May 9, 2024 • 51 mins
Discover the secret Scandinavian approach to nurturing young athletes that's outperforming the rest of the world, and why WNBA prospect Caitlin Clark's diverse sports background might be her golden ticket. This episode of Mind Muscle with Simon Devere isn't just about the physical - we're here to flex our philosophical biceps too. We're unpacking everything from the hidden perks of golf for high school athletes to why philosophy is crucial for dissecting today's tidal wave of information. Get ready to challenge the early specialization dogma and find out how a broader foundation in sports could be the key to long-term success.
Have you ever questioned the flashy claims of the latest "scientific" products? Hold on to your seats as we expose the "magic pixie dust" of consumerism and science, sharing tales from the trenches of personal experience and learned skepticism. We'll navigate the realms of superstition and science, reveal how philosophical thinking can sharpen critical analysis skills, and explore the importance of nutrition critiques without falling prey to the latest fad. This episode is a masterclass in transforming your approach to new information and redefining your understanding of risk and control.
Finally, join me as we champion philosophy's place in the modern world, comparing its understated importance to that of carbohydrates in a nutritious diet. Engaging with philosophical texts isn't just an intellectual luxury; it's akin to developing mental muscle to ward off today's craftiest charlatans. We're bridging the gap between mind and muscle, ensuring that our journey towards intellectual fortitude is just as robust as our physical one. Dive into a world where skepticism is wielded with precision, not as a tool for denial, but as a means to cultivate informed beliefs and personal growth.
Producer: Thor Benander
Editor: Luke Morey
Intro Theme: Ajax Benander
Intro: Timothy Durant
For more, visit Simon at The Antagonist
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:04):
Welcome to the Mind Muscle Podcast.
Here's your host, simon DeVere,and welcome back to Mind Muscle
, the place we study the history, science and philosophy behind
everything in health and fitness.
Today I am Simon Devere andthere's nothing new except all
(00:30):
that has been forgotten.
All right, so on the docket,today I want to run down talk
about the best way to developyoung athletes according to
science, and then I do want tomake a defense of philosophy in
general versus its mostqualified detractors, which
(00:52):
there are many in some of thebest scientists actually.
But yeah, I know that thatone's probably not the most
tempting to most people outthere.
So there actually will be areally pragmatic takeaway in
nutrition from all of that.
It's not going to be a pie inthe sky sort of discussion.
It's actually going to be a lotmore pragmatic nuts and bolts
(01:15):
than I think most people thinkof philosophy as being indulgent
.
So, anyway, that's got a lot ofmy or kind of showing my hand
for the defense I'm going tooffer, but I think it can be a
tool that can help us work onsome really pragmatic problems,
not just, you know, some big piein the sky stuff.
But no, I really liked anarticle I came across this week
(01:38):
about Caitlin Clark, one of themost exciting prospects to come
into the WNBA in quite some time.
But it was actually focusing onwhat she had done as a youth
athlete and the articleobviously started off with a
(01:58):
discussion.
I guess her dad clearly getsthe question a lot what did you
guys do?
Clearly gets the question a lot, what did you guys do?
And you know so.
He actually had Caitlin Clarkengaging with as many different
activities as possible.
He said sports or otherwise.
So beyond basketball and soccer, she was doing piano, softball,
tennis, track and field,volleyball, volleyball.
(02:27):
And he feels, looking back onit now, that all of the
activities that she had donehave elevated certain skills
that she now uses, both mentaland physical.
What was interesting about thisto me is, I think, that this is
a surprising story to somepeople.
I think most people think thatyou, or that these athletes that
you know, achieve a lot ofsuccess in a sport that they
(02:49):
have specialized and really goneafter that sport for their
entire lives and like, at leastin America, consider that, like
the Tiger Woods model, or maybethe Williams sisters model, or
maybe the uh, the williamsisters.
I think people think of thoseum in in kind of the world
(03:10):
that's actually more consideredlike the soviet model, where you
identify people very young andforce them to progress in a
single sport.
Um, and there have been studieson you know the the different,
you know athletic developmentmodels.
We have the Olympic Games,which is a pretty objective test
.
You can run this back versus,obviously, population wealth.
(03:31):
You can control it for a lot ofdifferent factors, so you can
kind of tease out which methodsare working better than others.
And so there's actually a lotof data showing that the Soviet
model, if you will, or theChinese model, is not as
successful as the Scandinavianmodel, particularly when you get
into a per capita basis.
(03:52):
So obviously Russia or theformer Soviet Union, china,
these countries have goodaggregate medal counts, but when
you get down into how much of apopulation that they get to
draw on for a pool of athletesand how many medals they win,
there's countries that are doinga lot better on a per capita
level In general.
(04:14):
Consider the Scandinavian model,because that's the part of the
planet that seems to adopt thismodel of development.
So it sounds weird to Americansbecause actually, in spite of
the science, we haven't reallyadapted this model in our
country.
Yeah so, and actually, if youthink about it, we do it
(04:35):
obviously differently than theSoviets did because we have
markets underpinning it.
But whether it's the marketsunderpinning the development or
an athlete or the government, it, but whether it's the markets
underpinning the development oran athlete or the government,
when you are striving andorganizing for athletic success
through identifying andfunneling talent early, this,
just in general, doesn't workout well.
(04:56):
There's a few highly availablesuccess stories that are going
to immediately come to mind thatyou'll think will disprove it,
but there are far more burnoutand injury stories that no one
thinks about because they'restories that never get told, but
they're just the careers thatnever did launch.
So what you find when you lookat the numbers is countries that
(05:17):
adopt that model of earlyfunneling and talent selection
on a per capita level don'tproduce as many medal winners as
countries that do the talentfunding and selection later.
So the Scandinavian model onesports don't serve economic
interests or, I guess, theinterests of the nation state
(05:41):
for bagging rights, of thenation state for Braggins and
Wrights.
