks about some positive case
Speaker:studies. There was a Lancet Commission on dementia that he
Speaker:mentions, and it's this big, but, well, he'll explain it, but
Speaker:it's a big body of research that that continually gets updated on
Speaker:dementia risks. And he talks about how this is an interesting
Speaker:way for scientists to be presenting their work, because
Speaker:they go into, you know, all of these things, the risks, how
Speaker:they change, how they how some things are now new risks, some
Speaker:things were maybe taking off the list, but it really kind of
Speaker:shows the slow moving process of science and is a nice
Speaker:communication format. And he mentions the defy dementia
Speaker:podcast that he is hosting, which will be linked in the show
Speaker:notes, so you can, you can take a look at that. And he talks
Speaker:about the approach that they're doing there of not beating
Speaker:people over the head with advice, but really just trying
Speaker:to present everything in a way that the people can then, you
Speaker:know, make their own decisions about, you know, some of these
Speaker:dementia risks and stuff like that. And so it's some really
Speaker:great insight into science communication, but there's also
Speaker:some really interesting dementia facts in there too. So
Speaker:definitely worth listening to that section. As always, I
Speaker:really, really enjoy talking with Jay Ingram, like I said,
Speaker:he's got a wealth of experience and knowledge in this area. And
Speaker:like many episodes where we kind of talk about the nuts and bolts
Speaker:of science communication, it sometimes feels like we don't
Speaker:have solid answers, and I think that that, you know that's true,
Speaker:we probably won't right. But this conversation, for me,
Speaker:definitely shows where we could focus our attention and what new
Speaker:things might we might try in order to maybe break out of some
Speaker:of the myths, like I said, that we all have in this field, but
Speaker:then also for an audience, you know, that likes to consume, you
Speaker:know, science stuff, I assume that's why, why you're listening
Speaker:to this show. It's a good reminder of the things to look
Speaker:for, right? And I think seeing how professional science, you
Speaker:know, media, journalists and scientists, think about data and
Speaker:the struggles of how the struggles we have of how to
Speaker:present it to audiences, is informative for audiences to to
Speaker:see. You know what it is that we're trying to get across, and
Speaker:you know you can comment, you can get in touch with the show
Speaker:about what it is that you would like to see. How would you like
Speaker:to see these, these topics handled? So with that, please
Speaker:get in touch with the show at two Brad for you on x and
Speaker:Instagram. You can email the show to Bradford u@gmail.com and
Speaker:you can please comment, subscribe, like, follow all of
Speaker:that stuff wherever you're getting your podcast that really
Speaker:helps the show. And yeah, that would be great. We would love to
Speaker:hear from you. So
Speaker:without. Any further ramblings on by me. Here is my
Speaker:conversation with Jay Ingram.
Speaker:All right, Jay, welcome back. It's always a always a pleasure
Speaker:to see you, and thanks for taking the time. How are you?
Speaker:I'm
Jay Ingram:well, thanks and thanks for having me back on. I
Jay Ingram:must, I must have passed the test the last time. Hey,
Jay Ingram:Bradley van Paridon: you're one of the few people that just keep
Jay Ingram:saying yes, so
Jay Ingram:I qualify.
Jay Ingram:Bradley van Paridon: Well, hey, I think the audience you know
Jay Ingram:that has followed since the beginning of the show knows you
Jay Ingram:by now. Broadcaster, writer, you've been in science
Jay Ingram:communication, science journalism for decades in
Jay Ingram:Canada, and I'm sure you've worked in some other places as
Jay Ingram:well, but the Canadian audience will know you very well. But
Jay Ingram:yes, you do say yes to come on. So that's a that's a bonus for
Jay Ingram:me, but I always really enjoy these kind of conversations,
Jay Ingram:because today we're going to again, have this idea of kind of
Jay Ingram:getting into the weeds of science communication. You know,
Jay Ingram:what works, what doesn't work? There's some of these questions
Jay Ingram:that kind of float around, and have been floating around, maybe
Jay Ingram:more closer to the surface since, since covid, but that we
Jay Ingram:don't really have a lot of good answers to but yet I feel like
Jay Ingram:we should discuss them. We should probe them. We should
Jay Ingram:talk about them. And the one that I want to bring up today is
Jay Ingram:this idea of, how do we present, you know, topics that maybe
Jay Ingram:aren't settled, right? So that's, that's a phrase that
Jay Ingram:gets turned around, the science isn't settled. How do we discuss
Jay Ingram:these things? Obviously, this was a big thing with covid. I
Jay Ingram:don't want to really talk about covid, because I think people
Jay Ingram:are kind of sick of it. And I wanted to take a look at a case
Jay Ingram:study that's maybe a bit different, because covid was
Jay Ingram:very acute. It seemed more obvious that, yes, we don't know
Jay Ingram:what's going on. That was as much as people maybe forget that
Jay Ingram:was a lot of, a bit of the mantra at the beginning, right?
Jay Ingram:We don't know what's going on. What I want to talk to you about
Jay Ingram:today is, well, the case study would be a book by Jonathan
Jay Ingram:Haidt, who is a pretty famous, I'd say, public intellectual
Jay Ingram:researcher, and he's written a book about the influence of
Jay Ingram:social media on the development of teens, the prevalence or The
Jay Ingram:increase of teen depression, this kind of topics you've
Jay Ingram:probably heard of before, and he's making a very strong link
Jay Ingram:in the book. His argument is big part of it is social media and
Jay Ingram:kids not having sort of free play anymore. It's become very,
Jay Ingram:very popular, I think a lot of people. It's on New York Times
Jay Ingram:bestsellers, but then sporadically here and there I
Jay Ingram:see sort of the other side, right? Researchers being like,
Jay Ingram:well, it's not that simple. And, you know, they have their ideas.
Jay Ingram:But what I notice is that the critiques don't fall into the
Jay Ingram:mainstream. There are usually in, you know, science news, very
Jay Ingram:dedicated science news, or, you know, PBS, you know, some
Jay Ingram:smaller news channels. So this is kind of this dilemma that I
Jay Ingram:wanted to maybe discuss with you today. Is, you got this, this
Jay Ingram:big hit book, you're a big public, you know, intellectual
Jay Ingram:scientist, but does that tell the whole story? And what does
Jay Ingram:an audience do when presented with a figure like this, who has
Jay Ingram:a book that's probably written very compelling, how do they
Jay Ingram:tease out? Well, is this the whole story? Do they even care?
