Alan is really straw manning here—yes, RFKJ talks about dyes and chemical additives, but this isn’t by any means exhaustive of what Alan refers to as the “naturalistic fallacy.” RFKJ also talks about the importance of exercise, eating whole foods, avoid highly addictive, nutrient-deficient, ultra-processed foods, and a host of other environmental and behavioral issues that Alan himself endorses.
Defaulting to the “most natural” available option in any scenario is a heuristic some of us prefer to use in life. That doesn’t mean we can never take pharmaceuticals. Trusting and deferring to technological innovation and institutional authority by default is simply another heuristic. That doesn’t mean you never use functional herbs (coffee, tea, etc.). Both are shortcuts, and most people operate using one or the other when making simple decisions. Why the hysterics about people who use a different heuristic from your own when both allow for exceptions and each has it’s own costs and benefits?
I totally agree with your analysis. Actually, this interview annoyed me a lot, and probably for pretty special personal reasons, but it seems like i'm in the minority.
I think Levinovitz touches on this in the interview. You’ll get some people who want to parse the semantics on ultra-processed but saying that white cheddar vs yellow American is healthier isn’t one of RFKs more controversial views. The point he is making is you can get to the sensible ones without “HIV doesn’t cause AIDS” or “COVID doesn’t kill Jews”. It’s an epistemological debate not a nutrition debate.
Yes. I’ve never ever heard of these studies before or read about them or anything else related to diet studies and the poor science that is behind them.
Highly addictive nutrient deficient ultra processed foods is, itself a strawman. Ultra processed has no meaning and is dumb. Nutrient deficient means what, exactly? Cheerios vs Special K vs Total? Highly addictive is code for “tastes really good.”
Not at all. “Ultra-processed” is shorthand for foods designed by scientists, produced in a factory setting, and consisting primarily of ingredients that are unrecognizable in the context of most culinary traditions. From an evolutionary standpoint, we have no history consuming large amounts of refined sugars, rancid fats, chemical preservatives, and ingredients processed to such an extent that they bear scant resemblance to the actual plants and animals from which they are derived. Many such ingredients have been shown to increase metabolic dysfunction, slow the release of appetite-regulating hormones, and damage the microbiome, to name just a few unforeseen consequences that have direct bearing on poor nutrient absorption and subsequent overconsumption. Fixating on single ingredients, artificial dyes, for example, and not recognizing the causal role ultra-processed foods play in promoting overeating, obesity, and negative overall health is to miss the forest for the trees.
You’re right, scientific convention holds that I should cite my sources. I’ve added some in for your reference:
“Ultra-processed” is shorthand for foods designed by scientists, produced in a factory setting, and consisting primarily of ingredients that are unrecognizable in the context of most culinary traditions (1). From an evolutionary standpoint, we have no history consuming large amounts of refined sugars, rancid fats, chemical preservatives, and ingredients processed to such an extent that they bear scant resemblance to the actual plants and animals from which they are derived (2). Many such ingredients have been shown to increase metabolic dysfunction (3), slow the release of appetite-regulating hormones (4), and damage the microbiome (5), to name just a few unforeseen consequences that have direct bearing on poor nutrient absorption and subsequent overconsumption (6). Fixating on single ingredients (artificial dyes, for example) and not recognizing the causal role ultra-processed foods play in promoting overeating, obesity, and negative overall health is to miss the forest for the trees (7).
References
1. Monteiro CA, Cannon G, Levy RB, Moubarac JC, Louzada ML, Rauber F, et al. (2019). Ultra-processed foods: what they are and how to identify them. Public Health Nutrition, 22(5), 936-941.
2. Cordain L, Eaton SB, Sebastian A, Mann N, Lindeberg S, Watkins BA, et al. (2005). Origins and evolution of the Western diet: health implications for the 21st century. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 81(2), 341-354.
3. Hall KD, Ayuketah A, Brychta R, Cai H, Cassimatis T, Chen KY, et al. (2019). Ultra-Processed Diets Cause Excess Calorie Intake and Weight Gain: An Inpatient Randomized Controlled Trial of Ad Libitum Food Intake. Cell Metabolism, 30(1), 67-77.e3.
4. Fardet A. (2016). Minimally processed foods are more satiating and less hyperglycemic than ultra-processed foods: a preliminary study with 98 ready-to-eat foods. Food & Function, 7(5), 2338-2346.
5. Chassaing B, Koren O, Goodrich JK, Poole AC, Srinivasan S, Ley RE, Gewirtz AT. (2015). Dietary emulsifiers impact the mouse gut microbiota promoting colitis and metabolic syndrome. Nature, 519(7541), 92-96.
6. Monteiro CA, Moubarac JC, Cannon G, Ng SW, Popkin B. (2013). Ultra-processed products are becoming dominant in the global food system. Obesity Reviews, 14(S2), 21-28.
7. Moodie R, Stuckler D, Monteiro C, Sheron N, Neal B, Thamarangsi T, Lincoln P, Casswell S; Lancet NCD Action Group. (2013). Profits and pandemics: prevention of harmful effects of tobacco, alcohol, and ultra-processed food and drink industries. The Lancet, 381(9867), 670-679.
I dunno… Arguing against most medical professionals that ultra-processed foods aren’t unhealthy and immediately jumping to the conclusion that any research suggesting otherwise is “poor science” sure sounds a lot like a cOnsPiRAcY tHEoRy to me 😹
That’s a fair point—“hysterics” is relevant to the broader media landscape, not to Moynihan and Alan in particular. Although describing RFKJ as “incredibly dangerous” is still pretty overblown, imo. It’s more of a knee-jerk, visceral aversion to RFKJ in the case of Michael and Alan.
I dunno, if I met a guy who wanted to throw people in jail for having the incorrect opinion on climate change…I might think handing him any kind of power is a little dangerous. And I wouldn’t think I’m hysterical for feeling that way…
Yes, I would agree with this point wholeheartedly. We do need to maintain a critical eye when evaluating anyone who sets the agenda and policies. I guess my main intention is to draw more attention to the fact that, as Alan himself suggests—though he only made this point when discussing RFKJ’s worldview—we are all running on heuristics and default assumptions about the world. I would, at bottom, appreciate if this was acknowledged across the board. “I trust scientific consensus by default because the benefits of unrestrained innovation outweigh the harms” is as heuristic, as is “I distrust individuals with a conspiratorial frame of mind because they’re prone to amplify false positives in their search for corruption.” We didn’t vote to sign off on the most naively idealistic and sometimes absurd comments RFKJ made over the last 10 years, we voted on the belief that a heuristic which will inevitably lead to false positives will ultimately serve us better at this moment in time than the one that has produced so many false negatives in recent years.
Sure, RFK isn't wrong about everything. However, the stuff that he is right about isn't novel or interesting. They're just anodyne points. If that was all he said, people wouldn't even know about him. He is known for the bat shit crazy stuff that spouts endlessly and pushes to a harmful degree.