Participation and fun arepriorities.
Costs are kept low or optional.
They want everybody doingsports and there is actually no
rankings at all until the age of12.
The goal early on is just todevelop a broad base of
athletics, again, at the earlystages of athletics.
(06:03):
You're just not doing anyfunneling or talent
identification or specializingin sport.
That is going to happen, butthat'll happen later on.
Medal winners and I just keephammering that because I know
how different it sounds topeople's ears even hearing like
(06:26):
that you know, sports for kidsare focused on participation and
fun.
Because I, you know, I thinkparticipation trophies have kind
of gotten sucked into ourculture war.
I'm not even defending thembecause, you know, kind of
against the culture warnarrative, I didn't play in any
leagues with participationtrophies.
So it's one of those thingsthat I do know exist but I don't
(06:48):
have any of them myself.
I mean, well, I have one.
I got a finisher, you know, ina triathlon that I did because I
didn't place top five placed, Iwas seven.
So you know, I do technicallystill have the finisher thing.
But admittedly it is funny tome as a, you know, lifelong
competitive athlete that that ismy only technical participation
(07:11):
trophy.
But many of the people that I'veheard give really, you know,
very uh, I don't know, justemotional um tirades against
them.
I don't know if I would, Idon't know if I think they could
even finish like a triathlon oran Ironman or something like,
and maybe we're thinking ofdifferent participation trophies
(07:32):
.
But again, I always say it, butI played varsity.
I don't know what people aretalking about, or maybe they're
just counting things that Ididn't count or think about.
But yeah, I was born in 1985.
I never got anything except forfinishing a triathlon, which,
if you want to make fun of mefor keeping that one, you better
(07:53):
be able to finish the raceyourself.
But yeah, I do think some ofthis is going to sound kind of
foreign to our ears and I think,because we have a set of
debates going on that, you know,might sort of skew people's
priors, I think that it's alittle bit counterintuitive that
Caitlin Clark's path to theWNBA is actually generally
(08:18):
considered like the bestpractice for developing a young
athlete, at least according tothe available science.
And you know also shouldn'tpitch that.
The Scandinavian modelcertainly isn't, you know,
perfect.
There's, you know, definitelyissues there, but just in terms
of again being, on the percapita level, the thing that
(08:40):
produces the most Olympic medalwinners, that much is pretty
clear and so anyway, all that,just to say that you know,
caitlin Clark's path to the WNBAcan sort of seem surprising
just from the fact that shedidn't specialize at basketball
at a young age, but you knowagain, that's actually the more
(09:01):
common path.
So if you are a parent coach,anything like that, this is
something that I actually thinkthat we do have the ability to
really improve on what we'redoing for our young athletes.
I have, as you know,five-year-old so many times.
(09:23):
People are just coming up andasking me and my assumption is
they're assuming that I have herin leagues right now and I
don't.
I'm certainly not opposed to it,but we're just having enough
fun doing the stuff that we dogoing to the beach hiking we
live in Southern California, Ihave a gym in the backyard that
(09:45):
we do.
Going to the beach hiking welive in southern california, I
have a gym in the backyard, um,and yeah, frankly, you know,
getting to a sports league rightnow, just in terms of driving
around, the time it would take,that's probably the main reason
I'm not doing it right now.
It's definitely not that I'mopposed to it, um, but yeah,
we've got a basketball hoop inthe backyard.
Of course we do that stuff, butI'm not really doing sports.
Specific training um, we uh, ifwe got to call it something, I
(10:10):
guess it's mixed modality, butin a sense it's probably easier.
Just call it play.
Um, we just play around in thegym, we play around in the yard,
we play around in the parks.
We play around, we're hikingFor an athlete my daughter's age
.
I kind of think that's the Well,just think in terms of this way
(10:30):
, that's all you need to bedoing.
Don't feel like you're fallingbehind.
If you don't have your kidgoing in a league, you might
even go out to parks and I dosee this.
I have seen kids my daughter'sage getting put through cone
drills, stuff like that.
Again, I don't see any harm init.
I just know what the parentsare expecting, that are putting
(10:51):
their kids, you know, out thereand just for them.
Just don't be surprised if theresult you're expecting doesn't
happen.
Cone drills at five and sevenare not going to guarantee that
your kid makes it to the nfl.
Oddly specific, that's what Isee, at least in park.
We got some young guys workingon football and again, I I think
it's great, but just, I justhope dad knows that that doesn't
(11:13):
mean that they're they're goingto the league by any stretch.
Um, but yeah, if you are, youknow, coaching or developing
young athletes like I, I thinkthat you know what they've been
doing in the scandinavian modelis a pretty decent rule of thumb
.
Um, just in terms ofspecialization, even um 12 might
(11:35):
be the the time.
Um, again, it's just beenchanging so much even since I
left high school.
Um, uh, basketball was what Iplayed, but, but.
So now it just seems like mostpeople have gone round to year
round traveling.
I was kind of in the last partof playing varsity.
(11:57):
It was generally the highestlevel.
Playing for state championships, things like that were
generally considered the biggestthings.
Now there's going to be AAUchampionships.
Frankly, pay-for-play optionsthat if you're not involved in
that, you're not reallycompetitive in the sport anymore
(12:18):
.
And yeah, I think we kind ofsaw it as like an arms race or
an advancement, but ironicallyit was actually pushing way that
you can, you know, not overusea joint or you know anything too
(12:49):
early.
You see this the most inbaseball, really, with the rise
of Tommy Johns.
But I think a lot of thatreally can be attributed to the
fact that, you know, oftentimesparents are seeking out
specialized training at agesthat are probably a bit too
young.
And just you know, if theathletes don't burn out mentally
a lot of times, the body justphysically burns out ahead of
when it should.
So, yeah, all that.