Jay Ingram:And so I thought maybe a good way to start if you don't have,
Jay Ingram:you know, just general thoughts at the beginning, as I've thrown
Jay Ingram:all this at you, my idea to start the conversation was
Jay Ingram:actually to sort of brainstorm. Well, what is it about a science
Jay Ingram:topic like this, that vaults it into the mainstream, that puts
Jay Ingram:it into, you know, a New York Times bestseller, puts it on the
Jay Ingram:tongues of everybody who's talking on social media and
Jay Ingram:stuff that's not necessarily the science. The first thing that
Jay Ingram:comes to mind is, is the scientist a likable and good
Jay Ingram:communicator? Because that's going to go a long way to get
Jay Ingram:those ideas out there, even if the ideas are controversial or,
Jay Ingram:let's say, not totally as settled as they might be
Jay Ingram:presenting them.
Jay Ingram:So as you said, height is a public intellectual,
Jay Ingram:you don't get that kind of status by saying irrelevant
Jay Ingram:things or not saying them very well. And so, you know, while I
Jay Ingram:haven't read his book, I do know that he's advocating pretty
Jay Ingram:strongly for no cell phone use. You know, among young people as
Jay Ingram:he thinks that the connection between phones and social media
Jay Ingram:and distraction and polarization, those are all
Jay Ingram:connected. And, you know, one of your questions in there was, you
Jay Ingram:know, how do, how does an individual like him have an
Jay Ingram:impact? Well, if he's. Actually suggest, I'm suggesting that
Jay Ingram:cell phone use should be dramatically curbed,
Jay Ingram:particularly in schools. I guess you're going to get people's
Jay Ingram:attention, because not only every kid might be affected by,
Jay Ingram:you know, such a movement, but school administrators, school
Jay Ingram:teachers, and then everybody, every parent who's concerned
Jay Ingram:about how their kid is growing up, maturing and learning. So,
Jay Ingram:you know, if you, if you write about something that is so that
Jay Ingram:so broadly affects people, I think you're bound to get
Jay Ingram:attention. He's a big name already. He's a good writer.
Jay Ingram:That's why he's a big name. So I think this is the combination.
Jay Ingram:But you know, if we're going to talk about science and its
Jay Ingram:impact on people, you know, I'm not sure that that is the best
Jay Ingram:book simply because it's more, as you said, social science than
Jay Ingram:than science, and you know, as opposed to that, how about, I'm
Jay Ingram:going back a ways for this, but how about Stephen Hawking's or
Jay Ingram:Carl sagan's books about the universe now, and you can
Jay Ingram:immediately see the disjunct there, because books about the
Jay Ingram:universe don't affect
Jay Ingram:Bradley van Paridon: Exactly, yeah.
Jay Ingram:I mean, unless you're unless you're planning to
Jay Ingram:be immortal. So
Jay Ingram:Bradley van Paridon: you know, it just or have some kind of
Jay Ingram:existential angst. Yeah, exactly.
Jay Ingram:But I'm not going to get into existential angst about
Jay Ingram:the sun consuming the earth in 4 billion years, you know, and
Jay Ingram:just, I don't care. So, so then, so one of the questions, which
Jay Ingram:isn't exactly the question you asked me, but nonetheless, is,
Jay Ingram:how is it that books like that that have, unlike hate's book,
Jay Ingram:have no impact, like, really, other than, you know, prompting
Jay Ingram:a conversation with people, have no impact on your life. And you
Jay Ingram:know, somewhere, and I've actually always been curious as
Jay Ingram:to why astronomy and cosmology, and even setting aside the
Jay Ingram:search for extraterrestrials, just stuff about the universe
Jay Ingram:and the evolution of the universe and the origin of the
Jay Ingram:universe. Why is it so popular? And, you know, I wonder if
Jay Ingram:perhaps it's popular because it's both spectacular in time,
Jay Ingram:range and size and everything else. It's actually, well, it is
Jay Ingram:beyond our comprehension, and we sort of understand that, but
Jay Ingram:also because it doesn't challenge anybody, other than
Jay Ingram:Flat Earthers or people who believe that, you know, the
Jay Ingram:universe was created in 4004 BC. I mean, you know those people
Jay Ingram:aside, and even the people who are Creationists can latch onto
Jay Ingram:a book, a Stephen Hawking book, and say, This is the glory of
Jay Ingram:God that he's talking about. You know, what other entity could do
Jay Ingram:this, but for most people, it is an item of curiosity, and maybe
Jay Ingram:mind blowing curiosity. But it stops there. It doesn't say
Jay Ingram:anything about the price of groceries or how you're going to
Jay Ingram:lead your day. And so a lot of science, it well, at least that
Jay Ingram:branch of science, astronomy and cosmology, succeeds for reasons
Jay Ingram:that I'm I'm not totally clear on, but let me give you another
Jay Ingram:example that that hews a bit closer to this line, which is
Jay Ingram:you probably know about Huberman and his amazingly popular
Jay Ingram:podcast, which sometimes infuriates people. And there was
Jay Ingram:a recent case, he did a podcast on on marijuana and its effects,
Jay Ingram:and I started seeing on X comments by neuroscientists,
Jay Ingram:some of whom I know, deploring how inaccurate and misleading
Jay Ingram:this entire podcast was. And besides noticing these comments,
Jay Ingram:I also noticed they were talking to each other, two other
Jay Ingram:neuroscientists lamenting this scar on neuroscience that had
Jay Ingram:just been perpetrated by Huberman. And so one of these
Jay Ingram:people, and I can you know he's he's already publicly linked to
Jay Ingram:this, so I can name him, a guy named Matt Hill. At the
Jay Ingram:University of Calgary, who is really a bona fide THC expert.
Jay Ingram:He's been researching cannabinoids forever. That's
Jay Ingram:basically his career. He's well established. He's well
Jay Ingram:respected. And I knew him, so, you know, I just didn't I said
Jay Ingram:to him, I don't know that I was the first person to say this,
Jay Ingram:but I said you should actually talk directly to Huberman and
Jay Ingram:ask to be on a show, because telling other neuroscientists is
Jay Ingram:going nowhere. So he did get in touch with Huberman. I haven't
Jay Ingram:listened to the results yet, but he was on huberman's Show. I
Jay Ingram:don't even know if that episode has been released yet, but you
Jay Ingram:know, in terms of, how do you try and set the record straight?