And yes, the naturalistic fallacy doesn't always lead you astray. Sometimes you can reach the right conclusion, you just get there for the wrong reasons. The issue with that naturalist fallacy is that is a fallacy. Natural does make something good, nor does unnatural make something bad. The term natural itself is a shaky definition to start with. What people percieve as natural vs unnatural is malleable and easy to manipulate. It can often lead to harmful conclusions when taken to more extreme degree because it causes people to reject beneficial innovations. For instance vaccines. It also easy for grifters and con men to game this impulse. The supplement industry has many people who prey on this fallacy.
I absolutely love these Moynihan solo episodes. Moynihan’s general depth and Hitchian intellection get full room to shine while engaged in conversation. More of this please.
There's a fallacious mode of argument where people, for whatever reason, refuse direct engagement with a particular idea and instead take a step back and hand-waive at a more general, less defined idea that they claim trumps the need to address the original idea.
Moynihan does a good job addressing this early on in this episode, using the example of one person shoving an old lady into traffic and another shoving an old lady out of traffic—saying that you can't step back and hand-waive them both together into "people shoving old ladies around," which was correct.
However minutes later, Levinovitz touted his penchant for engaging in this exact mode of argument, calling it "arguing the shape of people's beliefs" rather than their actual beliefs. He gave the example of someone claiming the Keto diet cured their diabetes, and said his favorite response to this is, "Every other diet dating back to Taoist monks claims to cure people too. What about those?"
Well, exactly /who/ is claiming that /which/ diets cured /what/ diseases? Are you saying Taoist monks knew about diabetes? What are you getting at?
The problem here is he started with a specific example (Keto vs Diabetes), and instead of addressing the specific claim, took a step back and hand-waived that all "diets" claim to "cure" people (not of any specific disease, but just "cure" in general), and his big gotcha was "So what about all the other diets that claim to cure people?"
Well, much of diabetes management is all about managing blood sugar spikes, which as I think every doctor that treats it would agree, can be managed by limited carbohydrate diets—so it makes sense that a diabetic on Keto would see a huge benefit. But I guess that doesn't matter, because "all diets" claim to "cure people," so checkmate?
I would argue that the entire mode of argument is bad, and that if you're not prepared to get into the weeds and be specific, then maybe you shouldn't be trying to argue against it at all.
I know that makes it hard to debate with people like RFK Jr, but the world doesn't owe us easy arguments. Welcome to Earth.
Great point. Diets can legitimately cure people—the mistake is thinking that any one diet can cure everyone. There’s a lot of good evidence emerging that ancestry plays a significant role in what diet is likely to support the overall health of any one individual. That’s really not an issue until someone starts imposing their own diet on others. Sloppy reasoning and argumentation are just as unhelpful, whether they’re coming from a “conspiracy theorist” or someone arguing against them.
You can induce diabetes with the overconsumption of saturated fats also. Type two diabetes can be put into remission with reduced calories be they carbohydrates or fats. The reduction of body fat brings with it reductions in hemoglobin a1c independent of macronutrient composition.
Reducing body fatness in fact, will improve metabolic health and overall across the board. This is likely why we have been seeing so many “additional” benefits from glp / gip drugs (sleeps apnea, immune function, dementia risk all improved) because being overnourished with excess calories is so harmful.
So yes, most diets that allow for the creation and maintenance of a calorie deficit will be beneficial to a population that is 70+ percent overweight or obese (and this number misses sarcopenic obesity as well)
I stopped this episode 2/3's of the way through just to comment that I've been a paid subscriber for almost five years now, and that this interview is definitely in my top-5 favorites, and I'm having trouble thinking of 4 that were better. Awesome guest, can't wait to read his books, and if Alan is a subscriber, if you're ever down in Charlottesville, I'll buy you a beer.
EDIT: IDK WTF I was thinking. I will leave my comments but Jesus, who gives a shit about my "take" on this?! I can barely read, and god knows there is a lot of whiskey brain to be had.
I am gonna pass. I don't need another long, insult filled, frothy mouthed takedown of RFK. The guy ain't perfect, but to act like he is somehow worse or exceptional compared to what has been is kind of nuts to me. Also, until he actually does something, this is like watching the NFL draft. What happened to bitching about things that have actually happened instead of going nuts about things that might happen.
There’s no “might” about it. The current admin appears to be balls deep in #MAHA and some real changes may be coming. Plus he has a long track record to which to refer. This is not some hypothetical.
Hey, if that's your thing, go with it. I just think there are a lot of not totally insane people out there with entirely different hobby horses that are willing to give the guy a chance. If we were to start eliminating politicians for comments they made about things they have no control over, could never actually do... actually now that I think about it, yeah we should just start doing that. I want a whole new set anyways. :D
At a minimum we should make them wear weird hats or something as a penance for fucking up so consistently for so long. :D Btw, I am not a real big RFK stan, but he was appealing to me as an alternative to what we had for president. But this guy over on 2way is prolly the best kind of "defense" for RFK I have seen. I ain't a doctor, I don't have kids, and when I look for what people find appealing about RFK this guys 10 min blurb I think best characterizes the allure, fwiw. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISK2ou970dk
I am not trying to be pedantic here (is that even the right word) but about 10 words after saying there is no "might" about it, you say changes "may" be coming. When these things happen, and they are actually bad, I will be right next to you wiht pitchfork and whiskey in hand to step on ol wormbrain's nuts. But until then, its an awful lot reaction with no action to speak of.
I chose the stronger words than I should have. But I was speaking on what I had already heard about RFK in the various pods, videos, stories etc. I think the actual mistake was making the comment at all. No one gives a shit why I am NOT listening to a thing, and they are right to not care. I just let my grumpy / drama queen side get the best of me cause I saw a new episode and was looking forward to listening.
I think it's very much worth listening to. Of course, I also happen to believe that RFK is *particularly* bad on so many issues that he could have an effect on in that position that it would make much more sense to choose someone who is good on the issues he's good on but isn't consistently scientifically illiterate and repeatedly, demonstrably dishonest.
Still, I appreciate and understand getting weary of a certain tone of complaint that is common with him and the Trumpiverse in general.
Since when did any role in the US Govt. get filled by the best person? :D And I am not saying everyone is wrong. I was just saying I don't feel like listening to an hour of debate about him. Everyone has already done it, so I feel I am "informed". To what end, god only knows. Its an appointment.
You are missing out! He's not frothy and it's not a simplistic take-down of RFK. It's a really nuanced convo about the difficulties realities of solving large scale public health problems.
Like I said I don't doubt what other's have said about the discussion. I am just at the point where I think the "discourse" has reached peak speculation. I don't remember these types of discussions 4 years ago. Maybe I just missed them, but the guy who won the election has chosen his guy. At this point I am willing to let that guy give it a try, esp. since there is nothing to be done about it at this point.