(13:10):
I think that 12 is a decentmarker.
Like I was saying, putting yourkid in a sports league is.
I'm not saying that's a badidea at all.
All I'm, you know, pushingagainst is the idea of just
specializing in one thing.
If you're going to do that,pick a few different things,
rotate them.
The seasons can be a greatreminder to switch it up and do
(13:34):
something different, get alittle bit of variation going.
But for the young athletessensitive to all this, just
because obviously I have a kid,so it's just something I'm
talking about, thinking about.
I know other people are too,but that you know that's what
we're doing and anybody who asksme that that's essentially what
we always talk about is youknow early on and again, I don't
(14:02):
really have none of this for meis coming out of that like
participation, trophy discussion.
I'm just in a completelydifferent world.
So if I have to use a couple ofthe same words, just excuse
that.
But yeah, at this stage, likeyou actually want them to, you
know one, develop the broad baseof athletics so that they have
all the athletic abilities todraw on balance, strength,
agility, speed, just as we don'treally know how their body is
(14:26):
going to develop yet.
So just build up all theaptitudes.
Once their body grows andmatures a little bit, we've got
a better idea of what they mightactually be good at, um, and
obviously anybody with a kid.
You see, this growth isn'tlinear.
So you might think you have abasketball player one day and
then figure out that, uh,actually you have a weightlifter
(14:47):
who just shot up before theother kids.
So for so many reasons, I justdon't think it makes sense to
specialize until you really knowwhat you're working with.
While you're in that periodwhere you're figuring out what
their body is best suited for,the best way to cover your base
is just by developing a broadset of skills.
(15:08):
You work with a broad set ofactivities.
You also learn different mentalskills.
Ironically, I played golf.
That was one of the sports thatwas my spring sport in high
school and, honestly, what Iliked about it was I got to use
different muscles literally Toplay basketball.
(15:30):
You had to do some fall sportand the basketball coach was
also the track coach at myschool.
So running track was a way thatyou could kind of ease your
transition into basketball andbasically if you didn't run in
the fall you probably weren'tgoing to get through hell week
and our coach also was justgoing to hold a bias against you
(15:52):
for not having played a sportin the fall.
So you just probably weren'tgoing to make the team.
I don't that wasn't like a hardrule.
I just don't remember anybodyactually making the team who
didn't run in the fall.
So maybe it was a rule for allI know, but no, that to say,
obviously.
So golf looked really differentwhen you would go from track to
(16:12):
basketball to golf.
That didn't make sense to somepeople, but obviously golf is a
very mental game to me.
So I got to practice a lot ofpressure situations and then
also I just had a season where Iwas just outside walking
carrying a golf bag, whichobviously wasn't using any of
(16:34):
the movements and things that Iwas doing in basketball or track
, so it was just giving thosejoints a chance to have a break.
You don't think about that atall when you're a kid, but now
when I can see the toll thatsports has had on not only my
body but, like my other One timewe were putting on our cleats,
(16:57):
my flag football team and thenanother buddy of mine next to me
who had also played asignificant amount of sports
Somebody was commentingbasically on how ugly our feet
were, and then I just kind ofconnected it then that, oh like,
if you play enough sports youget dinged up, you've got the
injuries, and so, yeah, I justhad a theory that you're not
(17:18):
going to find many guys who haveplayed college sports that can
be foot models.
I just don't think that that'sa good, probable outcome.
So anyway, I can only imaginehow much worse it would be had I
never had a season to giverunning a break.
I already did enough damage, asis, and the evidence is there
(17:43):
on my feet, but yeah anyway.
So that's kind of it, mythoughts in general on.
I know that Caitlin Clark, whenthis article popped, some people
found her path surprising.
I just don't think this shouldbe surprising.
I hope this becomes commonknowledge because it's been the
direction that at least thescience isn't pushing, but again
(18:03):
, we haven't quite adapted it.
So anyway, if I can bore youguys just for a little bit.
I actually want to make alittle bit of a defense of
philosophy, which I actuallyfeel.
You know.
Get it back at least.
Analogy in my field carbs rightnow, because philosophy isn't
(18:24):
popular, and not just withpeople that don't want to read.
Stephen Hawking had declaredphilosophy dead.
Neil deGrasse Tyson says itdoesn't contribute to scientific
discovery and that itencourages unproductive debates.
Richard Feynman believed thatit complicated straightforward
empirical study and so, yeah,these are really smart people
(18:50):
and I actually see it in adifferent way than they do, and
admittedly, I don't think I'msmarter than they are.
So I do think I'm just lookingat this in a different way.
But I have read their arguments.
I do see what they're talkingabout.
(19:10):
I actually think there's a farbigger problem of people lacking
philosophy than that there is.
You know too much, you know,and I guess we'll get into these
in detail, but I thinkscientists at that level, what
they see of people mostly doingwith philosophy is probably
casting doubt on scientificconsensus is using what I almost
(19:31):
consider well, they're not justelements of philosophy, of
science.
To try to cast doubt on ascientific consensus is using,
but what I almost consider.
Well, they're not just elementsof philosophy, of science, to
try to cast out on a scientificconsensus, you know, which
probably comes up when you knowscience gets into, you know,
anything with a politicalcomponent, like climate change
or the pandemic, for example.
Scientists have had people intheir fields that they don't
(19:57):
respect use these arguments totry to cast out on consensus.
So I do understand why theywould feel that way, or at least
why they're not interested inphilosophy after encountering
those arguments, and I alsothink that most of the people
that they would talk with intheir daily lives, in their
(20:20):
research and in their fields,probably already understand
everything that I'm going to say.
But so my point, in a way, isthat it's actually not important
for them, perhaps, but I thinkit's really important for the
general public, and I actuallythink I have concerns on the
exact same issue of people notbeing able to, you know, just
(20:47):
figure out what's going on inthe world around them.