Jay Ingram:And you mentioned, you know, the beginnings of covid and how
Jay Ingram:there was a lot of uncertainty, and so it's not just setting the
Jay Ingram:record straight, but trying to keep people up to date without
Jay Ingram:misleading them in one direction or the other. I thought that was
Jay Ingram:probably the best he could do, because, and this relates to
Jay Ingram:hate as well, people that have a platform already are in a very,
Jay Ingram:very powerful, sometimes impregnable position. And, you
Jay Ingram:know, my bet would be, even though I thought Matt Hill did
Jay Ingram:exactly the right thing by going on Huberman. In the long run, is
Jay Ingram:Huberman going to lose an audience over this? I really
Jay Ingram:doubt it. I think he's going to go on. You know, he and Lex
Jay Ingram:Friedman and other people like that have enormous audiences for
Jay Ingram:good reason. I mean, they do really interesting podcasts on
Jay Ingram:whether they're they're all true or not. Talking here more about
Jay Ingram:Huberman than Friedman is up for grabs. I mean, you know, who
Jay Ingram:knows? But they're very difficult to dislodge, and so
Jay Ingram:reputation has a huge role to play. And you know, if I don't
Jay Ingram:think there are many scientists who have a, you know, a huge
Jay Ingram:audience and continually come out with untruths, but that is
Jay Ingram:one of the most important things to think about, is if you
Jay Ingram:disagree, if a scientist disagrees with what other
Jay Ingram:scientists are saying, how do you approach that? You know it
Jay Ingram:reminds me of The what now seem to be very rare debates between
Jay Ingram:creationists and evolutionists. And I've attended such things,
Jay Ingram:and it quickly became clear to me that they're absolutely
Jay Ingram:pointless, because there will never be a single person in the
Jay Ingram:audience who changes his or her mind as a result of the debate.
Jay Ingram:They and they're really speaking over each other anyway, right
Jay Ingram:around each other. But the point is, they're fixed in their
Jay Ingram:views. No evolutionist is going to become a creationist, and
Jay Ingram:vice versa. And so you have to be very careful. You have to
Jay Ingram:pick your spot. I don't like what this person is saying. I
Jay Ingram:think it's misleading. How do I address it? And you know, going
Jay Ingram:back to the fundamental principle of communication,
Jay Ingram:who's the audience? Who are you trying to reach in your you know
Jay Ingram:your disagreement. I mean, that's where Matt Hill did the
Jay Ingram:right thing. Go to the source. Get on the air with the source,
Jay Ingram:and that is your best chance, because you're then, you're then
Jay Ingram:at least reaching the audience that Huberman previously
Jay Ingram:reached. Now, whether they listen to you or not is another
Jay Ingram:question over which you have no control, because
Jay Ingram:Bradley van Paridon: that's what I was going to say too. Is that,
Jay Ingram:like, as much as, you know, I feel like some of those
Jay Ingram:podcasts, you know, the Huberman, the Friedman's, you
Jay Ingram:know, you could put something even less loosely, you know,
Jay Ingram:linked to science, but the Joe Rogan stuff, you know, it's, the
Jay Ingram:people that listening to that have already made up their mind
Jay Ingram:too, right? Like, whether you're pro marijuana or against
Jay Ingram:marijuana, you hear both episodes, I would I wonder if
Jay Ingram:anyone even listens to the to the counter episode. You know,
Jay Ingram:they they've listened to the episode on, you know, the bad
Jay Ingram:things about marijuana that fits their belief. They hear someone
Jay Ingram:that's going to come on and argue the other side. Do they
Jay Ingram:even listen to it? I don't know. So it just it feels like a bit
Jay Ingram:of an Yeah, damned if you
Jay Ingram:so the you know, Huberman retains all the control
Jay Ingram:if he called his and hills discussion when we don't know
Jay Ingram:how he's going to format it, but if he called it more on
Jay Ingram:marijuana, people would
Jay Ingram:Bradley van Paridon: listen. That's true, yeah.
Jay Ingram:But you know you mentioned Joe Rogan, so I've
Jay Ingram:listened to one Joe Rogan podcast, and it's because I was
Jay Ingram:researching these efforts largely centered in Silicon
Jay Ingram:Valley to extend the human life
Jay Ingram:Bradley van Paridon: span. Yeah, big topic to show, yeah, yeah,
Jay Ingram:yeah. Well, and
Jay Ingram:so he invited a guy who whose work or whose
Jay Ingram:theories, at least I was familiar with, and I just wanted
Jay Ingram:to get a little bit better depth. And it was a really good
Jay Ingram:interview. And, you know, so when people disparage Rogan,
Jay Ingram:they seldom take that second stamp of saying, Well, okay, you
Jay Ingram:know, I saw this ridiculous comment he made on X actually,
Jay Ingram:this was yesterday about how Canada's going down the toilet
Jay Ingram:because of its game. Yeah. Well, you know, I mean the it is
Jay Ingram:tempting to take a comment like that and say, I'll never listen
Jay Ingram:to this. BSN, but the point is, there are people that don't know
Jay Ingram:anything about Canada, which would include a large part of
Jay Ingram:his audience, and they were interested in the in this aging
Jay Ingram:topic. And it was a good, clear interview, and he got a lot of
Jay Ingram:information that one would want to know. So again, you have to
Jay Ingram:consider the audience. And you know, who's ever an analyzed a
Jay Ingram:Joe Rogan audience to see if there's a split between those
Jay Ingram:who listen to his political nonsense and those who listen to
Jay Ingram:the guest? Yeah, because you know, there, I don't know, but
Jay Ingram:there may be quite a difference. I mean, so it's, yeah, it's, I
Jay Ingram:mean, if you're asking the general question of, how does a
Jay Ingram:disgruntled scientist try to counteract stuff that he thinks
Jay Ingram:is inaccurate or even inflammatory and wrong. How best
Jay Ingram:to do it. It's a tricky landscape.
Jay Ingram:Bradley van Paridon: Yeah, yeah. I mean, yeah, without going too
Jay Ingram:far into all of the discussions of the different podcasts, I
Jay Ingram:feel like I should say too, like I've listened to a lot of Joe
Jay Ingram:Rogan and I was, you know, it's kind of what got me into
Jay Ingram:podcasting, and especially when he had those scientific guests
Jay Ingram:on, and he generally did a really good job of, you know,
Jay Ingram:being the being the dumb guy in the room and asking the question
Jay Ingram:that the audience wants to hear. You know, once did they got this
Jay Ingram:chance to hear this big science person. So I just, I really like
Jay Ingram:that point, and that split in the audience of who's listening
Jay Ingram:to the guest and who's listening? Because that was what
Jay Ingram:I fell into, was the camp of listening to the guest, and then
Jay Ingram:eventually got so frustrated with all of the other nonsense
Jay Ingram:that I just stopped listening altogether. But it's one thing I
Jay Ingram:think, for you know, as I think it's a great example you have of
Jay Ingram:a scientist who's like, let me I need to correct the record. Or,
Jay Ingram:you know, if you're just speaking to your peers and
Jay Ingram:lamenting the fact that this is out there, then, yeah, it's
Jay Ingram:that's going to do nothing. So that was one of the thoughts I
Jay Ingram:had on my notes over this episode, you know, was, what do
Jay Ingram:you do? What's your what's your responsibility? If you feel like
Jay Ingram:you need to get that other side out there. And so going to the
Jay Ingram:source. Going to places where you heard this information is
Jay Ingram:one thing, but it's, I wonder, how many people, yeah, like,
Jay Ingram:didn't if, maybe, if you didn't give that prompt, or, you know,
Jay Ingram:didn't give that advice, how many people would be, you know,
Jay Ingram:would know what to do, or would know how to do it, or know how
Jay Ingram:to reach out to media in any sense, and then how much of it
Jay Ingram:is on the media itself to sort of get that other side. As
Jay Ingram:someone that works in science journalism, I feel like, you
Jay Ingram:know that if I'm as a freelancer, if I saw that other
Jay Ingram:side to a big topic, I would be like, Oh, that's something I
Jay Ingram:could pitch. You know, that's something that would gain some
Jay Ingram:interest because it's the counter side, but it never seems
Jay Ingram:to get as much interest as the initial thing, right?
