I haven't watched TV in three decades, and I don't watch podcasts. I'm a speed reader, and can consume information and sort it through reading, and find most discussions inane. I've watched a few podcasts, and they don't call to me. I mainly watched some Joe Rogan after Neil Young tried to boycott him, and I dig what he's doing, but I don't want to spend 2 or 3 hours listening to it. I'd rather watch and listen to the waves and the wind, the sun stars and moon spinning in the sky, or play ukulele with friends.
I do envy you sometimes Paul, your life sounds far more tranquil than what most people have! I find that my interest in podcasts really depends on the dynamics between the interviewer and interviewee. One thing with Joe Rogan is that he seems to at least try to do his own research prior to having a guest on, and so it at least allows him room to have discourse. I think the saturation of the market means that you have a lot of interviewers who don't know how to push back or know what to pick apart, and so they just believe whatever the "expert" is telling them.
A long-form podcast can be very enriching if there is room for discourse, but if someone just believes whatever is being spouted then it just comes off as some sort of marketing or sales pitch.
You can read what u need to know in 5 minutes that the wafflers take 30 for 😁
The fact they do means they are completely detached from reality and the need for fast paced concise get to the fucking point 😁😂 info or you'll bore the shit outa those that really could be swayed..... OR their ego has swelled from their presumption that they're an integral part of standing up to tyranny and saving the world or at least they're doing something.... to.... OMG look at all my followers.... I must be important/saying something of value/standing up to tyranny/saving the world/gonna be remembered forever in the rebel hall of fame! 😀
This is the age of fast food and faster info.... if ya don't get it in the time it takes to wait for ya order to come through..... then ya ain't gonna digest anything but ya meal😁
If you need some background noise to put yourself to sleep, a really boring podcast will get it done. They're great for something in your ears while you're doing repetitive work. I don't take most of them very seriously. We'll have oversaturation for awhile, and then the market will do what it does. People who can't make enough money doing podcasts will have to move on to the next thing.
Ironically, I found that I had to stop listening to podcasts because there would be many points when I would listen to a podcast and have to stop and think about a point that is made, sometimes considering if the point made sense or if it was more sensationalized. This sort of led me to take several days to finish some podcasts because I had to keep thinking about things, and you can't really do then when people are pushing out so much information. Can't spend time with podcasts when you have to simultaneously look things up to see if what is being spouted makes sense.
I don't worry so hard about the podcasts, since they're often off the cuff or conversational, so I don't expect super high accuracy. So I would only double check if I intend to act on what is said.
True, I don't strive for accuracy but I strive for authenticity. It's one thing when someone points to a study but does so with an understanding of limitations or that people should research for themselves, it's another when ego drives the conversation to the point that an opinion or misinterpretation is taken as hard fact. I'm more interested in people who can provide a perspective and be open to being wrong or seeing other perspectives than someone who is so steadfast that they are in the right.
BTW, the only podcast I pay ardently to in a regular basis is "America This Week" with Matt Taibbi and wanted Kirn. I read the transcript when it comes out a day later. Takes knee 10 minutes instead of listening for an hour plus
I never take Joe Rogan as an expert on anything, and I don't consider his guests as experts but another viewpoint. The problem becomes if these people are inflated as being experts because it lends credence to whatever they say even if it's full of misinformation or lacking context. Podcasts that have to start off listing the accomplishments of their guests just seems like an immediate way to defend them from any criticism and creates the false assumption that what they say has to be true.
Well, it is was nice knowing you whiskeys! 😉 I was just curious what people's thoughts are. The video just came across my feed and it just hit on a few things I have been thinking about. 🤷♂️
yes, tired of them too. They tend to be unfocused, rambling. I stopped, a while ago... I occasionally listen if there is a specific person of interest interviewed. Primarily I listen to learn, there is an incredible wealth of high quality information out there, so i might (selectively) choose an Attia or Huberman talk (or that caliber), but that's more of a lecture and I might take notes! This general problem is a contributing factor that keeps my writing/meditations short on Sub.
I feel the same way. I like to see new ideas and perspectives, and sometimes how people reach their position on things. It seemed like a good way to see how people engage with conversation and seemed like a new method of learning by examining different perspectives, but now I have to be skeptical if people may be citing studies incorrectly or making claims that aren't substantiated but has that air of truth because it subverts something we know to be a problem.