Quite frankly, and I actuallythink a little bit of philosophy
for the general public notnecessarily for scientists, but
for the general public it coulddefinitely help, because I think
it would help them spot whenpeople are using certain
techniques to try to muddy thewater in a scientific discussion
(21:08):
Offline.
I was having a discussion with afriend just about.
In some ways it does feel likeit's the best time ever for
grifters and and, and I do.
I think it's just because ofthe technology.
It's nothing inherent in humanbeings, we're still the same,
but we, we have powerful toolsthat we've never had before and,
(21:31):
you know, the snake oilsalesman used to have to leave
town and now on the internet,the options are just endless and
no one's coming with pitchforksto your house.
So, yeah, just in so many ways,it just seems like it is a
golden age for grifters, and Ido think that philosophy is, you
(21:56):
know, maybe one of the besttools that people have, because,
again, I'm not seeingphilosophy as you know, just
people sitting on a pillow andtrying to think profound
thoughts.
I'm actually thinking of it asjust a critical process and
basically a set of askingquestions that, when done
(22:20):
correctly, you know, doesn'tthreaten science at all.
Obviously, science is built onwell, a philosophical position
by Francis Bacon in one regard.
But no, what I was going to saywas that it's built upon an
iterative process.
So, again, having a criticalset of questions that one asks,
(22:45):
being trained in.
That to me obviously just hasbenefits, not only for science
but for every single domain,literally anything that you
could be working on.
I think it has a very nuts andbolts pragmatic benefit and you
know, thankfully, you know, Ifeel like I'm actually not the
(23:06):
only person seeing this One ofthe.
You know we've already talkedabout it here, but I think one
of the technologies that ishelping people see that there
actually might be a point tophilosophy has been the
development of AI.
Like, oh, my obsession withphilosophy might actually have
(23:36):
some practical purpose becauseit was basically engaging with
the machine.
I was realizing that not allprompts were created equal, that
sometimes, if I would take ondifferent roles and personas
with the AI, I could getdifferent output from it.
So, anyway, I didn't want totalk too much about my
experience, but actually what Isaw was Harvard Business School
had an article they put aboutwhy engineers should study
(24:01):
philosophy.
This was echoing some of thethings I was seeing, but I
actually want to focus more onwhat HBS put out than my
experience for now.
But yeah, the reason Harvardwants engineers studying
philosophy is they're sayingthat understanding the why
(24:22):
before you start working on thehow is an increasingly important
skill when working with AI,particularly for coders, and the
issue they're noting is thatcode that is created by an AI
can be correct syntax andsemantically correct, but not
(24:43):
functionally correct.
So it'll work well, but not atwhat you want it to do.
Like I've been saying for awhile now, a model's output is
very sensitive to the way aprompt is written, and if you
miss the mark on a prompt, thenthe AI is going to produce code
that is plausible but probablyincorrect.
(25:07):
This when they're using it forlanguage tasks, when you are
generating hallucinations.
A lot of these instances, atleast as I had seen them covered
in the popular media, were kindof generated to show like oh
hey, look at the limits of thisAI system.
But in my experience using them, oftentimes if you are getting
(25:33):
a lot of hallucinations in yourprompts, it's probably because
your prompts are not very clear.
So, anyway, this is somethingthat even Harvard Business
School is starting to note andthat whenever engineers are
managing teams, at least fromthe study Harvard Business
School, one of the mostimportant issues was knowing how
(25:55):
to ask the right questions.
This is very, very similar toworking with AI Knowing the
right questions to ask canreally make the difference
between having usable output orerror-ridden.
And obviously, as we come torely on ai systems more I'm not
(26:15):
somebody who has the not on thedoomer end of the spectrum, but
I understand their arguments aswell and that's where these
errors can become, you know,kind of a big issue.
Um, could, could becomedangerous if, if you don't have
people that have the rightskills, that know how to prompt
systems to get them to do whatthey need to do.
The the main skill I think thatwe can actually get and again,
(26:37):
this is just, it's a pragmaticnuts and bolts skill that you
will just get from studyingphilosophy, any philosophy, it
doesn't matter who you read.
It's not like a body ofknowledge you're trying to
inject into somebody, but you'regoing to learn how to just
basically have crisp mentalmodels around a problem and
learn how to break that down anddeconstruct it Logical steps
(26:59):
that you're going to use to becritical of anything, and
obviously I talk about this allthe time.
But this is a skill that I knowI use as I am combing through
health and fitness studies.
Through health and fitnessstudies, you don't need to have
(27:20):
like a PhD in philosophy andhave studied a specific school
of philosophy.
I just think it's a good ideathat you have engaged in the
pursuit and just kind of learnedhow to be critical of things,
because you will be able to takeand adapt that and use it to
the problems that you actuallyengage in your real life.
And you know, and obviously anyof the scientists that I
(27:42):
mentioned at the top of the show, they already know this.
So, again, I don't think any ofmy comments are going to help
them out on any of the stuffthey're working on, but I don't
know if the public that againgets, you know, not only fooled
in the big and this is again whyI almost want to leave aside,
like the pandemic and climatechange, because I know people
are bringing in deep priors thatI don't even want to touch on.
(28:07):
The number one realm where Iactually have seen this come in
and this is why I think it'srelevant here is, you know,
quite frankly, supplements.
Most of us, when we get intosupplements, we're probably
reading some, you knowscientific study and then making
(28:29):
a choice to go purchase or notpurchase.
And actually, let's be honest,that's probably even, you know,
some of the more informedsupplement consumers, if you
will, because some people arejust looking at the ad and if
they like the picture andaesthetic elements of the
advertisement and then they'remaking their decision to
purchase.
But then there's a set ofconsumers that are actually
going to go out and look at thestudies, or they're listening to
(28:51):
a podcast, like this one, andthey hear about a study and they
go seek out a supplement thathas the thing that they heard
about.