I mean. The fifth would have absolutely spent weeks on the story if Biden had nominated someone who literally thinks his father, who was killed in public and with witnesses and with a confession, was killed by someone else.
That is like wagyu beef to the fifth column. It’s the ultimate man bite dog story.
They’re not talking about the not crazy candidates nearly as much. But yeah. They’re gonna talk about the crazy one.
If a person can’t reason well. And rfk can’t reason well. Then are they truly qualified for a job where your most important quality is the ability to reason?
Just wanted to say that I'm thankful this year that my subscription affords me commenting privileges. This is me lording them over all you freeloaders. Perhaps that makes me a bit of a Thanksgiving Grinch, but at least I'm a Thanksgiving Grinch with 10 bucks to contribute.
Amazing prediction! I also think Paul Offit would have made a great guest on this topic. Great science communicator, very humble about what science has gotten wrong, very chill. Also wrote a fabulous book "Do you Believe in Magic?" Revealing the massive profits and lack of regulation in the supplements/alternative medicine industries. Just bought Alan's book and will be reading it asap. Thanks Kathleen!
Free episode worth every dollar! Using a straw man argument to convict someone else of a logical fallacy is supremely counterproductive. Is the argument that RFKJ is saying drink Mexican soda instead of corn soda (eg the naturalistic fallacy)? Or that hemlock is a perfectly suitable food because it’s a plant? Excuse me, but dismantling a silly fallacious argument and pinning it to a guy who wouldn’t agree with those reductio ad absurdum postulates in the first place is just sloppy. Almost as if the interviewee has no background in science….🤔 Oh right, Dr. Levinovitz is not that kind of doctor.
RFK Jr has no background in science…yet he makes horrible accusations again scientists who work daily with the sick and dying. Some who suffer because they are antivax.
Great interview and great guest. I live in a geographic divide, straddled between immigrant ag workers whose children I work with every day, and extreme wealth (Ojai, Montecito, Malibu). We talk in class about who "gets" to shop at the "good stores" for food. It nearly always comes back to kind of what Alan said: you can find great food even at the Dollar Store. It's not about where you're getting it, it's about what you're buying and paying attention.
Wish he would've gotten into the meat and dairy ag world, but that's a dedicated discussion. Anyway, excellent talk and thanks for the timely release.
Great point, Dacia. It's about what you are buying and eating, and how much of it. I wish that in the interview they had followed through on the reference to addressing food deserts. I recall a long-term NYU study that examined neighborhoods with limited grocery options where larger scale food markets were introduced with a wider array of fresh food choices. The local consumers shopped at these new places but did not materially change what they purchased. This is all about money/class/knowledge about nutrition/habit changing. Not simple!
That is interesting and tracks with what students say: the kids whose parents are recent immigrants (or 4 generations in) will always and only buy the same shit over and over - rice, beans, carne, corn meal, queso - which historically is easy-to-keep poverty food in Mex (and many places). Our (American) version of "Mexican" cuisine stems from this, but I digress. Down here there are many places to buy quality food inexpensively, but people often do not.
If we add lowest bidder public school lunches to this issue, it gets depressing quite quickly. Thanks for the response - it is a fascinating topic.
If a diet with less processed food diet is better for us because we accidentally eat fewer calories vs. because it's "natural," does it matter? Aren't we splitting hairs a bit?
Also I totally agree that we shouldn't "ban corn syrup." But it would be crazy to say that removing massive agricultural subsidies for the inputs for processed foods will have no impact on the economics and downstream effects of processed foods. Yes, it's not that we should just substitute Mexican Coke 1:1 for corn syrup soda. But on average people will drink less Mexican Coke because it's more expensive.
People do have reason to be skeptical of the scientific community on diet because of the screw ups like margarine and eggs, which were mentioned, and "low fat" diets. And all of this has opened the door for kooks like Atkins etc. The more "science" has been introduced into our diets generally the worse our diets have gotten. Not the same as vaccine or antibiotics which have clear, live-saving benefits (even if they also have occasional side effects). Much of this of course was driven by industrial science, not health science. But part of the problem has definitely been that scientists thought they had nutrition all figured out and they didn't know what they didn't know first in terms of micronutrients and now probably micro-biomes.
The reason to err on the side of nature isn't that it's perfect or morally better. It's because its been around for a long time and so where there are negative effects, we probably know about them by now.
While "natural" certainly isn't always better, I think it's fair to say the burden of proof is on the new fangled thing as to why it's safe and effective. We know hemlock is poisonous because humans have been around it for a very long time. A lot of industrial chemicals may be harmless, but there often isn't sufficient science one way or the other, so it's probably smart to be cautious. The radium girls came up on a recent Reason podcast. They were literally licking radioactive liquid because we ran bull-headed into new tech without understanding it. Even if all food dyes do is attract kids to eat more processed food then maybe removing them is a win. No one is claiming they have any health benefit. How much of that should be regulatory? That's a fair debate, but the guest did make the point that these are clearly societal issues that are difficult or impossible for most individuals to fix on their own.
I want there to be more to the JFK assassination so bad, just for years of good rubbing-Moynihan's-nose-in-it material.
I will say the least convincing part of the anti-RFK Jr argument is that you want him to be doing to right things for the right reasons, not the wrong reasons. You kinda have to take the good with the bad in politics sometimes. (Aren't there libertarians here? Haven't we learned anything about being happy with small wins even if they come from people who you otherwise disagree with?)
You want a non-crazy RFK Jr? Fine, me too. Where is he?
The Means siblings (co-authors of "Good Energy") have recently been effective communicators.
Jim O'Neill as RFK's deputy I think you assuage the concerns of some people re: RFK's excesses.
RFK is "directionally correct" on a lot of things. Thiel brought things into focus on his Bari Weiss interview discussing the dogmatic/skeptic paradigm. How in our present expert class era our institutions, including science, have been captured by excess dogmatism without enough skepticism to balance things out. RFK represents a (perhaps crude) correction to this trend. With O'Neill and other picks in this general policy oeuvre (Jay Bhattacharya!) to balance out his skeptical excesses, I think one be consistent logically both supporting his role in the cabinet, being directionally correct and all, while also acknowledging his propensity to drift into excessive skepticism land.
I don't know why but conventional medicine vs. alternative medicine seems to divide the listenership of TFC more than any other single topic. I get uncharacteristically frustrated in these medicine-based comment sections because I think that a typically super-smart group of commenters ends up in a place we don't get to on any other issue: This person is bad, and (therefore) what he says is wrong. This person is a better person, and it is fun to watch him own [the whatevers.]
And maybe more broadly the divide is between people who want to rescue our sclerotic institutions and those who see them as FUBAR and would prefer to build new, parallel institutions. Something I think can even be observed in and between our esteemed hosts ,
IOW, what's uniting is the observation that most of our institutions are corrupted and what's dividing is what's there to be done about it.