Podcasts only depict conversations. While I listen occasionally, they've never been as satisfying or useful as real conversations to me, so they don't hold much appeal beyond what print media already bring to the table. Many people I know who listen to podcasts do so because they'd rather not engage in real conversation but enjoy the "company" of disembodied voices.
I think podcasts will have a longer shelf life due to increasing social isolation. There might be a contraction in number, but the genre of vapid, inefficient blabbering will probably be kept alive by increasingly lonely young people. Going to a bar takes time and money, watching TV is largely impersonal, and phoning a friend requires too much sustained attention. Informational veracity doesn't enter the equation, and the clear differences between hearing a conversation and engaging in a conversation won't bother most, at least for a while.
Sure, they are conversations but I would argue that they allow people insight into how other people think. It was interesting to see how people discuss certain topics or reach the conclusions that they do, so when you bring on someone who is known for a certain topic you can see how they reach their positions and with what evidence, and then it allows you to see how people can defend or provide context. But with everyone going into podcasting it feels like it's far more difficult to have that sort of discussion now.
I do agree that they may be around in the same ways that livestreamers and even VTubers have grown in popularity. It does help to have some background noise but it is concerning to think about how many people will be using it as a substitution for real interactions.
True. There is a lot of merit to the format that my note ignores, and I'm mostly referring to the more popular, entertainment-grade podcasts.
My main fear is that they're so easy to make, so easy to monetize (via ads & directed programming), and so easy to consume and share that it'll get really hard to sort the wheat from the chaff even after the predicted contraction in podcasts. But these same issues exist in other forms of media, too, including books. It all returns to your calls to conscientious consumption of information.
True, and quite frankly I'll comment that the same issue is happening on Substack as well. There's far too much information that seems contradictory yet is so readily available that many people feel as if they have to choose a side or draw hard lines, when in reality much of what people come across should be taken as a jumping point for more research or investigation rather than being taken at face value.
In the same ways that everyone seemed to have started a Substack. I started my Substack after being let go because of vaccine mandates, and I wouldn't be surprised if many people did the same. Similar to everything else we're probably in the time period where some trimming is likely to happen as people come to terms with the lack of feasibility of these professions.
I like listening to people more when I’m doing repetitive tasks and housework. I’ve always been an observer and good listener and process and retain information best through auditory learning. However, I am growing tired of podcasts because everything is so contradictory and there is too much information we have access to now. I guess that comes with reading as well though. But I think we lean less on our own intuition now because of podcasts and the internet. I’m learning to stop relying on outside sources so much and tap into my intuition.
It doesn't help when everyone thinks they have THE SOLUTION or THE ANSWER and if you just buy that person's book or sign up for their course or whatever then you can solve all of your woes!
I am still interested in podcasts that showcase a technique, or a series of techniques. Marcus Audalay really can teach you how to prepare (mostly Swedish) food. In Swedish, but maybe chatgpt could handle this. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCcomGqp2D49N886bWBQ9OLg
But unless the subject matter is _how_ one does a thing, I have never liked listening to podcasts all that much. But then I don't like audiobooks either. I wonder if the market for podcasts was really 'the long commute' and if working from home has severely diminished that market.
That does seem to be a better approach, and it does seem like more niche podcasts will make it out of the oversaturation. The only problem is that niche podcasts may not gain as big of an audience but I think most people who go into that sort of podcasting accept that.
I haven't looked up his work too much so I don't know much about him asides from some documentaries I have watched on sugar that had him in it. I just approach the video from the perspective that I would have to be skeptical of everyone that is shown, including Smith's claims as well including whether James Fung is actually a charlatan. I posted it more for the idea that it seems that you have to to do additional research along with watching a podcast in order to figure out if the information makes sense.
For sure I've noticed a few lately having guests on that directly contradict previous guests. In general I consider that a good thing, in that debate is good, what I dislike is the way such podcasters just sit there, nodding to both, without doing their own research and/or taking a stand.
If they have so little to say, and no stance to take, then what are they for?
So I agree with the general point of Smith, and thus your article, I just reject the attack on Fung, who is a real doctor, has helped thousands and his book is a best-seller for good reason. Even the AI doesn't diss him:
"Jason Fung is a Canadian nephrologist, author, and advocate of low-carbohydrate, high-fat diets, and intermittent fasting. He is known for his best-selling books, including "The Obesity Code" and "The Diabetes Code," and is the co-founder of The Fasting Method, a program that promotes weight loss and the reversal of type 2 diabetes through intermittent fasting. Dr. Fung completed his medical training at the University of Toronto and the University of California, Los Angeles, and has extensive experience in treating patients and promoting evidence-based advice for managing blood sugars and achieving weight loss"
That was brought up in regards to The Diary of a CEO podcast where people were pointing out that the interviewer had a guy on who was heavily critical of processed foods, only to then lead into an ad about some sort of processed food. The problem appears that such podcasts are no different than content farmers who are just trying to get out as much information as possible without considering the context or even considering prior guests. I wouldn't be surprised if The Diary of a CEO is an entirely manufactured entity intent on output more than content.
