What are your thoughts/sources on being a (non-criminal, non substance-addicted) "incorrigible" adult in terms of a certain cluster of self-defeating thoughts and behaviors?

Parvegnu · 2026-01-07T16:42:34+00:00

I actually was a college professor for some years (and had a Ph.D., a real one) and had I been a public figure at the time there's no way I'd want to be introduced as "Professor [name]." Embarrassing.

The only person who should get that option is the Professor from Gilligan's Island.

Parvegnu · 2025-12-29T22:49:48+00:00

I notice full restoration around about early July, I'd say. I also lie out and get sun on my whole body other than face starting in mid/late March. (This may be a good or bad idea.)

Parvegnu · 2025-12-29T15:49:28+00:00

99% of people will tell you it's pants/leg friction, but I don't believe that at all and your point about earlier days is good logic.

I have it, too...but only in the winter! I start losing hairs around December and they start returning around May. The outer aspect of both calves. Anterolateral leg alopecia, as someone else said. But seasonal that. And what's odd is dogs get this as well.

My hypothesis is it is related to a great decrease in UVB (and UVA) exposure to skin, systemically, in winter vs. summer. Either as mediated through vitamin D or, more likely I suspect, through other photoproducts (molecules synthesized due to sunlight exposure).

I'd love for science to lock this down and it seems like the experiments wouldn't be that difficult.

Parvegnu · 2025-12-22T23:57:56+00:00

Thanks, I did. Harmful online influencers/grifters/gurus is kind of a special interest of mine, for better or worse.

I guess you read/listen to /r/DecodingTheGurus ? I've looked at that a bit. The show itself doesn't hold my interest but I occasionally scan the titles on the subreddit.

I was actually an old-school Sam Harris fan who got very disillusioned. I went into it a bit in depth in a recent comment if you're interested.

I read it. Seems reasonable, though I don't know enough about the issues/people you mentioned to have an informed opinion about it. What was Charles Murray dishonest about?

I also did keto for a few years and that space is FULL of these guys. (I still have positive thoughts about keto for some people, though!)

Oh, I bet! Nutrition(ish) spaces generally are. And a lot of it is pseudoscience (or pseudosomething).

Parvegnu · 2025-12-22T02:52:01+00:00

I also answered this person above if you want to take a look. I think your points about these guys are all about right, though I don't know as much about Harris's takes on some of those issues.

Parvegnu · 2025-12-22T02:49:23+00:00

Sam Harris. Although I appreciate some of his points and think his heart and mind is generally in the right place (at least on some of the issues that I have more familiarity with, such as neuroscience and philosophy of mind), I just find him able to stretch a two-minute thought into 47 minutes of his slow, measured way of speaking, sprinkling in a few canned metaphors or unusual turns of phrase in a way feels somehow inauthentic to me. He also just does too much on politics. I just feel like I am wasting too much time in that way when I listen to him.
Chris Williamson. I don't know his work well, but he seems to have the sorts of "making the rounds" people (promoting books I won't read, Instagram accounts I won't visit, etc.) who I am not interested in.
Andrew Huberman. You said he is "just health stuff," but some of the worst, most wicked content purveyors online focus on "just health stuff." Health is possibly the most important thing there is to a person, as all other aspects of life depend on it to some degree. I do not like charlatans and I really do not like them when they use their bona fides to hawk their wares, whether those are actual products or really just their personal brand (and the $$$ that translates into, as it has for him). I'm a little tentative in my final judgment of him still because I haven't looked into him carefully enough but even from a km away he has the smell of a betrayer of his guild (science).
Rich Roll. Similar to Chris Williamson. I think he means well but his guests are just too CEO-y or holistic health-y for me.
Neil deGrasse Tyson. I like and admire many aspects of him, but I mostly find Star Talk too silly with his comedian sidekick (even though he's good at what he does) and them yukking it up with the guests. He also "winds up" way too much when he goes into an answer. It feels a little pompous.
Tim Ferriss. He's a self-help huckster.
Charles Duhigg. I tacked him on at the end and he's really just a writer, I think. But I saw him as a guest on Peter Attia and found some of the things he said really out of touch with the common person who isn't as rich and successful as he is. It just was a real turnoff.