I enjoyed reading Good Energy (which is mostly Casey). I liked a lot of what she had to say. Some of the stuff she said didn't resonate, so I left it aside.
I would like to see Casey Means interviewed by MM. I think those disposed in her favor, as well as those disposed against her, would learn something, even if only the affirmation of priors.
I’m so glad you mentioned them—the Means duo appear to be reliable, well-informed, and honest brokers who understand the situation from both the medical and lobbying angles, thanks to their prior work in these respective domains. They have been a positive force in the larger movement calling for more accountability and less corruption in healthcare. They have essentially helped to moderate RFKJ on many issues, playing a central role in his campaign, his current messaging, and his agenda moving forward. Despite what many believe about him, RFKJ is by all accounts open to reason and discussion and has shifted his perspective on a lot of issues. The fact that the vast majority of the admittedly absurd comments he’s made came years ago, and he has since changed his positions on many of them, should offer at least some reassurance to those who fear the worst from his appointment to HHS.
Where is he? I dunno. Working for Cato? Or any other multitude of think tanks that employ boring stuffy suits who are very good at writing papers. There are 350 million people in this country. I imagine given the scope and reach of the Trump administration I could probably make you a short list of 100 people better for the job than RFK. He got it because he had tv time, sucked trumps balls, and has the last name Kennedy. A family that hasn’t done any real work in close to 100 years.
Okay. So if it’s only because of fame then you’ve answered your question. If politicians (and the voters to a degree) weren’t such star fuckers we would have a serious person doing this.
I loved this interview. I came to heterodoxy (I know, I know, I’m rolling my eyes too) by way of skepticism and the things this conversation canvassed were once the life’s blood of skepticism. The big S Skeptics left me behind, as they got more woke and less skeptical, but I’m always happy to see small s skeptics still doing the work. I’m off to Amazon to buy that guy’s book!
Yeah, they’re the big ones I meant. I was dismayed by Elevatorgate; pissed off about Harriet Hall and consider them distinctly unskeptical about youth transition…
I admit to being a bit tender about Hall. As a veteran, she was a hero to me because of her military career. And I originally came to skepticism through my experiences raising a disabled child. My daughter has cerebral palsy, and you wouldn’t believe the snake oil salesmen who come calling when you have a kid in a wheelchair. So, Hall’s work against alt med resonated with me so much. I raised my kids to be critical thinkers. My daughter is now 37 and has a PhD in Cognitive Psychology.
that was my path as well. the sgu was the first podcast i regularly listened to, & i stuck with them for almost a decade, i think. but at some point i realized they were annoying me as much as enriching me.
i think the tipping point was when i heard a host use 'latinx' unironically. they also had some commentary around the floyd riots that made me realize these were not my kinds of people.
Same, although I tapped out a little earlier. I was baffled by the Elevatorgate thing, but what really got me was when Rebecca Watson’s crew of “Skepchicks” rounded on Harriet Hall who was exponentially more accomplished than any of them. She was a physician who had done actual research-based skepticism for years. But Watson et al deemed her insufficiently ‘feminist’ (despite the fact that, as the Air Force’s first female Flight Doctor she was an actual real-life feminist icon), and inadequately up to date on all the LGBT terminology that the Stepchicks felt necessary. That was the end for me. Even after Watson left to focus more on her activist ‘work,’ I had such a bad taste in my mouth I never went back. Later, Steven Novella (who worked with Hall at Science-Based Medicine) retracted her modestly favorable review of Abigail Shrier’s book Irreversible Damage. Jesse Singal reported on this and it reinforced my feeling that the SGU had left me behind.
elevatorgate was definitely a warning flare. i followed that harriet hall business via twitter, and that was definitely another really dispiriting tipping point. david gorski in particular has shown himself to be an absolutely dink in the aftermath of all that as well. he probably always was, i suppose, but it was easy to handwave away or even support his jerkiness when i thought he was on the side of angels.
“Debating conspiracy theorists is a waste of time” is a passable enough excuse, but we all know the *real* reason is because Moynihan couldn’t bear to listen to his voice long enough to get through an entire interview 😹
Levinovitz said the exact same things about food/diets/additives/weird worldviews that my sis in law says, and she is a registered dietician. (She had a client in KY who had never eaten a piece of fruit!)
One challenge to what he said: There was a time when low income people grew some veggies to supplement their diets. This practice could be revitalized - it's not hard and seeds are cheap. I learned how to grow stuff from my mom when she was divorced and very broke.
It's true that urban dwellers will struggle, but that's only 1/3 of the poor. Drive through the poorest parts of NC/SC/GA/KY/TN and they have yards. Planting in the ground is a $25 shovel, elbow grease and a hose. (I have never once used fertilizer) Perhaps it doesn't cross people's minds that they could grow food themselves - and that is the lost art.`
And, someone needs to do something about corn subsidies, which contort the free market in numerous ways. Cheap calories in junk food are only cheap because externalities (environmental degradation involved in production and long-term health consequences) are externalized. Also, if so much acreage wasn't devoted to corn, more nutritious vegetables (organic, conventional, or GMO) could gain real estate and become more abundant and cheaper as a result.
Alan is really straw manning here—yes, RFKJ talks about dyes and chemical additives, but this isn’t by any means exhaustive of what Alan refers to as the “naturalistic fallacy.” RFKJ also talks about the importance of exercise, eating whole foods, avoid highly addictive, nutrient-deficient, ultra-processed foods, and a host of other environmental and behavioral issues that Alan himself endorses.
Defaulting to the “most natural” available option in any scenario is a heuristic some of us prefer to use in life. That doesn’t mean we can never take pharmaceuticals. Trusting and deferring to technological innovation and institutional authority by default is simply another heuristic. That doesn’t mean you never use functional herbs (coffee, tea, etc.). Both are shortcuts, and most people operate using one or the other when making simple decisions. Why the hysterics about people who use a different heuristic from your own when both allow for exceptions and each has it’s own costs and benefits?
I totally agree with your analysis. Actually, this interview annoyed me a lot, and probably for pretty special personal reasons, but it seems like i'm in the minority.
You might be in the minority, but you’re also in good company.
I think Levinovitz touches on this in the interview. You’ll get some people who want to parse the semantics on ultra-processed but saying that white cheddar vs yellow American is healthier isn’t one of RFKs more controversial views. The point he is making is you can get to the sensible ones without “HIV doesn’t cause AIDS” or “COVID doesn’t kill Jews”. It’s an epistemological debate not a nutrition debate.
No. I mean those studies are shit. This is exactly the conspiracy theorist stuff they talk about in this interview.
Deciding within 60 seconds that 7 journal articles are “shit” doesn’t sound “scientifically literate” to me, but to each his own, I suppose.
It’s RFK jr all the way down.
Yes. I’ve never ever heard of these studies before or read about them or anything else related to diet studies and the poor science that is behind them.
Sigh. It’s a religion.