The point I am making with Fung is sort of the same as anyone else, to the extent that him being a doctor, selling books, and helping people doesn't mean there may be issues in his logic or arguments. I haven't looked at him extensively so I can't make any arguments regarding any faults, but this is the approach I take with anyone who is made to be an expert because I'd rather come to the conclusions myself rather than being told that I have to believe this position.
Smith is the guy in the video who called Fung a charlatan. I didn't engage with that point about mentioning charlatan because I don't know what Smith's criticisms are. I was focused more on the general premise that podcasts appear to be going downhill when it comes to the actual content.
Yaaaa, but hyperbole and bombast are what make a podcast sparkle. :-D There are some radio and podcast hosts that I enjoy, even though they're incorrect on medical and science issues a lot. But I don't expect them to know that stuff. They'll say, "I'm not a doctor", and then go ahead and spew opinions. I accept that their function is often just to entertain us, or, more vitally to cause us question the accepted narrative.
After the flood of retracted scientific literature, (which means not only wrong, but somehow either dishonest or shoddy), it's the wild west again, (and with a similar proportion of drug addicted population). The podcasters have been calling out the institutions which we were supposedly able to rely on, and that's been a great service.
I haven't watched TV in three decades, and I don't watch podcasts. I'm a speed reader, and can consume information and sort it through reading, and find most discussions inane. I've watched a few podcasts, and they don't call to me. I mainly watched some Joe Rogan after Neil Young tried to boycott him, and I dig what he's doing, but I don't want to spend 2 or 3 hours listening to it. I'd rather watch and listen to the waves and the wind, the sun stars and moon spinning in the sky, or play ukulele with friends.
I do envy you sometimes Paul, your life sounds far more tranquil than what most people have! I find that my interest in podcasts really depends on the dynamics between the interviewer and interviewee. One thing with Joe Rogan is that he seems to at least try to do his own research prior to having a guest on, and so it at least allows him room to have discourse. I think the saturation of the market means that you have a lot of interviewers who don't know how to push back or know what to pick apart, and so they just believe whatever the "expert" is telling them.
A long-form podcast can be very enriching if there is room for discourse, but if someone just believes whatever is being spouted then it just comes off as some sort of marketing or sales pitch.
Stopped over 6 months ago. If I cant read it its not worth my time
It was a source of comfort for awhile. That was a relief valve. We got played.
You can read what u need to know in 5 minutes that the wafflers take 30 for 😁
The fact they do means they are completely detached from reality and the need for fast paced concise get to the fucking point 😁😂 info or you'll bore the shit outa those that really could be swayed..... OR their ego has swelled from their presumption that they're an integral part of standing up to tyranny and saving the world or at least they're doing something.... to.... OMG look at all my followers.... I must be important/saying something of value/standing up to tyranny/saving the world/gonna be remembered forever in the rebel hall of fame! 😀
This is the age of fast food and faster info.... if ya don't get it in the time it takes to wait for ya order to come through..... then ya ain't gonna digest anything but ya meal😁
But WTF do I know....😂😂🤣😋😋
If you need some background noise to put yourself to sleep, a really boring podcast will get it done. They're great for something in your ears while you're doing repetitive work. I don't take most of them very seriously. We'll have oversaturation for awhile, and then the market will do what it does. People who can't make enough money doing podcasts will have to move on to the next thing.
Ironically, I found that I had to stop listening to podcasts because there would be many points when I would listen to a podcast and have to stop and think about a point that is made, sometimes considering if the point made sense or if it was more sensationalized. This sort of led me to take several days to finish some podcasts because I had to keep thinking about things, and you can't really do then when people are pushing out so much information. Can't spend time with podcasts when you have to simultaneously look things up to see if what is being spouted makes sense.
I don't worry so hard about the podcasts, since they're often off the cuff or conversational, so I don't expect super high accuracy. So I would only double check if I intend to act on what is said.