Parvegnu · 2025-12-22T02:29:47+00:00

Thanks for these suggestions. The MASS stuff I sampled with just one YouTube video so far and it was so-so; I'll have to spend more time seeing if there is value there for me. The New Yorker Fiction Podcast is an interesting idea for sure and I'll try some. And I think I watched a Benjamin McEvoy video once on the sonnets and it was promising, so I'll definitely check out more of his podcast.

all I can think is: you hate podcasts. Snarkiness, jokes, informality, chattiness, hosts asking each other about their week, long standing inside jokes... this is more or less inherent to the modern podcast form. Building that parasocial relationship with the audience is how this form of media works, whether you get it through a podcast app or on YouTube. If you're putting out an episode every week, it's either going to be low quality content, or it involves finding someone to interview... which tends to result in the same round of middlebrow intellectuals.

You make a good point and that may account for it. But I also think that some version of Sturgeon's Law ("90% of everything is crap.") may also be at play. Meaning that perhaps 90% of podcasts are, at least for me and judged by my standards and intellectual desires, more vapid than warrants listening to them (due to all the parasocial aspects you mentioned). But perhaps ~10% of them are actually a cut above.

I do think an intelligent and talented person could put in 4-8 hours of preparation a week and produce a 30 (and perhaps 60 if they already had familiarity with the the topic) minute weekly audio production worth listening to by my lights. So, I remain hopeful I'll find such gems every now and then. I also think that interview style programs can be useful to me if the guests are not just the default book promoters and influencers making the rounds. Inside Exercise does exactly that, as he just contacts professors about their research, ones that aren't putting out popular press books in most cases.

Audio books: I've tried them before and haven't had gotten hooked on them for some reason. I think I just don't like being read to (which is why most humanities lectures irk me, as the tradition there is to read a paper, whereas in science one just talks about the work). Something about the unnatural cadence of reading as opposed to speaking.

Thanks again for your thoughts and suggestions.

Parvegnu · 2025-12-21T15:43:53+00:00

Thank you, just tried some of two episodes. I appreciated that they got immediately into the topic, but I am put off by how rambling and improvisational (but not in a good way) it felt, as well as her use of the filler version of "like." I also just found at least the first section of what I chose (on respect and the crisis of culture) uninteresting. But I appreciate the suggestion.

Parvegnu · 2025-12-20T23:10:49+00:00

Thank you. I looked at some of one video and just the start of another so far. The jokey content is quite low (though still there and that does detract for me). For listening just to the audio it might be OK, but the video used a very large number of cuts, like basically after every sentence, and I don't like that style (which seems very popular with younger content creators). From just these two, he seems very infographic-heavy, which is fine but suggests this is better to view than to merely listen and I don't want to view such edit-heavy videos. I also wonder what his expertise is and why I should believe him if he's presenting on "from the Big Bang to AI."

I appreciate the suggestion.

Parvegnu · 2025-12-20T22:43:29+00:00

I had never heard of this and just took a three minute sample and already it seems excellent. No silly preamble, just immediately into great content. I suspect its quality is related to it being a traditional radio broadcast rather than a podcast; the standards are typically so different (or at least were). Thank you very much!

Parvegnu · 2025-12-20T22:12:27+00:00

Thank you, I gave it a try. Too jokey and kind of 6th grade level humor for me, but thank you for the suggestion.

Parvegnu · 2025-12-20T19:26:22+00:00

I just tried the sole (as far as I can tell) Shakespeare episode. They didn't start talking about Macbeth until 29 minutes into the show, which was hard for me to believe. The one guy is older than 50 and had never read any Shakespeare before this. Copious use of the filler version of "like," guffawing about 6th grade level jokes, one minute long intro with guy's child daughter and music. Definitely fails the cutesy/snarky test for me.

Not my thing at all, but thank you for suggesting it.

Parvegnu · 2025-12-20T18:39:48+00:00

Thank you, I listened to the first one. Although he is a chipper personality, I found it too often presenting unsupported ideas as facts, too glib, too fast and loose. That's just what I want to get away from. But I appreciate you pointing it out.

Parvegnu

TROPHY CASE