Highly addictive nutrient deficient ultra processed foods is, itself a strawman. Ultra processed has no meaning and is dumb. Nutrient deficient means what, exactly? Cheerios vs Special K vs Total? Highly addictive is code for “tastes really good.”
Not at all. “Ultra-processed” is shorthand for foods designed by scientists, produced in a factory setting, and consisting primarily of ingredients that are unrecognizable in the context of most culinary traditions. From an evolutionary standpoint, we have no history consuming large amounts of refined sugars, rancid fats, chemical preservatives, and ingredients processed to such an extent that they bear scant resemblance to the actual plants and animals from which they are derived. Many such ingredients have been shown to increase metabolic dysfunction, slow the release of appetite-regulating hormones, and damage the microbiome, to name just a few unforeseen consequences that have direct bearing on poor nutrient absorption and subsequent overconsumption. Fixating on single ingredients, artificial dyes, for example, and not recognizing the causal role ultra-processed foods play in promoting overeating, obesity, and negative overall health is to miss the forest for the trees.
This is scientifically illiterate.
You’re right, scientific convention holds that I should cite my sources. I’ve added some in for your reference:
“Ultra-processed” is shorthand for foods designed by scientists, produced in a factory setting, and consisting primarily of ingredients that are unrecognizable in the context of most culinary traditions (1). From an evolutionary standpoint, we have no history consuming large amounts of refined sugars, rancid fats, chemical preservatives, and ingredients processed to such an extent that they bear scant resemblance to the actual plants and animals from which they are derived (2). Many such ingredients have been shown to increase metabolic dysfunction (3), slow the release of appetite-regulating hormones (4), and damage the microbiome (5), to name just a few unforeseen consequences that have direct bearing on poor nutrient absorption and subsequent overconsumption (6). Fixating on single ingredients (artificial dyes, for example) and not recognizing the causal role ultra-processed foods play in promoting overeating, obesity, and negative overall health is to miss the forest for the trees (7).
References
1. Monteiro CA, Cannon G, Levy RB, Moubarac JC, Louzada ML, Rauber F, et al. (2019). Ultra-processed foods: what they are and how to identify them. Public Health Nutrition, 22(5), 936-941.
2. Cordain L, Eaton SB, Sebastian A, Mann N, Lindeberg S, Watkins BA, et al. (2005). Origins and evolution of the Western diet: health implications for the 21st century. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 81(2), 341-354.
3. Hall KD, Ayuketah A, Brychta R, Cai H, Cassimatis T, Chen KY, et al. (2019). Ultra-Processed Diets Cause Excess Calorie Intake and Weight Gain: An Inpatient Randomized Controlled Trial of Ad Libitum Food Intake. Cell Metabolism, 30(1), 67-77.e3.
4. Fardet A. (2016). Minimally processed foods are more satiating and less hyperglycemic than ultra-processed foods: a preliminary study with 98 ready-to-eat foods. Food & Function, 7(5), 2338-2346.
5. Chassaing B, Koren O, Goodrich JK, Poole AC, Srinivasan S, Ley RE, Gewirtz AT. (2015). Dietary emulsifiers impact the mouse gut microbiota promoting colitis and metabolic syndrome. Nature, 519(7541), 92-96.
6. Monteiro CA, Moubarac JC, Cannon G, Ng SW, Popkin B. (2013). Ultra-processed products are becoming dominant in the global food system. Obesity Reviews, 14(S2), 21-28.
7. Moodie R, Stuckler D, Monteiro C, Sheron N, Neal B, Thamarangsi T, Lincoln P, Casswell S; Lancet NCD Action Group. (2013). Profits and pandemics: prevention of harmful effects of tobacco, alcohol, and ultra-processed food and drink industries. The Lancet, 381(9867), 670-679.
I’m not sure citing sources is what makes something scientific. 🤔
Ultra processed was literally the language used by Levinovitz.
I dunno… Arguing against most medical professionals that ultra-processed foods aren’t unhealthy and immediately jumping to the conclusion that any research suggesting otherwise is “poor science” sure sounds a lot like a cOnsPiRAcY tHEoRy to me 😹
What hysterics?
That’s a fair point—“hysterics” is relevant to the broader media landscape, not to Moynihan and Alan in particular. Although describing RFKJ as “incredibly dangerous” is still pretty overblown, imo. It’s more of a knee-jerk, visceral aversion to RFKJ in the case of Michael and Alan.
I dunno, if I met a guy who wanted to throw people in jail for having the incorrect opinion on climate change…I might think handing him any kind of power is a little dangerous. And I wouldn’t think I’m hysterical for feeling that way…
Put another way, I think there’s room for being critical without it being a symptom of some larger “RFK Derangement Syndrome”
Yes, I would agree with this point wholeheartedly. We do need to maintain a critical eye when evaluating anyone who sets the agenda and policies. I guess my main intention is to draw more attention to the fact that, as Alan himself suggests—though he only made this point when discussing RFKJ’s worldview—we are all running on heuristics and default assumptions about the world. I would, at bottom, appreciate if this was acknowledged across the board. “I trust scientific consensus by default because the benefits of unrestrained innovation outweigh the harms” is as heuristic, as is “I distrust individuals with a conspiratorial frame of mind because they’re prone to amplify false positives in their search for corruption.” We didn’t vote to sign off on the most naively idealistic and sometimes absurd comments RFKJ made over the last 10 years, we voted on the belief that a heuristic which will inevitably lead to false positives will ultimately serve us better at this moment in time than the one that has produced so many false negatives in recent years.
Sure, RFK isn't wrong about everything. However, the stuff that he is right about isn't novel or interesting. They're just anodyne points. If that was all he said, people wouldn't even know about him. He is known for the bat shit crazy stuff that spouts endlessly and pushes to a harmful degree.
And yes, the naturalistic fallacy doesn't always lead you astray. Sometimes you can reach the right conclusion, you just get there for the wrong reasons. The issue with that naturalist fallacy is that is a fallacy. Natural does make something good, nor does unnatural make something bad. The term natural itself is a shaky definition to start with. What people percieve as natural vs unnatural is malleable and easy to manipulate. It can often lead to harmful conclusions when taken to more extreme degree because it causes people to reject beneficial innovations. For instance vaccines. It also easy for grifters and con men to game this impulse. The supplement industry has many people who prey on this fallacy.
I absolutely love these Moynihan solo episodes. Moynihan’s general depth and Hitchian intellection get full room to shine while engaged in conversation. More of this please.
Pretty sure he doesn’t read the comments so we’re safe complimenting him here
Welch reads them
He’d read them if there were hot chicks here.
Point
didn't know intellection was a word until right now.
moynihan probably knew that.
There's a fallacious mode of argument where people, for whatever reason, refuse direct engagement with a particular idea and instead take a step back and hand-waive at a more general, less defined idea that they claim trumps the need to address the original idea.