True, I don't strive for accuracy but I strive for authenticity. It's one thing when someone points to a study but does so with an understanding of limitations or that people should research for themselves, it's another when ego drives the conversation to the point that an opinion or misinterpretation is taken as hard fact. I'm more interested in people who can provide a perspective and be open to being wrong or seeing other perspectives than someone who is so steadfast that they are in the right.
BTW, the only podcast I pay ardently to in a regular basis is "America This Week" with Matt Taibbi and wanted Kirn. I read the transcript when it comes out a day later. Takes knee 10 minutes instead of listening for an hour plus
Joe Rogan is like bill gates I will never understand how or whom decided that they were experts on everything. But I’m guessing 💵💵💵💵💵 did it.
While he’s stoned…
TOTALLY forgot !! ;)
I never take Joe Rogan as an expert on anything, and I don't consider his guests as experts but another viewpoint. The problem becomes if these people are inflated as being experts because it lends credence to whatever they say even if it's full of misinformation or lacking context. Podcasts that have to start off listing the accomplishments of their guests just seems like an immediate way to defend them from any criticism and creates the false assumption that what they say has to be true.
Okay, okay, I'm addicted to the Dave Ramsey show. I admit it. Please don't ban me! Otherwise, I listen to one history podcast and that's it.
And there's definitely oversaturation.
Well, it is was nice knowing you whiskeys! 😉 I was just curious what people's thoughts are. The video just came across my feed and it just hit on a few things I have been thinking about. 🤷♂️
yes, tired of them too. They tend to be unfocused, rambling. I stopped, a while ago... I occasionally listen if there is a specific person of interest interviewed. Primarily I listen to learn, there is an incredible wealth of high quality information out there, so i might (selectively) choose an Attia or Huberman talk (or that caliber), but that's more of a lecture and I might take notes! This general problem is a contributing factor that keeps my writing/meditations short on Sub.
I feel the same way. I like to see new ideas and perspectives, and sometimes how people reach their position on things. It seemed like a good way to see how people engage with conversation and seemed like a new method of learning by examining different perspectives, but now I have to be skeptical if people may be citing studies incorrectly or making claims that aren't substantiated but has that air of truth because it subverts something we know to be a problem.
I like them on a long car journey or on my commute.
Or while decorating, peeling potatoes, sewing, etc
Podcasts only depict conversations. While I listen occasionally, they've never been as satisfying or useful as real conversations to me, so they don't hold much appeal beyond what print media already bring to the table. Many people I know who listen to podcasts do so because they'd rather not engage in real conversation but enjoy the "company" of disembodied voices.
I think podcasts will have a longer shelf life due to increasing social isolation. There might be a contraction in number, but the genre of vapid, inefficient blabbering will probably be kept alive by increasingly lonely young people. Going to a bar takes time and money, watching TV is largely impersonal, and phoning a friend requires too much sustained attention. Informational veracity doesn't enter the equation, and the clear differences between hearing a conversation and engaging in a conversation won't bother most, at least for a while.
Sure, they are conversations but I would argue that they allow people insight into how other people think. It was interesting to see how people discuss certain topics or reach the conclusions that they do, so when you bring on someone who is known for a certain topic you can see how they reach their positions and with what evidence, and then it allows you to see how people can defend or provide context. But with everyone going into podcasting it feels like it's far more difficult to have that sort of discussion now.
I do agree that they may be around in the same ways that livestreamers and even VTubers have grown in popularity. It does help to have some background noise but it is concerning to think about how many people will be using it as a substitution for real interactions.
True. There is a lot of merit to the format that my note ignores, and I'm mostly referring to the more popular, entertainment-grade podcasts.
My main fear is that they're so easy to make, so easy to monetize (via ads & directed programming), and so easy to consume and share that it'll get really hard to sort the wheat from the chaff even after the predicted contraction in podcasts. But these same issues exist in other forms of media, too, including books. It all returns to your calls to conscientious consumption of information.
True, and quite frankly I'll comment that the same issue is happening on Substack as well. There's far too much information that seems contradictory yet is so readily available that many people feel as if they have to choose a side or draw hard lines, when in reality much of what people come across should be taken as a jumping point for more research or investigation rather than being taken at face value.
I wasn't really keeping track, but did podcasts start, um, growing when the lockdowns started?
In the same ways that everyone seemed to have started a Substack. I started my Substack after being let go because of vaccine mandates, and I wouldn't be surprised if many people did the same. Similar to everything else we're probably in the time period where some trimming is likely to happen as people come to terms with the lack of feasibility of these professions.