Jay Ingram:So let me so there's two things there. What? What
Jay Ingram:does a scientist do? What does the media do? And I'll talk
Jay Ingram:about the scientists. And if I forget to get to the media, you
Jay Ingram:can remind Yeah. So one of the things I noticed about the matt
Jay Ingram:Hill, Huberman thing was that the neuroscientists talking to
Jay Ingram:Matt because there was a kind of a discussion about, should he
Jay Ingram:What should he do? How should he do it? They were intimidated.
Jay Ingram:Seemed to me. They were worried that Rogan was going to sorry.
Jay Ingram:Huberman, interchangeable. Yeah, we you. Huberman was going to
Jay Ingram:edit it in a way that made matt look bad. And they were saying,
Jay Ingram:and this wasn't a bad idea, but it reflects an attitude, oh, you
Jay Ingram:should. You should be recording it at the same time. Right? So
Jay Ingram:then, if he edits it in a way that makes you look wrong, well,
Jay Ingram:you can counter, you know, which, of course, implied, oh,
Jay Ingram:my god. How long is this thing going to go on with a dwindling
Jay Ingram:audience, the whole time? But it reflected an attitude that when,
Jay Ingram:and it's partly right, if you're going to take on someone with a
Jay Ingram:giant audience, you have to be care. You have to be sure that
Jay Ingram:you're going to get some sort of fair hearing, even though I
Jay Ingram:think it's the only way to do it. Now, you know, there are a
Jay Ingram:lot of scientists, cannabinoid researchers who don't care what
Jay Ingram:Huberman says, and even if they knew that he had broadcast, you
Jay Ingram:know, falsehoods, they would just say, well, it's not up to
Jay Ingram:me to do that, you know, I'm doing my research. I have my
Jay Ingram:grant money to do my research. I teach classes. I get paid for
Jay Ingram:doing that. That's what I do. And, you know, that's fine. I
Jay Ingram:mean, I've, I've met, I haven't met, a huge number of scientists
Jay Ingram:who scan the public media all the time, looking for things
Jay Ingram:that they feel they should respond to. And I would just add
Jay Ingram:to that, seeing as though we're basically talking about
Jay Ingram:everything here, there are people who are quite public in
Jay Ingram:their efforts to combat mis and disinformation, and I think
Jay Ingram:They're ignoring who is the audience as well, because they
Jay Ingram:regularly post on X here's more information that conservative
Jay Ingram:Paul conservative people are more accepting of misinformation
Jay Ingram:than people who aren't conservative. Well, just think
Jay Ingram:about that for a sec. Who's going to pay any attention to
Jay Ingram:that? The people who aren't conservatives will have just had
Jay Ingram:their ideas confirmed. So big deal you've confirmed. You've
Jay Ingram:entrenched them in their already held opinion. And there's not
Jay Ingram:really much point in doing that. Conservatives will look at it
Jay Ingram:and say, Oh, well, you know,
Jay Ingram:Bradley van Paridon: he's a lib more Yeah, more liberal
Jay Ingram:nonsense, yeah,
Jay Ingram:and, yeah, yeah. And, you know, woke, yeah, and
Jay Ingram:just and disregard it. So, so why? Why are you doing it? I
Jay Ingram:mean, I think it's laudable to try and combat misinformation.
Jay Ingram:My point only is that's not the right way to do it so and then
Jay Ingram:on the other side of the coin, just to sort of try and, you
Jay Ingram:know, paint a family portrait of the kinds of people that are
Jay Ingram:involved in these topics. You know, David Suzuki has been
Jay Ingram:savaged by politicians for a decade. Was he ever wrong? He
Jay Ingram:may have stated things, you know, strongly, but he was never
Jay Ingram:really wrong as we you know, I sit here in Calgary and we have
Jay Ingram:like, eight straight days and plus 30 temperatures. You know,
Jay Ingram:no one can reasonably or rationally claim at this point
Jay Ingram:that there's no effect on of climate change. And so what do
Jay Ingram:you do about that? It's it's an asymmetric battle. He's using
Jay Ingram:scientific data people will always to buttress his argument,
Jay Ingram:his opponents will always find something. Oh, yeah, sure. Well,
Jay Ingram:there was a heat wave in 1927 where the temperatures were
Jay Ingram:exactly the same as they are today. All of this stuff that is
Jay Ingram:irrelevant. And the problem is opponents of science don't
Jay Ingram:really dig very deep into the data, and this is where you have
Jay Ingram:a problem in expressing dissatisfaction with somebody's
Jay Ingram:work, because you have to get into the process of science.
Jay Ingram:Hey, we're not sure what's happening right now. That kind
Jay Ingram:of admission that that no scientist wants to make, and you
Jay Ingram:have to, people have to understand before you approach
Jay Ingram:them with some sort of, you know, Contra argument to what's
Jay Ingram:prevalent. They have to understand a little bit about
Jay Ingram:the process of science and getting across the process of
Jay Ingram:science, I don't think has ever been done very well,
Jay Ingram:Bradley van Paridon: yeah, and I think, but so then this is kind
Jay Ingram:of, I don't know that I have, I've had recent episodes of
Jay Ingram:delved. More into the the process of science communication
Jay Ingram:and all these kind of topics. And I, oh, I always struggle at
Jay Ingram:about this point in the episode where it starts to look really
Jay Ingram:bleak, you know, like, what are we? What's the point, really?
Jay Ingram:Because, especially when you think about you did these big
Jay Ingram:topics, you know, like, and we, at the beginning, touched on
Jay Ingram:why, you know, it's going to reach a huge audience. When you
Jay Ingram:talk about raising kids, or, you know, health, you know, health
Jay Ingram:stuff is, is like, Huberman, you know, who's a neuroscientist,
Jay Ingram:and now it's kind of the whole thing is, like optimizing your
Jay Ingram:health, and like hacking the body, and like all this. So
Jay Ingram:there's tons of stuff going on there that is, I'd say dubious,
Jay Ingram:or at least we'll say unsettled science, right? Like it's, you
Jay Ingram:get one or two studies, and it's like, Okay, this looks good. But
Jay Ingram:as we know, the process of science would take longer and
Jay Ingram:longer and longer for these things to play out. So without
Jay Ingram:having to explain that process without being able to explain
Jay Ingram:that process. Like, where do you go to find that audience to, you
Jay Ingram:know, do that work? Let's say, of explaining the process so you
Jay Ingram:can get that little bit of knowledge. Because, like you
Jay Ingram:said, Twitter's not going to do it. You can go to the source,
Jay Ingram:but I don't know. So it just feels like, if that's the way
Jay Ingram:that you have to sort of approach critiquing these
Jay Ingram:things. But how do you get anybody to pay attention to
Jay Ingram:that?