Moynihan does a good job addressing this early on in this episode, using the example of one person shoving an old lady into traffic and another shoving an old lady out of traffic—saying that you can't step back and hand-waive them both together into "people shoving old ladies around," which was correct.
However minutes later, Levinovitz touted his penchant for engaging in this exact mode of argument, calling it "arguing the shape of people's beliefs" rather than their actual beliefs. He gave the example of someone claiming the Keto diet cured their diabetes, and said his favorite response to this is, "Every other diet dating back to Taoist monks claims to cure people too. What about those?"
Well, exactly /who/ is claiming that /which/ diets cured /what/ diseases? Are you saying Taoist monks knew about diabetes? What are you getting at?
The problem here is he started with a specific example (Keto vs Diabetes), and instead of addressing the specific claim, took a step back and hand-waived that all "diets" claim to "cure" people (not of any specific disease, but just "cure" in general), and his big gotcha was "So what about all the other diets that claim to cure people?"
Well, much of diabetes management is all about managing blood sugar spikes, which as I think every doctor that treats it would agree, can be managed by limited carbohydrate diets—so it makes sense that a diabetic on Keto would see a huge benefit. But I guess that doesn't matter, because "all diets" claim to "cure people," so checkmate?
I would argue that the entire mode of argument is bad, and that if you're not prepared to get into the weeds and be specific, then maybe you shouldn't be trying to argue against it at all.
I know that makes it hard to debate with people like RFK Jr, but the world doesn't owe us easy arguments. Welcome to Earth.
Great point. Diets can legitimately cure people—the mistake is thinking that any one diet can cure everyone. There’s a lot of good evidence emerging that ancestry plays a significant role in what diet is likely to support the overall health of any one individual. That’s really not an issue until someone starts imposing their own diet on others. Sloppy reasoning and argumentation are just as unhelpful, whether they’re coming from a “conspiracy theorist” or someone arguing against them.
You can induce diabetes with the overconsumption of saturated fats also. Type two diabetes can be put into remission with reduced calories be they carbohydrates or fats. The reduction of body fat brings with it reductions in hemoglobin a1c independent of macronutrient composition.
Reducing body fatness in fact, will improve metabolic health and overall across the board. This is likely why we have been seeing so many “additional” benefits from glp / gip drugs (sleeps apnea, immune function, dementia risk all improved) because being overnourished with excess calories is so harmful.
So yes, most diets that allow for the creation and maintenance of a calorie deficit will be beneficial to a population that is 70+ percent overweight or obese (and this number misses sarcopenic obesity as well)
Sad to read this is what Moynihan "platformed" (lmao)
100%
I stopped this episode 2/3's of the way through just to comment that I've been a paid subscriber for almost five years now, and that this interview is definitely in my top-5 favorites, and I'm having trouble thinking of 4 that were better. Awesome guest, can't wait to read his books, and if Alan is a subscriber, if you're ever down in Charlottesville, I'll buy you a beer.
EDIT: IDK WTF I was thinking. I will leave my comments but Jesus, who gives a shit about my "take" on this?! I can barely read, and god knows there is a lot of whiskey brain to be had.
I am gonna pass. I don't need another long, insult filled, frothy mouthed takedown of RFK. The guy ain't perfect, but to act like he is somehow worse or exceptional compared to what has been is kind of nuts to me. Also, until he actually does something, this is like watching the NFL draft. What happened to bitching about things that have actually happened instead of going nuts about things that might happen.
This Alan guy seems the farthest from “frothy” I can imagine
Like I said, I just had enough on the topic. I won't deny your reporting, I am sure he is a swell guy, as is Moyn obviously.
There’s no “might” about it. The current admin appears to be balls deep in #MAHA and some real changes may be coming. Plus he has a long track record to which to refer. This is not some hypothetical.
Him saying we should jail climate change deniers is all the evidence I need to not want him near any levers of power, ever.
Hey, if that's your thing, go with it. I just think there are a lot of not totally insane people out there with entirely different hobby horses that are willing to give the guy a chance. If we were to start eliminating politicians for comments they made about things they have no control over, could never actually do... actually now that I think about it, yeah we should just start doing that. I want a whole new set anyways. :D
Throwing them all out does sound tempting…
At a minimum we should make them wear weird hats or something as a penance for fucking up so consistently for so long. :D Btw, I am not a real big RFK stan, but he was appealing to me as an alternative to what we had for president. But this guy over on 2way is prolly the best kind of "defense" for RFK I have seen. I ain't a doctor, I don't have kids, and when I look for what people find appealing about RFK this guys 10 min blurb I think best characterizes the allure, fwiw. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISK2ou970dk
Yes. This.
I am not trying to be pedantic here (is that even the right word) but about 10 words after saying there is no "might" about it, you say changes "may" be coming. When these things happen, and they are actually bad, I will be right next to you wiht pitchfork and whiskey in hand to step on ol wormbrain's nuts. But until then, its an awful lot reaction with no action to speak of.
100%, I usually like this podcast and how they challenge some of my opinions.
but at 17:30, the host pretends to "steelman" the other side, admittedly he says it will be hard for him, but then proceeds to strawmen it.
Calling something frothy mouthed without evening listening first is…. something
I chose the stronger words than I should have. But I was speaking on what I had already heard about RFK in the various pods, videos, stories etc. I think the actual mistake was making the comment at all. No one gives a shit why I am NOT listening to a thing, and they are right to not care. I just let my grumpy / drama queen side get the best of me cause I saw a new episode and was looking forward to listening.
I think it's very much worth listening to. Of course, I also happen to believe that RFK is *particularly* bad on so many issues that he could have an effect on in that position that it would make much more sense to choose someone who is good on the issues he's good on but isn't consistently scientifically illiterate and repeatedly, demonstrably dishonest.
Still, I appreciate and understand getting weary of a certain tone of complaint that is common with him and the Trumpiverse in general.
So why is everyone else wrong about RFK and how in a population of 350 million people is he singularly the best person for this job?
Since when did any role in the US Govt. get filled by the best person? :D And I am not saying everyone is wrong. I was just saying I don't feel like listening to an hour of debate about him. Everyone has already done it, so I feel I am "informed". To what end, god only knows. Its an appointment.
lol. To each their own. I like listening to smart people shit on him. He’s earned it 👍
You are missing out! He's not frothy and it's not a simplistic take-down of RFK. It's a really nuanced convo about the difficulties realities of solving large scale public health problems.
Like I said I don't doubt what other's have said about the discussion. I am just at the point where I think the "discourse" has reached peak speculation. I don't remember these types of discussions 4 years ago. Maybe I just missed them, but the guy who won the election has chosen his guy. At this point I am willing to let that guy give it a try, esp. since there is nothing to be done about it at this point.
I mean. The fifth would have absolutely spent weeks on the story if Biden had nominated someone who literally thinks his father, who was killed in public and with witnesses and with a confession, was killed by someone else.
That is like wagyu beef to the fifth column. It’s the ultimate man bite dog story.