I like listening to people more when I’m doing repetitive tasks and housework. I’ve always been an observer and good listener and process and retain information best through auditory learning. However, I am growing tired of podcasts because everything is so contradictory and there is too much information we have access to now. I guess that comes with reading as well though. But I think we lean less on our own intuition now because of podcasts and the internet. I’m learning to stop relying on outside sources so much and tap into my intuition.
It doesn't help when everyone thinks they have THE SOLUTION or THE ANSWER and if you just buy that person's book or sign up for their course or whatever then you can solve all of your woes!
I don't understand why anyone would choose listening to people talk over listening to music 😆
I am still interested in podcasts that showcase a technique, or a series of techniques. Marcus Audalay really can teach you how to prepare (mostly Swedish) food. In Swedish, but maybe chatgpt could handle this. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCcomGqp2D49N886bWBQ9OLg
But unless the subject matter is _how_ one does a thing, I have never liked listening to podcasts all that much. But then I don't like audiobooks either. I wonder if the market for podcasts was really 'the long commute' and if working from home has severely diminished that market.
That does seem to be a better approach, and it does seem like more niche podcasts will make it out of the oversaturation. The only problem is that niche podcasts may not gain as big of an audience but I think most people who go into that sort of podcasting accept that.
I'm actually skeptical of anyone who calls James Fung a charlatan...
I haven't looked up his work too much so I don't know much about him asides from some documentaries I have watched on sugar that had him in it. I just approach the video from the perspective that I would have to be skeptical of everyone that is shown, including Smith's claims as well including whether James Fung is actually a charlatan. I posted it more for the idea that it seems that you have to to do additional research along with watching a podcast in order to figure out if the information makes sense.
For sure I've noticed a few lately having guests on that directly contradict previous guests. In general I consider that a good thing, in that debate is good, what I dislike is the way such podcasters just sit there, nodding to both, without doing their own research and/or taking a stand.
If they have so little to say, and no stance to take, then what are they for?
So I agree with the general point of Smith, and thus your article, I just reject the attack on Fung, who is a real doctor, has helped thousands and his book is a best-seller for good reason. Even the AI doesn't diss him:
"Jason Fung is a Canadian nephrologist, author, and advocate of low-carbohydrate, high-fat diets, and intermittent fasting. He is known for his best-selling books, including "The Obesity Code" and "The Diabetes Code," and is the co-founder of The Fasting Method, a program that promotes weight loss and the reversal of type 2 diabetes through intermittent fasting. Dr. Fung completed his medical training at the University of Toronto and the University of California, Los Angeles, and has extensive experience in treating patients and promoting evidence-based advice for managing blood sugars and achieving weight loss"
Who is Smith again?
That was brought up in regards to The Diary of a CEO podcast where people were pointing out that the interviewer had a guy on who was heavily critical of processed foods, only to then lead into an ad about some sort of processed food. The problem appears that such podcasts are no different than content farmers who are just trying to get out as much information as possible without considering the context or even considering prior guests. I wouldn't be surprised if The Diary of a CEO is an entirely manufactured entity intent on output more than content.
The point I am making with Fung is sort of the same as anyone else, to the extent that him being a doctor, selling books, and helping people doesn't mean there may be issues in his logic or arguments. I haven't looked at him extensively so I can't make any arguments regarding any faults, but this is the approach I take with anyone who is made to be an expert because I'd rather come to the conclusions myself rather than being told that I have to believe this position.
Smith is the guy in the video who called Fung a charlatan. I didn't engage with that point about mentioning charlatan because I don't know what Smith's criticisms are. I was focused more on the general premise that podcasts appear to be going downhill when it comes to the actual content.
Yaaaa, but hyperbole and bombast are what make a podcast sparkle. :-D There are some radio and podcast hosts that I enjoy, even though they're incorrect on medical and science issues a lot. But I don't expect them to know that stuff. They'll say, "I'm not a doctor", and then go ahead and spew opinions. I accept that their function is often just to entertain us, or, more vitally to cause us question the accepted narrative.
After the flood of retracted scientific literature, (which means not only wrong, but somehow either dishonest or shoddy), it's the wild west again, (and with a similar proportion of drug addicted population). The podcasters have been calling out the institutions which we were supposedly able to rely on, and that's been a great service.
… … … … … my brain is fried after this 😵💫 … … … https://open.substack.com/pub/openthebooks/p/the-podcast-tax-if-youre-paying-taxes?r=ykqw5&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post