Jay Ingram:I don't know. I mean, the thing is, what that
Jay Ingram:requires is a long read, some in depth, and you need some really
Jay Ingram:concrete examples of how science evolves, and people already know
Jay Ingram:this. I mean, we were talking earlier about, you know, the
Jay Ingram:universe, and why is it? Why is it so? Why are images and ideas
Jay Ingram:about the universe so compelling? The other day, I was
Jay Ingram:reading that, if you you know a certain way of treating quantum
Jay Ingram:mechanics might show that time is an illusion. Okay, well, you
Jay Ingram:know, if you looked at the equivalent statement in medical
Jay Ingram:science, it would be pretty dramatic. It would be something
Jay Ingram:like, you must never eat another potato for the rest of your
Jay Ingram:life, or something like that. We've been wrong. Time is an
Jay Ingram:illusion. But, you know, saying that time is an illusion affects
Jay Ingram:nobody. Yeah, they still get up at seven in the morning, yeah,
Jay Ingram:and have breakfast and, you know, go out and work or do
Jay Ingram:whatever. The train is
Jay Ingram:Bradley van Paridon: still going to show up at 730 whether you're
Jay Ingram:there or not. Yeah,
Jay Ingram:exactly. It might be an illusion, but the train's
Jay Ingram:going to be there anyway. Whereas if you say you're eating
Jay Ingram:all the wrong food, you know that's something that hits
Jay Ingram:people, and people don't like being told that what they're
Jay Ingram:doing is wrong, and so either people that sort of have an
Jay Ingram:interest in the backdrop to that. You know, we used to think
Jay Ingram:this, then it evolved to this, and now we've come to that. I
Jay Ingram:accept that, but people who haven't paid much attention and
Jay Ingram:are being told that their diet is terrible are likely going to
Jay Ingram:question the science. I don't know. I've thought about this
Jay Ingram:quite a lot with the help of some other friends of mine,
Jay Ingram:about how to do the process of science, and I haven't yet hit
Jay Ingram:on what would seem to be a good vehicle for that, because comes
Jay Ingram:back to, you know, the idea that those who already believe that
Jay Ingram:or understand that science is a process and our ideas are
Jay Ingram:inevitably going to change are cool with that, and those who
Jay Ingram:want To know whether the vaccine is 100% safe or not, are not
Jay Ingram:going to be cool with that. But you know, there's a huge amount
Jay Ingram:of willful misunderstanding going on too. There is no
Jay Ingram:vaccine that is safe 100% safe. It's gotten to the point where
Jay Ingram:advocates of the covid vaccines are afraid to say that, yeah,
Jay Ingram:because you cannot in this battle between anti vaxxers and
Jay Ingram:reasonable people, there's, there's no common ground there.
Jay Ingram:You know, it's just, it's two islands of people hurling words
Jay Ingram:at each other, and so I don't really know now, you also
Jay Ingram:mentioned the role of the media. So you know, if you're if you're
Jay Ingram:working for a magazine or one of the few online newspapers that
Jay Ingram:still has a science correspondent, you. Yeah. Again,
Jay Ingram:you're talking to your people, right? A science column in a in
Jay Ingram:a news in an online newspaper, only attracts people who are
Jay Ingram:kind of interested in science, yeah? So they'll accept it from
Jay Ingram:you. You know, you know, there's always this throwaway phrase, of
Jay Ingram:course, we need to do more research, yeah? You know, which
Jay Ingram:is one of those phrases that no, nobody pays any attention to. I
Jay Ingram:found
Jay Ingram:Bradley van Paridon: I'm trying to find so many different ways
Jay Ingram:of writing that exact thing without saying those words just
Jay Ingram:just because it's like every article.
Jay Ingram:I think if you're going to tackle it, I think you
Jay Ingram:should write an article just on that and and nothing else. And
Jay Ingram:take some sort of headline that everybody is paying attention to
Jay Ingram:and just say right out. You know, we don't know how long
Jay Ingram:this is going to be seen to be nearly 100% true, and we don't
Jay Ingram:know how long it's going to be before it's only 75% true. But
Jay Ingram:that is inevitable. Yeah, somebody's got to say that. So
Jay Ingram:maybe it should be you, because, you know, throwing away, of
Jay Ingram:course, more research needs to be done. It's right up there
Jay Ingram:with we think this study of dragonfly flight may lend itself
Jay Ingram:to creating new, more mobile mailbox. But that, you know
Jay Ingram:what? That's an actually, usually an outright lie, yeah,
Jay Ingram:but it's, it's just an effort. It just shows the the isolation
Jay Ingram:in some senses of the scientific community, where some writer, it
Jay Ingram:may not be the scientist, but it might be thinks, unless you
Jay Ingram:connect it to robots, people aren't going to care, yeah,
Jay Ingram:well, you're right. Most people don't care about how dragonflies
Jay Ingram:are amazing flyers. They see them, they think, oh, that's
Jay Ingram:kind of cool. It can fly backwards. They don't think
Jay Ingram:about how and and, you know, probably if asked, Should $2
Jay Ingram:million be dispensed to figure out how they might say no, until
Jay Ingram:you say, but it might make better robots. I'm sorry. I
Jay Ingram:shouldn't laugh, because it's not a funny topic. But I, and
Jay Ingram:maybe it's clear from the way I've been talking, I've had
Jay Ingram:trouble sorting out exactly how you should do this. I can give
Jay Ingram:you an example of where I think people have been very careful,
Jay Ingram:and that is the Lancet Commission on dementia risks. So
Jay Ingram:they came out in 2017 and the lancet commissions are huge
Jay Ingram:arrays of international scientists who evaluate data
Jay Ingram:around a topic. And in 2017 they published a list of risks for
Jay Ingram:dementia that you can do something about you like you
Jay Ingram:Bradley something about in your life. And then in 2020 they
Jay Ingram:updated it and had a added a couple more, and they've just,
Jay Ingram:it's embargoed, as you and I speak, but they've added a
Jay Ingram:couple more risks and solidified the evidence around some of the
Jay Ingram:risks they previously identified. And that's really
Jay Ingram:what I like about it.
Jay Ingram:Bradley van Paridon: I'm afraid to look at telling me to not
Jay Ingram:drink beer. And I don't know if I'm ready for that.
Jay Ingram:They're allowing you to drink some beer, okay, all
Jay Ingram:right, just not a lot, but if you smoke, you should stop.