But if we don't have theability to ask the right
questions about the studieswe're seeing so many times, we
can and will be misled.
(29:13):
I myself have done this far moretimes than I can count.
And so, again, this is why Ialmost had to learn this rule,
or I just had to put in, quitefrankly, a heuristic to just
doubt or at least go look at thecriticisms because I have
bought too many things, becauseI have bought too many things, I
have just fallen for magicpixie dust too many times in my
(29:36):
life.
And so, yeah, I obviously I'mgoing to still stay open,
knowing that maybe there will bea new discovery one day, maybe
there will be a big gamechanging thing, but I'm still
waiting as of now, and I'vefallen for it a lot.
So again, my critique on thatwe need a better understanding
(29:59):
of science for the layman, Ithink more so than some of the
best scientists in the world,Because it has to do with the
fact, too, that most of us inthe real world we're not
participating in researchstudies and things like that.
The questions we ask aren'tactually.
Because it has to do with thefact, too, that most of us in
the real world we're notparticipating in research
studies and things like that.
The questions we ask aren'tactually scientific questions.
And you can try to train peopleto ask those types of questions
(30:23):
, but the reality is people arestill going to ask things like
what's the best diet?
What should I do for a workout?
That's how people talk, andthose are technically not
scientific questions.
So people aren't going to beable to turn to studies.
People talk and those aretechnically not scientific
questions.
So you know, people aren'tgoing to be able to turn to
studies and if they do, they'renot going to find answers.
They're going to have to learnanother set of skills One, just
(30:48):
to get their question into ascientific form so they can go
and map it up, but two, if youactually have to go work on a
problem that there hasn'talready been studies done on.
If you actually have to go workon a problem that there hasn't
already been studies done on,this is again where it's going
to be kind of necessary that youhave your own process that
you're able to run.
You've got to have somecritical process and even as
I've combed the literature andtried to be an informed consumer
(31:09):
in my own, I clearly have madetons of mistakes with
supplements over the years.
The truth is, even though Ilike to think of myself as an
informed consumer, is that mostof us, without a critical
process, we're actually justgoing to default to superstition
and placebos, maybe in theinstance of supplements.
(31:35):
But there was a great articlein Scientific American kind of,
about why and the reason Iwanted to highlight this is I
think that there is even a tabooor stigma was positing that the
(31:55):
role of superstitions wereactually, you know, basically
just because human beings had todeal with a lot of unknown
situations and rituals linked tocertain actions could actually
decrease stress.
Yeah, so yeah again, it wasjust making me think that if we
don't have a critical process,we're probably just going to
(32:20):
default back to superstition,and not because we're dumb.
We all intend to be informed,but no, we're kind of hardwired
that way.
There's in this proverbialstate of nature that
philosophers love to try toimagine that doesn't exist at
all.
But no, you can obviouslyimagine that before, at least
(32:43):
societies that had abundance andsecurity, that risks certainly
should be more salient in yourmind than they would be today,
because you know there reallywere, you know things that could
kill you right around thecorner, quite frankly, and most
(33:03):
of us have kind of been able toremove a lot of those obvious
risks from our life.
So, anyway, all that to saythat when loss aversion we know
from behavioral economics is afeature of our psyche, we strive
very, very hard to avoid losses, more so than we do to set
(33:24):
ourselves up for benefits, or wedon't feel the impacts of
benefits as much as we feel oururge to avoid losses.
Our urge to avoid losses, allof that again, I think, just
comes from the fact that weevolved in an environment where
you needed to respond to risksand it was okay if you were
(33:46):
wrong when you responded to arisk, and so, anyway, that's
again a roundabout way ofgetting that.
That's kind of almost how I seesuperstitions functioning, these
rituals, that they don'tactually work, but they give you
a feeling of control and evenif they don't work 100% of the
time, they only have to workonce or twice in a high stress
(34:06):
moment to become something thatcan calm you down.
Hence the lucky sweaters.
(34:27):
If that worked, the 49ers neverwould have lost a Super Bowl.
On the one hand, I literallyknow that it isn't true.
On the other hand, I still trychanging influence, the outcomes
of sporting events, althoughnow, as I say that, obviously
the Niners suffered a prettytragic for us loss this year,
and here I was at home, notbeing superstitious and not
(34:48):
doing anything.
Maybe that's it, maybe I justgot outworked by the Chiefs fans
this year.
So I don't know, maybesuperstition is back, but no.
What I wanted to point out,though in a serious note, is
that they again.
The point of people falling forsuperstition isn't that they're
stupid.
I think it's probably somethingthat can alleviate stress and
(35:09):
help us deal with uncertainty.
That being said, they do havesome costs, and what I
essentially there?
It's just wasted energy, wastedeffort.
If it really isn't working ordoing anything, then it is
technically harming.
So, again, this is now why it'sso central for me to avoid
(35:35):
taking on new supplements, whereI do see people that are more
interested like I was at anothertime at trying every new thing
that comes out.
I can justify it because I usedto do it myself.
There you can sort of thinkthat there just isn't a lot of
downside, that if I can try thisand there is an edge, then cool
, I've uncovered something.
(35:57):
But more I've actually justgotten into that.
Your resources are technicallynot unlimited.
So even if it is something thatyou're price insensitive to,
you technically still could havedone something else with that
money.
Still could have done somethingelse with that money.
(36:19):
And then you know also, as weget you know older, frankly,
just health kind of gets to be alittle bit more important.
So for me anyway, with theperformance supplements, that
was something that the algorithmand the calculation just kind
of you know, keeps changing.
If I introduce something and Idon't know all the side effects
and you have a kid, it's just alittle different than when
(36:41):
you're just 18 to 20 and you'rechasing after some goals.