They’re not talking about the not crazy candidates nearly as much. But yeah. They’re gonna talk about the crazy one.
If a person can’t reason well. And rfk can’t reason well. Then are they truly qualified for a job where your most important quality is the ability to reason?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Tl;dr.
Rfk is a (LITERAL) fucking retard though. Just my two cents.
Just wanted to say that I'm thankful this year that my subscription affords me commenting privileges. This is me lording them over all you freeloaders. Perhaps that makes me a bit of a Thanksgiving Grinch, but at least I'm a Thanksgiving Grinch with 10 bucks to contribute.
I love being right so much. It is one of my least adorable qualities.
https://www.wethefifth.com/p/members-only-236-here-comes-the-nanny/comment/77912412?r=7enhd&utm_medium=ios
I suggested Alan as a guest years ago, I think shortly after his naturalistic fallacy book came out. This is all very exciting.
Really enjoying the convo. I guess I’ve found my next read.
Thanks!
All hail Kathleen! The Moynihan whisperer
Amazing prediction! I also think Paul Offit would have made a great guest on this topic. Great science communicator, very humble about what science has gotten wrong, very chill. Also wrote a fabulous book "Do you Believe in Magic?" Revealing the massive profits and lack of regulation in the supplements/alternative medicine industries. Just bought Alan's book and will be reading it asap. Thanks Kathleen!
We really should start listening to you one of these days
I keep saying this
Brava, Kathleen!
Free episode worth every dollar! Using a straw man argument to convict someone else of a logical fallacy is supremely counterproductive. Is the argument that RFKJ is saying drink Mexican soda instead of corn soda (eg the naturalistic fallacy)? Or that hemlock is a perfectly suitable food because it’s a plant? Excuse me, but dismantling a silly fallacious argument and pinning it to a guy who wouldn’t agree with those reductio ad absurdum postulates in the first place is just sloppy. Almost as if the interviewee has no background in science….🤔 Oh right, Dr. Levinovitz is not that kind of doctor.
RFK Jr has no background in science…yet he makes horrible accusations again scientists who work daily with the sick and dying. Some who suffer because they are antivax.
Nice appeal to authority fallacy, nobody cares. Make an argument
Re-read and engage brain.
Look at the comment thread and engage brain. My comment wasn't directed at you.
You ever see the show it’s always sunny in Philadelphia?
Great interview and great guest. I live in a geographic divide, straddled between immigrant ag workers whose children I work with every day, and extreme wealth (Ojai, Montecito, Malibu). We talk in class about who "gets" to shop at the "good stores" for food. It nearly always comes back to kind of what Alan said: you can find great food even at the Dollar Store. It's not about where you're getting it, it's about what you're buying and paying attention.
Wish he would've gotten into the meat and dairy ag world, but that's a dedicated discussion. Anyway, excellent talk and thanks for the timely release.
Great point, Dacia. It's about what you are buying and eating, and how much of it. I wish that in the interview they had followed through on the reference to addressing food deserts. I recall a long-term NYU study that examined neighborhoods with limited grocery options where larger scale food markets were introduced with a wider array of fresh food choices. The local consumers shopped at these new places but did not materially change what they purchased. This is all about money/class/knowledge about nutrition/habit changing. Not simple!
That is interesting and tracks with what students say: the kids whose parents are recent immigrants (or 4 generations in) will always and only buy the same shit over and over - rice, beans, carne, corn meal, queso - which historically is easy-to-keep poverty food in Mex (and many places). Our (American) version of "Mexican" cuisine stems from this, but I digress. Down here there are many places to buy quality food inexpensively, but people often do not.
If we add lowest bidder public school lunches to this issue, it gets depressing quite quickly. Thanks for the response - it is a fascinating topic.
I love conspiracy theories because they are fun, not because they are correct!
Great episode- especially liked the point about how changes show science actually working. That is almost completely unappreciated by people…
If a diet with less processed food diet is better for us because we accidentally eat fewer calories vs. because it's "natural," does it matter? Aren't we splitting hairs a bit?
Also I totally agree that we shouldn't "ban corn syrup." But it would be crazy to say that removing massive agricultural subsidies for the inputs for processed foods will have no impact on the economics and downstream effects of processed foods. Yes, it's not that we should just substitute Mexican Coke 1:1 for corn syrup soda. But on average people will drink less Mexican Coke because it's more expensive.
People do have reason to be skeptical of the scientific community on diet because of the screw ups like margarine and eggs, which were mentioned, and "low fat" diets. And all of this has opened the door for kooks like Atkins etc. The more "science" has been introduced into our diets generally the worse our diets have gotten. Not the same as vaccine or antibiotics which have clear, live-saving benefits (even if they also have occasional side effects). Much of this of course was driven by industrial science, not health science. But part of the problem has definitely been that scientists thought they had nutrition all figured out and they didn't know what they didn't know first in terms of micronutrients and now probably micro-biomes.
The reason to err on the side of nature isn't that it's perfect or morally better. It's because its been around for a long time and so where there are negative effects, we probably know about them by now.
While "natural" certainly isn't always better, I think it's fair to say the burden of proof is on the new fangled thing as to why it's safe and effective. We know hemlock is poisonous because humans have been around it for a very long time. A lot of industrial chemicals may be harmless, but there often isn't sufficient science one way or the other, so it's probably smart to be cautious. The radium girls came up on a recent Reason podcast. They were literally licking radioactive liquid because we ran bull-headed into new tech without understanding it. Even if all food dyes do is attract kids to eat more processed food then maybe removing them is a win. No one is claiming they have any health benefit. How much of that should be regulatory? That's a fair debate, but the guest did make the point that these are clearly societal issues that are difficult or impossible for most individuals to fix on their own.
I want there to be more to the JFK assassination so bad, just for years of good rubbing-Moynihan's-nose-in-it material.
I will say the least convincing part of the anti-RFK Jr argument is that you want him to be doing to right things for the right reasons, not the wrong reasons. You kinda have to take the good with the bad in politics sometimes. (Aren't there libertarians here? Haven't we learned anything about being happy with small wins even if they come from people who you otherwise disagree with?)
You want a non-crazy RFK Jr? Fine, me too. Where is he?
The Means siblings (co-authors of "Good Energy") have recently been effective communicators.
Jim O'Neill as RFK's deputy I think you assuage the concerns of some people re: RFK's excesses.
RFK is "directionally correct" on a lot of things. Thiel brought things into focus on his Bari Weiss interview discussing the dogmatic/skeptic paradigm. How in our present expert class era our institutions, including science, have been captured by excess dogmatism without enough skepticism to balance things out. RFK represents a (perhaps crude) correction to this trend. With O'Neill and other picks in this general policy oeuvre (Jay Bhattacharya!) to balance out his skeptical excesses, I think one be consistent logically both supporting his role in the cabinet, being directionally correct and all, while also acknowledging his propensity to drift into excessive skepticism land.