Jay Ingram:Bradley van Paridon: Yeah, that's quit that decades ago.
Jay Ingram:If you do things that increase your risk of
Jay Ingram:traumatic brain injury, you should stop. No if you have
Jay Ingram:diabetes, you should stop. Anyway. I'm not going to get all
Jay Ingram:14 risks, but my point is that they've done this in a very
Jay Ingram:steady, thorough way, and not just adding risks, but also
Jay Ingram:reviewing the previous risks and evaluating them in light of
Jay Ingram:evidence that has accumulated since 2017, 2020, and so on. And
Jay Ingram:so I have a particular interest in this because I'm doing a
Jay Ingram:podcast called defy dementia, where we are communicating with
Jay Ingram:people about these risks and what you could and should do in
Jay Ingram:your life to reduce your risk of dementia or even reduce your
Jay Ingram:progression, even if you've been diagnosed with mild cognitive
Jay Ingram:impairment or dementia. So it's a great example, and it is
Jay Ingram:getting the press, at least, mostly in the UK, but it sort of
Jay Ingram:comes over to North America as well, that these and. You know
Jay Ingram:what they're they're not always changes in your life that people
Jay Ingram:want to hear. You know, I I like having 12 drinks a week? Well,
Jay Ingram:maybe that's too many. You should stop smoking. If you've
Jay Ingram:got a wood stove and there's smoke all over the place, you're
Jay Ingram:increasing your risk of dementias. You might want to do
Jay Ingram:something about that so, you know, but they're not, they're
Jay Ingram:not telling you you must. You're not saying, I'm going to get,
Jay Ingram:I'm going to, you know, add a carbon tax to your life, because
Jay Ingram:there's really good evidence that that would help fight
Jay Ingram:climate change. They're not doing it that way. They're just
Jay Ingram:saying, Look, here are the risks. We encourage you. We
Jay Ingram:don't force you. We encourage you to take some steps, and
Jay Ingram:you'll be better off, and so will your kids and your family
Jay Ingram:and anybody else who might end up being a caregiver. So so
Jay Ingram:that's one topic, yeah. And, I
Jay Ingram:Bradley van Paridon: mean, and I think, you know, as much as I
Jay Ingram:said, the medical space, there's a lot of stuff that's
Jay Ingram:frustrating in communication. That's also an example of where,
Jay Ingram:because your people want that information. It's the same thing
Jay Ingram:with the height book right to kind of just bring it back to
Jay Ingram:that people want to know about. What should I do with my kids? I
Jay Ingram:think, in some ways, now that I'm a father, people want too
Jay Ingram:much to be told what's the right thing. There's so much
Jay Ingram:information out there. But anyway, that's another topic,
Jay Ingram:but it's, I think this then comes to audience. So you the
Jay Ingram:people that are going to seek out this information on
Jay Ingram:dementia, probably, you know, I would guess a lot of them maybe
Jay Ingram:have experience with it in their life, or something like that. So
Jay Ingram:they're going to see that. They're going to respond to
Jay Ingram:that. Again, how does that get into sort of the mainstream, you
Jay Ingram:know, like, if you're, if your goal as someone who's who's done
Jay Ingram:this research, who's done this, this panel, whatever, I can't
Jay Ingram:remember what you called the consortium, whatever, um, the
Jay Ingram:goal would, obviously, we should get this out there to as many
Jay Ingram:people as possible, because it's good, you know, it's the best
Jay Ingram:information we have. You know, what is the, I guess, the
Jay Ingram:vehicles to do that. And this brings me to a question that
Jay Ingram:I've juggled with in the last little bit, again, in previous
Jay Ingram:episodes and stuff, is, well, does everybody need to know
Jay Ingram:everything you know when it comes to science and science
Jay Ingram:news, this would seem like a topic that would you would want
Jay Ingram:to know about. And it seems to me, more and more that like what
Jay Ingram:you want to call it, legacy media, traditional media, the
Jay Ingram:news media, that cycle, that way of of covering topics doesn't
Jay Ingram:work for this material, like it's just, it's you square peg,
Jay Ingram:round hole kind of thing. It's just, it's not going to work.
Jay Ingram:You're not going to be able to get that nuance. You're not
Jay Ingram:going to be able to find those audiences. So then, what is it?
Jay Ingram:Because Twitter or X, I don't know if that's the spot
Jay Ingram:podcasts, I think are great, but people have to find your
Jay Ingram:podcast. I don't know this. This seems, again, like one of those.
Jay Ingram:I'm throwing a bunch of stuff up here, and that many of us have
Jay Ingram:the well,
Jay Ingram:so if I could just go back to the lifestyle risks
Jay Ingram:for dementia, one of the IT, one of the values, and I've already
Jay Ingram:said this, is that it has a consistency. It isn't just a one
Jay Ingram:time thing. So it comes back and people remember it vaguely from
Jay Ingram:the time before, so they might be more interested in how it's
Jay Ingram:evolved. So you are nailing the science evolves subject down by
Jay Ingram:that. But the other thing is that, and you mentioned that,
Jay Ingram:oh, in the audience, there's probably a lot of people have
Jay Ingram:had dementia in their lives. Is there anybody living today who
Jay Ingram:hasn't had dementia in their family somewhere, or their
Jay Ingram:friends? I doubt it. I've never, I've never spoken to an audience
Jay Ingram:where somebody put up their hands that have no connection
Jay Ingram:with dementia whatsoever. Yeah, and even if you didn't, and you
Jay Ingram:realize the amount of money that would be saved if a healthcare
Jay Ingram:system managed to persuade people to change their
Jay Ingram:lifestyles such that the result would be dementia in general,
Jay Ingram:would be delayed by five years. The amount of savings would be
Jay Ingram:absolutely incredible. There's going to be 150 million people
Jay Ingram:with dementia by 2050 the shortage of caregivers by 2030
Jay Ingram:is in the US is estimated to be well over 100,000 so it has
Jay Ingram:multiple benefits. It's not just you, you may not get dementia,
Jay Ingram:it's society might. Not get as much dementia. So I think that
Jay Ingram:when a story has those kinds of attributes, that it's people
Jay Ingram:have some experience. I mean, if you had a if you had an
Jay Ingram:equivalent periodic report telling people what your future
Jay Ingram:income would be or something like that. You would eat that
Jay Ingram:up, especially if you'd seen over a period of five or six
Jay Ingram:years that it had turned out to be accurate. It's just that, you
Jay Ingram:know, there are many stories that are quite so reliable and
Jay Ingram:personal. And I think those are two, two aspects of a topic now
Jay Ingram:where you know you mentioned legacy media, I think New York
Jay Ingram:Times, Washington Post papers like that are still, are still
Jay Ingram:effective. There are these. They're the equivalent in Europe
Jay Ingram:and the UK. But you know, are like, do 20 year olds read that
Jay Ingram:sort of stuff? And how do you get see? It doesn't really
Jay Ingram:matter. Talk, social media, legacy media, a book, whatever.