But yeah, just kind of can't getaround the idea that there's so
many other interactions andthings going well in my body
that I want to be able to takecredit for.
But you don't really know whyit's working.
So adding anything new in themix can tend to disrupt things
(37:03):
that you don't understand, which, again, I just sort of started
to realize with age.
There's a lot that I don'tunderstand.
So when things are going well,sometimes you just don't rock
the boat with new things.
When I was younger I was muchmore willing to try it and I
felt like it was staying up onthe cutting edge in a sense.
But yeah, now I'm meandering.
(37:25):
That again, is where I thinkthat we actually do need a
little bit more engagement withphilosophy.
I felt that I was beingscientific by taking all of the
latest supplements, and at leastI was to an extent.
Because I was being scientificby taking all of the latest
supplements, and at least I wasto an extent because I was at
least disciplined when I wouldtake them and I kind of was
running little trials.
But also that's how Idiscovered so many of them
(37:47):
didn't actually work.
You know, had I had all ofthese successful trials, that
would have been great, but itdidn't work out that way.
But yeah, one way that Iactually think that this can, or
just a little engagement withphilosophy is very necessary is
(38:08):
in nutrition.
If we just break in nutritiondown to what we can know about
food through science, that's aparadigm, that that has been
coined nutritionism, and youknow essentially what I mean.
There is that if you think foodis just the the named vitamins,
nutrients and other components,that that I still used to talk
(38:31):
about food, but that's all thereis to it.
This, to me, is one of thebiggest problems that I see in
nutrition.
Just got done talking about wedon't like supplements, but this
is the result of thinking thatfood is just merely the sum of
the named nutrients is that youstart to believe that you can go
(38:51):
out and make supplements.
You can identify the goodnutrients, the bad nutrients,
and and to an extent you can.
But I just think it's prettyfair to say in our modern
paradigm that I think we do alittle bit too much of this.
This is also the same thinkingthat got me.
You know, antidepressants andthings like that is identifying
(39:13):
a neurotransmitter, let's say,and then you know, designing a
drug to increase thatneurotransmitter, let's say, and
then designing a drug toincrease that neurotransmitter
that you see as low.
There's other ways that we cango about addressing problems.
And again the issue because Idon't want to be somebody who's
this is where we get into theissues.
I guess, and probably whyscientists don't like the
(39:33):
philosophy crowd.
Some people have used some ofthese same techniques that I'm
going to basically be using hereor asking questions to disprove
or to try to cast out or muddythe waters in things where
there's a broad scientificconsensus.
So that, to me, is kind of theimportant bit that I'm going to
highlight here, because I'm notusing these little philosophy of
(39:54):
science games to cast doubt onsomething where there's broad
consensus.
I'm using these in a realmwhere actually the consensus is
not that it works.
So we've talked about this alot here.
But when we look at the studiesthat have been done on
multivitamins, they're not good.
You're not going to go likeseriously, do this.
(40:16):
I'm not just saying this likeAndrew Huberman like actually go
look for some studies and seeif you can find one that says
that multivitamins areefficacious in humans.
And seriously, if you find one,that would be great, because I
wasted a lot of money on them.
But reductionist nutritionthinking is what gives you a
(40:36):
multivitamin.
In theory that should work, butit doesn't.
So again, all I'm showing youis that I'm not using this to
cast doubt on climate change orwhether vaccines work.
I'm not trying to take up aposition where I'm all by myself
and then I get to appointmyself the expert of this thing
and then also I'm going to getincreased search relevance
(40:59):
because I'm the only personsaying something different.
No, I mean, obviously, in thefield of nutrition, it actually
is not accepted that we can makeand reduce food down to pills
and introduce them or sorry, andjust ingest them rather and get
all the nutrition that we needout of them.
(41:19):
Again, though it's mixed, mostof the scientific literature,
even these reductionist studies,actually tell us that whole
food nutrition is superior.
So you know, again, I'm justpointing out, I'm not going to
go and use a philosophy ofscience, if you will, to try to
go out on my own and carve outand make a name for myself and
(41:43):
my own lane and go against thescientific consensus.
I think it's fair to criticizethe field of nutrition, that
maybe we don't have all theright answers.
We can look at the shiftingnutritional guidelines.
It's fair to ask a lot ofquestions in this field and,
again, I actually think that alittle bit of philosophical
(42:05):
training can actually help withgetting you to ask the right
questions.
And you know, like just thatone you might want to be
thinking about, like you know,we have these studies that say
and admittedly I don't have theanswers to any of this, I'm just
the guy asking questions, butnot like like tucker carlson,
(42:26):
like where I have an agenda andI'm asking a question.
I'm literally asking a questionthat I don't know the answer to
.
Um, but no, there you, you seethat there are these studies
that say whole food nutritionworks and you see these studies
that say that multivitaminsdon't.
So it just kind of begs thequestion well, what do we not
know?
That there must be interactionsor context within the whole
(42:47):
food that we just haven't namedor don't know or I don't
actually know.
But this is all I'm pointingout to is that we can't actually
answer all of the questionsthat we have, because a real
question people are going to askyou they're not going to
formulate it scientifically,they're just going to say what
should I eat?
You're going to have to come upwith ways to communicate that
(43:10):
so people can actually do it.
People can actually do it, andthis is where I think that we
actually do need a little bit ofphilosophy.
I think it was Thoreau which isfunny because he probably wrote
this while he was sitting inEmerson's yard.
I like to make fun of him forthat, but I think it's still a
good line.
(43:30):
He said something like to be aphilosopher is not merely to
have subtle thoughts but tosolve some of the problems of
life, not theoretically butpractically.
So it's really in that veinthat I'm trying to sort of push
people in the direction ofphilosophy.
(43:51):
I'm not trying to push you intoany specific camp.