I don't know why but conventional medicine vs. alternative medicine seems to divide the listenership of TFC more than any other single topic. I get uncharacteristically frustrated in these medicine-based comment sections because I think that a typically super-smart group of commenters ends up in a place we don't get to on any other issue: This person is bad, and (therefore) what he says is wrong. This person is a better person, and it is fun to watch him own [the whatevers.]
And maybe more broadly the divide is between people who want to rescue our sclerotic institutions and those who see them as FUBAR and would prefer to build new, parallel institutions. Something I think can even be observed in and between our esteemed hosts ,
IOW, what's uniting is the observation that most of our institutions are corrupted and what's dividing is what's there to be done about it.
I enjoyed reading Good Energy (which is mostly Casey). I liked a lot of what she had to say. Some of the stuff she said didn't resonate, so I left it aside.
I would like to see Casey Means interviewed by MM. I think those disposed in her favor, as well as those disposed against her, would learn something, even if only the affirmation of priors.
I’m so glad you mentioned them—the Means duo appear to be reliable, well-informed, and honest brokers who understand the situation from both the medical and lobbying angles, thanks to their prior work in these respective domains. They have been a positive force in the larger movement calling for more accountability and less corruption in healthcare. They have essentially helped to moderate RFKJ on many issues, playing a central role in his campaign, his current messaging, and his agenda moving forward. Despite what many believe about him, RFKJ is by all accounts open to reason and discussion and has shifted his perspective on a lot of issues. The fact that the vast majority of the admittedly absurd comments he’s made came years ago, and he has since changed his positions on many of them, should offer at least some reassurance to those who fear the worst from his appointment to HHS.
The Means siblings spout a bunch of false things just like RFK Jr.
Such as?
Where is he? I dunno. Working for Cato? Or any other multitude of think tanks that employ boring stuffy suits who are very good at writing papers. There are 350 million people in this country. I imagine given the scope and reach of the Trump administration I could probably make you a short list of 100 people better for the job than RFK. He got it because he had tv time, sucked trumps balls, and has the last name Kennedy. A family that hasn’t done any real work in close to 100 years.
Sure, but the crazy guy with name recognition is the guy who'll bring the public will with him.
Footnote: Yes the Kennedy family are dirtbags.
Okay. So if it’s only because of fame then you’ve answered your question. If politicians (and the voters to a degree) weren’t such star fuckers we would have a serious person doing this.
Instead we have, lol, RFK.
That's just our reality, though. So, given that, I'll take the ill-gotten gains of an imperfect whack-job champion.
Well. I appreciate that you’re more interested in a leisurely stroll to the bottom instead of a race. 😂
I'd call it a lazy amble, really.
No more fluoride in the water? Eh, I'm on a well.
I loved this interview. I came to heterodoxy (I know, I know, I’m rolling my eyes too) by way of skepticism and the things this conversation canvassed were once the life’s blood of skepticism. The big S Skeptics left me behind, as they got more woke and less skeptical, but I’m always happy to see small s skeptics still doing the work. I’m off to Amazon to buy that guy’s book!
Yeah, they’re the big ones I meant. I was dismayed by Elevatorgate; pissed off about Harriet Hall and consider them distinctly unskeptical about youth transition…
I admit to being a bit tender about Hall. As a veteran, she was a hero to me because of her military career. And I originally came to skepticism through my experiences raising a disabled child. My daughter has cerebral palsy, and you wouldn’t believe the snake oil salesmen who come calling when you have a kid in a wheelchair. So, Hall’s work against alt med resonated with me so much. I raised my kids to be critical thinkers. My daughter is now 37 and has a PhD in Cognitive Psychology.
that was my path as well. the sgu was the first podcast i regularly listened to, & i stuck with them for almost a decade, i think. but at some point i realized they were annoying me as much as enriching me.
i think the tipping point was when i heard a host use 'latinx' unironically. they also had some commentary around the floyd riots that made me realize these were not my kinds of people.
Same, although I tapped out a little earlier. I was baffled by the Elevatorgate thing, but what really got me was when Rebecca Watson’s crew of “Skepchicks” rounded on Harriet Hall who was exponentially more accomplished than any of them. She was a physician who had done actual research-based skepticism for years. But Watson et al deemed her insufficiently ‘feminist’ (despite the fact that, as the Air Force’s first female Flight Doctor she was an actual real-life feminist icon), and inadequately up to date on all the LGBT terminology that the Stepchicks felt necessary. That was the end for me. Even after Watson left to focus more on her activist ‘work,’ I had such a bad taste in my mouth I never went back. Later, Steven Novella (who worked with Hall at Science-Based Medicine) retracted her modestly favorable review of Abigail Shrier’s book Irreversible Damage. Jesse Singal reported on this and it reinforced my feeling that the SGU had left me behind.
elevatorgate was definitely a warning flare. i followed that harriet hall business via twitter, and that was definitely another really dispiriting tipping point. david gorski in particular has shown himself to be an absolutely dink in the aftermath of all that as well. he probably always was, i suppose, but it was easy to handwave away or even support his jerkiness when i thought he was on the side of angels.
I'm out of the Skeptical loop myself. What big S skeptics are you referring to? Like SGU?
Why don’t you just interview RFK?
I'd listen to that only if Michael does his RFK voice the entire time.
If Moyn and the boys wanted to they could just be nice and then talk shit in the Patreon after discussion....
“Debating conspiracy theorists is a waste of time” is a passable enough excuse, but we all know the *real* reason is because Moynihan couldn’t bear to listen to his voice long enough to get through an entire interview 😹
Everyone wants the magic beans; no one wants to eat their vegetables.
Everyone wants their cake, and to eat it too!
Levinovitz said the exact same things about food/diets/additives/weird worldviews that my sis in law says, and she is a registered dietician. (She had a client in KY who had never eaten a piece of fruit!)
One challenge to what he said: There was a time when low income people grew some veggies to supplement their diets. This practice could be revitalized - it's not hard and seeds are cheap. I learned how to grow stuff from my mom when she was divorced and very broke.
Seeds are cheap, but other inputs are not. And without a fancy indoor grow setup, one needs access to private outdoor space.
It's true that urban dwellers will struggle, but that's only 1/3 of the poor. Drive through the poorest parts of NC/SC/GA/KY/TN and they have yards. Planting in the ground is a $25 shovel, elbow grease and a hose. (I have never once used fertilizer) Perhaps it doesn't cross people's minds that they could grow food themselves - and that is the lost art.`
Something like >40% of all vegetables came from victory gardens during WWII. It can definitely be done
And time is not cheap.
And, someone needs to do something about corn subsidies, which contort the free market in numerous ways. Cheap calories in junk food are only cheap because externalities (environmental degradation involved in production and long-term health consequences) are externalized. Also, if so much acreage wasn't devoted to corn, more nutritious vegetables (organic, conventional, or GMO) could gain real estate and become more abundant and cheaper as a result.