Jay Ingram:The format is less important than the age group and the
Jay Ingram:interests of the audience you're trying to get. So, you know, a
Jay Ingram:book will resonate with some people, tonight's article will
Jay Ingram:resonate with some people, and I don't think a single person can
Jay Ingram:be so well. First of all, working 24 hours a day.
Jay Ingram:Secondly, researching every source of information to try and
Jay Ingram:hit the best one. Because inevitably, in science, some
Jay Ingram:topics should be on one medium, then some topics should be on a
Jay Ingram:different one. And you'd have to be an awfully erudite journalist
Jay Ingram:to know instantly when you came across a story where it should
Jay Ingram:be put and you'd also have to be incredibly skilled to be able to
Jay Ingram:put it there.
Jay Ingram:Bradley van Paridon: Yeah, well, and so then this is kind of like
Jay Ingram:it makes me, you know, again, in some of these thoughts, is like,
Jay Ingram:so, you know, the science section of a paper, okay, so New
Jay Ingram:York Times, Washington Post, they probably have a really good
Jay Ingram:science correspondent that is, is versed in science like that,
Jay Ingram:knows that beat really well, right? Whereas maybe even, like,
Jay Ingram:something like the CBC or, you know, let's go down the list. If
Jay Ingram:they even have a science there, maybe it's somebody that you
Jay Ingram:know did health or did environment or something before,
Jay Ingram:but it's not, you know, is not there. So there's that lack of,
Jay Ingram:of, you know, knowledge in the institutions, in those
Jay Ingram:institutions there. And then you have, you know, some of the
Jay Ingram:stuff that I do, which is your very dedicated science news
Jay Ingram:magazines, you know, the scientific Americans, the the
Jay Ingram:chemistry worlds, you know, like the the places. So it's like, I
Jay Ingram:don't expect, you know, even, yeah, I know my mom reads some
Jay Ingram:of them. But you know, people in my in my peer group, you know,
Jay Ingram:like, outside of that, I don't think they're reading, they're
Jay Ingram:going to be reading the stuff I put out in chemistry world,
Jay Ingram:right? Because it doesn't matter to them, that kind of thing. But
Jay Ingram:this is, I guess, I'm trying to think about where, yeah, placing
Jay Ingram:different topics and different things area in different
Jay Ingram:mediums. And I think our audience has a lot to do with
Jay Ingram:it, as you know, with the social media stuff like, if you want to
Jay Ingram:hit young people, hit young people, you got to be on Tiktok.
Jay Ingram:If you want to get the older people, maybe podcasts,
Jay Ingram:millennials, podcasts, that kind of thing. But, yeah, I don't
Jay Ingram:know. I think it's, it's it's tough, because I agree with what
Jay Ingram:you were saying earlier. This noble pursuit of, sort of
Jay Ingram:wanting to get the correct thing out there and get people to sort
Jay Ingram:of understand, you know, what it means when we say it's not
Jay Ingram:settled, and why, you know, maybe, maybe don't change your
Jay Ingram:whole life. You know, style based on a Huberman podcast. I
Jay Ingram:feel like there's a lot of people that are probably ping
Jay Ingram:ponging from, you know, diet to diet, to hack to hack, you know,
Jay Ingram:and you're never seeing any results, but constantly being
Jay Ingram:like, I'm doing it, maybe a series of something, like a
Jay Ingram:YouTube series or something, or a couple series of videos I'm
Jay Ingram:dabbling into YouTube now. So maybe this is me convincing
Jay Ingram:myself to do this, but explaining the difference in the
Jay Ingram:different studies? Right? Because, like, what's a meta
Jay Ingram:analysis versus a review versus a clinical trial versus which
Jay Ingram:sounds incredibly boring, I think, to a lot of people, but
Jay Ingram:how if you knew the differences between that your ability to
Jay Ingram:then look at a Huberman. Podcast and look at the the journals
Jay Ingram:quickly that they're citing there, and say, Oh yeah, maybe
Jay Ingram:the weight of evidence, not so so much on that. But this one
Jay Ingram:has a systemic review, you know, that kind of meta analysis, that
Jay Ingram:kind of thing, so but, I mean, how do you teach people that?
Jay Ingram:Because that seems like super boring. Well, you it is. Thank
Jay Ingram:you. You
Jay Ingram:can't, well, you can't do it that way. What you'd
Jay Ingram:have to do is when you feel compelled to respond to
Jay Ingram:statements coming from somebody that you think are inaccurate or
Jay Ingram:gloss over the truth or whatever. It's only then, when
Jay Ingram:the story is in the news, that it's really appropriate to start
Jay Ingram:talking about meta analyzes, or, you know, retrospective trials.
Jay Ingram:Yeah, use that. I had an interesting here's an
Jay Ingram:interesting example, again, drawn from dementia studies
Jay Ingram:showing that there was one study about alcohol, so you'll be
Jay Ingram:interested in
Jay Ingram:Bradley van Paridon: this. You saw my eyes
Jay Ingram:that consumption over consumption of alcohol was
Jay Ingram:definitely a risk, but so was abstinence. Now that's puzzling,
Jay Ingram:right? It's puzzling until you realize that a lot of people who
Jay Ingram:are abstinent are so because they had to stop drinking, and
Jay Ingram:as a result, they have a backlog of damage done by the alcohol
Jay Ingram:before they became abstinent. And so that's a tiny example of
Jay Ingram:how you have to scrutinize the participants in a study to
Jay Ingram:really get an accurate picture of what the study is all about.
Jay Ingram:And so if I were, if I were to to tackle the issue of, how do
Jay Ingram:you get across the the idiosyncrasies, that's not quite
Jay Ingram:the right word, but the detailed structure of a study that allows
Jay Ingram:somebody to make statements about it. You have to have the
Jay Ingram:study there, and in people's minds, you can't come at it
Jay Ingram:because you know, doing it as, here's a here's a meta analysis,
Jay Ingram:here's this, here's that, that's too much like being in school,
Jay Ingram:yeah, yeah, you know. And you know, you hated it when you were
Jay Ingram:in school, and it was only later, some of us realized that
Jay Ingram:was actually kind of interesting and important, yeah, but people
Jay Ingram:are too busy to be sent back to school. Yeah, they don't want
Jay Ingram:to. So exactly, whereas, if you know not, I don't want to
Jay Ingram:belabor the Huberman example, but an example like that where
Jay Ingram:you feel like somebody's disseminating false information,
Jay Ingram:take one component of it and say, Here's how that was arrived
Jay Ingram:at. Here's why. There are problems with that. Then it
Jay Ingram:becomes much more interesting. It's much more of a solving a
Jay Ingram:mystery, a detective story. Yeah, yeah. And you know, you we
Jay Ingram:can't, we can't forget that in all of this, you have to be
Jay Ingram:telling stories. Yes,
Jay Ingram:Bradley van Paridon: yeah, yeah, exactly. I think, you know, I
Jay Ingram:think in politics, they talk about the process story, right?