And then I also want to beclear, too, that I'm definitely
not advocating against scienceor the scientists that I
mentioned in particular.
More, what I'm reacting to isit just seems to me that
philosophy is really out offashion.
Some of my favoriteconversations, by the way, are
(44:15):
some of the scientists I get totalk to.
But I just have noticed when Ibring up any of the philosophy I
read, I think it's kind ofviewed as something indulgent
and silly, and I do respectfullydisagree.
I think I got most of that outalready.
But yeah, I still am just atrainer, so I'm still going to
run with the narrative that,like philosophy right now to me
(44:37):
is a bit like carbs.
It's just something that is inneed of a defense.
And then, if I can because I ama trainer push my macronutrient
in a metaphor further, I'mstill saying that we need our
protein and fat.
So that could be.
I don't know your science andother, I'm just defending carbs.
(44:59):
I'm not saying that the otherthings aren't important.
And carb metaphor is stillworking for me because you're
going to run into people today alot of them, like maybe the
keto community who say that youcan survive without carbs, and
they're technically correct, whosay that you can survive
without carbs and they'retechnically correct.
You could go your whole lifewithout reading or doing any
(45:20):
philosophy and actually youwouldn't die.
But I don't actually think thatyou would thrive that way, just
like if you chose to never havecarbohydrates.
One, carbs are tasty.
That's not really an enjoyablelife.
Two, they have a lot ofbenefits with muscle building
and performance.
So you're just not going toconvince me, keto community,
that though you can technicallylive your life without ever
(45:44):
eating a carbohydrate, that thatwould ever be something you
would want to do, sort of likeSocrates the unexamined life is
not worth living.
But yeah, you guys are notgoing to convince me that.
You know, peeing on keto stripsand reducing my life down to
whether I'm in ketosis or not isa meaningful life.
I kid you guys a little bit.
(46:08):
I actually have used keto as aweight loss tool, so that's not
a shot at the keto community atall.
But again, it's a personality,or sorry, it's a tool, not a
personality.
Got that backwards?
Yeah, unless they've updatedthe Myers-Briggs or something,
just use your ketogenic diet asa tool.
This doesn't have to becomeyour whole sense of being.
(46:31):
Clearly, too, I'm not againstscience at all.
I look at studies all the time.
I am trying to use that toinform myself.
But again, I'm just speakingthat reality that that's not the
only thing that I do.
I don't go and read studies andadapt my behavior based.
I do think that I've actuallylearned most of that just
through, frankly, just throughengaging with philosophy.
(47:01):
And again, that to me is thepoint of reading these texts.
You don't go read a philosopherto go get a new personality.
What you should be doing whenyou're reading a philosopher
again is asking do I think anyof this shit is true?
How does that hold up.
What I think a lot ofphilosophical tests are going to
(47:21):
force you to do is just makeyou do that self-examining, and
I literally don't know where itwill make you end up.
This isn't the point.
I'm not trying to indoctrinateyou that this is fundamentally
different.
It's fascinating because I haveno idea where you'll go.
We could read the exact samebook by the same philosopher and
(47:42):
go completely differentdirections.
That's actually what happens toa lot of people when they
engage.
That's why we have differentphilosophical schools and
there's a timeless and vibrantdiscussion around all of these
issues.
A, you know, timeless andvibrant discussion around all of
these issues.
The point to me isn't thebeliefs that you'll have and
what you'll argue for.
The point to me is that byreading these texts and engaging
(48:05):
these texts, you're going tojust get used to asking those
types of questions all the time.
So again, when you step out ofyour indulgent little hobby of
reading philosophy, maybe thosenutrition studies won't hit
quite the same way, maybe someof these ads won't hit quite the
same way.
Maybe you'll just startintuitively asking some of the
(48:26):
same questions that you kind offeel that you have to ask when
you're reading a philosophicaltext.
But you know I do want to.
There's something I want topush back against a little bit,
because I know that there aresome people who have used you
know particularly those who areusing these things to push
against a scientific consensus.
I want to put some distancebetween what I'm saying and what
(48:50):
they say, but also I'm clearlynot in support of them.
I actually think that the bestway for people to be able to
suss out who those people arewould again be with just a
little bit of philosophicaltraining, because, almost like
parlor tricks or moves, if youplay video games like I remember
(49:11):
Mortal Kombat when I was a kid,to do a special kick you'd have
to push left, left, aba orsomething like that and when you
see charlatans doing thesetricks, instead of getting
wrapped up in their charisma orhow good they look, you just see
like, oh, he just did left,left, abab.
It really does kind ofinoculate you a little bit too.
(49:34):
You know particularly just someof the most common techniques
Because, as we always say onthis show, there is nothing new
except all that has beenforgotten.
Nobody has reinvented thecharlatan game.
It's the same thing and, like Isaid earlier in the show, in
some ways, I feel like we are ina golden age of grifters.
(49:54):
What's up, dave?
I feel like we are in a goldenage of grifters.
What's up, dave?
But yeah, this is kind of mybest answer for the tool that we
all need to protect ourselvesagainst it.
It's not indulgent to readphilosophy.
At its best, I think it's goingto teach you just a set of
critical skills that I think weactually need, not only in
(50:17):
health and fitness, but in thisbrave new world that we're
entering into, I think you'regoing to need more and more.
Harvard Business School agreeswith me.
So, anyway, there's my cheapappeal to authority on the way
out the door.
But anyway, guys, thanks forbearing with me today.
You guys know philosophy iskind of my indulgent, nerdy
hobby.
So there you go.
(50:37):
There's my full-throateddefense of why it is not a
complete waste of time.
That being said, I could bedead wrong.
But, um, I appreciate youspending your time with me here.
Um, remember, guys, mind andmuscle are inseparably
intertwined.
There are no, no gains withoutbrains.
Keep lifting and learning.
(50:58):
I'll do the same.