Jay Ingram:That that gets put out there in PR and stuff. Every once in a
Jay Ingram:while, they do a process story of how they arrived at these
Jay Ingram:conclusions. And obviously, there's different, it's a
Jay Ingram:different realm and a different, you know, reason why you would
Jay Ingram:put some of those out, but that's kind of what I'm thinking
Jay Ingram:of. And it just made me think something that I've been
Jay Ingram:thinking a lot of. This is my last thought before I let you
Jay Ingram:go. Is just, what can you know, people like me, science
Jay Ingram:journalists, science people in science media, let's say science
Jay Ingram:communication. Or who are you know, passionate about it,
Jay Ingram:learning from other areas, you know, like learning from sports
Jay Ingram:broadcasting or, you know, these just other entertainment
Jay Ingram:mediums. I think that thinking maybe a little outside the box
Jay Ingram:and trying to grab from from different places, it's never
Jay Ingram:going to be a perfect fit, perfect analogy, you know, but I
Jay Ingram:feel like there's, there's a lot left on the table that that
Jay Ingram:people in the science space haven't explored. Well,
Jay Ingram:yeah, because, and again, I'm repeating myself, but
Jay Ingram:it's because they don't think of a, the audience and B, that
Jay Ingram:every, every story is about people. You know, I posted TV
Jay Ingram:show in Canada called Daily Planet for like, 16 years, and
Jay Ingram:it was said to be a science show, but it wasn't. It was a
Jay Ingram:people show, like every single. Television program ever. It's
Jay Ingram:just that the people had some sort of connection, sometimes
Jay Ingram:remote, sometimes intimate, to science and technology. And so
Jay Ingram:unless you pin your, you know, just you're you're disturbed by
Jay Ingram:something, unless you pin that on some kind of story with some
Jay Ingram:kinds of people in it, the rest the audience isn't going to be
Jay Ingram:interested. And so, you know, I think you're absolutely right.
Jay Ingram:Look at sports. I mean, really a lot of sports coverage is pretty
Jay Ingram:tedious,
Jay Ingram:Bradley van Paridon: yeah, but people love it. But,
Jay Ingram:you know, people love it, but why do they love
Jay Ingram:it? Well, for one thing, they have a strong allegiance to a
Jay Ingram:team, yeah, for completely irrational reasons, this team,
Jay Ingram:which is owned by some billionaire, happens to be
Jay Ingram:located in my town, yeah? So I love them, and I hate all the
Jay Ingram:others, even though, if I met the players in this team, I'd
Jay Ingram:probably hate most of them too. It doesn't matter you've got it
Jay Ingram:you've Yeah, I know,
Jay Ingram:Bradley van Paridon: of course go Oilers.
Jay Ingram:The that allegiance is what drives people's
Jay Ingram:attention and thoughts and in the same way, if you set aside
Jay Ingram:sports and look at how polarized the political world is right
Jay Ingram:now, that's all about allegiance, and it's allegiance
Jay Ingram:to some kind of nebulous idea. But it's mostly because, hey, I
Jay Ingram:agree with all these other people who are saying these
Jay Ingram:things. It it does not involve analysis there. You know, more
Jay Ingram:sports fans love their team come hell or high water than actually
Jay Ingram:start thinking about, you know, that player that everyone loves
Jay Ingram:is really ineffective, that, Oh, let's talk about the Blue Jays.
Jay Ingram:Their management is terrible, yeah, they have a bad team
Jay Ingram:again, yeah, surely, you know, and acute writers pick that up,
Jay Ingram:but it's their beat, yeah, right. And so they already have
Jay Ingram:an audience. And this is the problem when you're trying to do
Jay Ingram:equivalent things in science, is that the audience, the the
Jay Ingram:number of committed audience members is much left, so much
Jay Ingram:less, yeah, so some of those techniques aren't going to work,
Jay Ingram:yeah, and that's, I'm glad, that's your last question,
Jay Ingram:because I can't think of anything else.
Jay Ingram:Bradley van Paridon: Well, you said yes to coming on the
Jay Ingram:podcast, so that was enough for me, and I've taken up your time
Jay Ingram:now. So I again, I want to put this part as I'm saying goodbye
Jay Ingram:to you, to the audience, you know, listening to these,
Jay Ingram:because I think they've listened to a few of these where I've
Jay Ingram:brought up a lot of these questions, and I put them to
Jay Ingram:other people in this field, and people I respect and that I
Jay Ingram:think have more experience than me, but, yeah, we don't have
Jay Ingram:proper answers. So it always ends up feeling a little, you
Jay Ingram:know, maybe inconclusive, but that's kind of the topic that
Jay Ingram:we're talking about, is that these things evolve, they go on
Jay Ingram:and on. So Thanks for, thanks for putting in your two cents,
Jay Ingram:and thanks for, you know, maybe pushing, maybe pushing me a
Jay Ingram:little bit closer to something, and maybe pushing the audience a
Jay Ingram:little bit closer to some kind of answers or resolution here,
Jay Ingram:Jay, it's it's always a pleasure to see you. Thank you.
Jay Ingram:Thanks a lot. Brad. Give me some easier questions.
Jay Ingram:Well,
Jay Ingram:Bradley van Paridon: if you want to do a whole show about the
Jay Ingram:Edmonton Oilers and how this year is definitely the year that
Jay Ingram:we win it,
Jay Ingram:we could do that. Yeah, they're not my team.
Jay Ingram:Bradley van Paridon: It's not your team. All right, fair
Jay Ingram:enough. There we have it. Thank you so much for tuning in to
Jay Ingram:this episode. Thank you, as always, to the freak motif for
Jay Ingram:the music, Sebastian Abood for our logo and design. And please
Jay Ingram:let us know. Let me know what you thought. Reach out at two
Jay Ingram:grad for you on x and Instagram. You can email the show to
Jay Ingram:Bradford. You@gmail.com like, follow, subscribe on those
Jay Ingram:platforms. Wherever you get your podcast, leave a review, that
Jay Ingram:kind of stuff that really helps us. You can look at two Brad for
Jay Ingram:you on YouTube, we're slowly going to start populating that
Jay Ingram:page with more and more videos, more content, and please
Jay Ingram:subscribe there and leave us comments. Let us know what it is
Jay Ingram:that you like, don't like and want to see. I'm trying to adapt
Jay Ingram:everything to my audience, as we learned in this episode, is so,
Jay Ingram:so important. So thank you so much for joining us and well,
Jay Ingram:until next time, stay safe. Be good to each other. Bye for now
Jay Ingram:you.