Welcome to the Mind Muscle Podcast.
Here's your host, simon DeVere,and welcome back to Mind Muscle
, the place we study the history, science and philosophy behind
everything in health and fitness.
Today I am Simon Devere andthere's nothing new except all
(00:30):
that has been forgotten.
All right, so on the docket,today I want to run down talk
about the best way to developyoung athletes according to
science, and then I do want tomake a defense of philosophy in
general versus its mostqualified detractors, which
(00:52):
there are many in some of thebest scientists actually.
But yeah, I know that thatone's probably not the most
tempting to most people outthere.
So there actually will be areally pragmatic takeaway in
nutrition from all of that.
It's not going to be a pie inthe sky sort of discussion.
It's actually going to be a lotmore pragmatic nuts and bolts
(01:15):
than I think most people thinkof philosophy as being indulgent
.
So, anyway, that's got a lot ofmy or kind of showing my hand
for the defense I'm going tooffer, but I think it can be a
tool that can help us work onsome really pragmatic problems,
not just, you know, some big piein the sky stuff.
But no, I really liked anarticle I came across this week
(01:38):
about Caitlin Clark, one of themost exciting prospects to come
into the WNBA in quite some time.
But it was actually focusing onwhat she had done as a youth
athlete and the articleobviously started off with a
(01:58):
discussion.
I guess her dad clearly getsthe question a lot what did you
guys do?
Clearly gets the question a lot, what did you guys do?
And you know so.
He actually had Caitlin Clarkengaging with as many different
activities as possible.
He said sports or otherwise.
So beyond basketball and soccer, she was doing piano, softball,
tennis, track and field,volleyball, volleyball.
(02:27):
And he feels, looking back onit now, that all of the
activities that she had donehave elevated certain skills
that she now uses, both mentaland physical.
What was interesting about thisto me is, I think, that this is
a surprising story to somepeople.
I think most people think thatyou, or that these athletes that
you know, achieve a lot ofsuccess in a sport that they
(02:49):
have specialized and really goneafter that sport for their
entire lives and like, at leastin America, consider that, like
the Tiger Woods model, or maybethe Williams sisters model, or
maybe the uh, the williamsisters.
I think people think of thoseum in in kind of the world
(03:10):
that's actually more consideredlike the soviet model, where you
identify people very young andforce them to progress in a
single sport.
Um, and there have been studieson you know the the different,
you know athletic developmentmodels.
We have the Olympic Games,which is a pretty objective test
.
You can run this back versus,obviously, population wealth.
(03:31):
You can control it for a lot ofdifferent factors, so you can
kind of tease out which methodsare working better than others.
And so there's actually a lotof data showing that the Soviet
model, if you will, or theChinese model, is not as
successful as the Scandinavianmodel, particularly when you get
into a per capita basis.
(03:52):
So obviously Russia or theformer Soviet Union, china,
these countries have goodaggregate medal counts, but when
you get down into how much of apopulation that they get to
draw on for a pool of athletesand how many medals they win,
there's countries that are doinga lot better on a per capita
level In general.
(04:14):
Consider the Scandinavian model,because that's the part of the
planet that seems to adopt thismodel of development.
So it sounds weird to Americansbecause actually, in spite of
the science, we haven't reallyadapted this model in our
country.
Yeah so, and actually, if youthink about it, we do it
(04:35):
obviously differently than theSoviets did because we have
markets underpinning it.
But whether it's the marketsunderpinning the development or
an athlete or the government, it, but whether it's the markets
underpinning the development oran athlete or the government,
when you are striving andorganizing for athletic success
through identifying andfunneling talent early, this,
just in general, doesn't workout well.
(04:56):
There's a few highly availablesuccess stories that are going
to immediately come to mind thatyou'll think will disprove it,
but there are far more burnoutand injury stories that no one
thinks about because they'restories that never get told, but
they're just the careers thatnever did launch.
So what you find when you lookat the numbers is countries that
(05:17):
adopt that model of earlyfunneling and talent selection
on a per capita level don'tproduce as many medal winners as
countries that do the talentfunding and selection later.
So the Scandinavian model onesports don't serve economic
interests or, I guess, theinterests of the nation state
(05:41):
for bagging rights, of thenation state for Braggins and
Wrights.
Participation and fun arepriorities.
Costs are kept low or optional.
They want everybody doingsports and there is actually no
rankings at all until the age of12.
The goal early on is just todevelop a broad base of
athletics, again, at the earlystages of athletics.
(06:03):
You're just not doing anyfunneling or talent
identification or specializingin sport.
That is going to happen, butthat'll happen later on.
Medal winners and I just keephammering that because I know
how different it sounds topeople's ears even hearing like
(06:26):
that you know, sports for kidsare focused on participation and
fun.
Because I, you know, I thinkparticipation trophies have kind
of gotten sucked into ourculture war.
I'm not even defending thembecause, you know, kind of
against the culture warnarrative, I didn't play in any
leagues with participationtrophies.
So it's one of those thingsthat I do know exist but I don't
(06:48):
have any of them myself.
I mean, well, I have one.
I got a finisher, you know, ina triathlon that I did because I
didn't place top five placed, Iwas seven.
So you know, I do technicallystill have the finisher thing.
But admittedly it is funny tome as a, you know, lifelong
competitive athlete that that ismy only technical participation
(07:11):
trophy.
But many of the people that I'veheard give really, you know,
very uh, I don't know, justemotional um tirades against
them.
I don't know if I would, Idon't know if I think they could
even finish like a triathlon oran Ironman or something like,
and maybe we're thinking ofdifferent participation trophies
(07:32):
.
But again, I always say it, butI played varsity.
I don't know what people aretalking about, or maybe they're
just counting things that Ididn't count or think about.
But yeah, I was born in 1985.
I never got anything except forfinishing a triathlon, which,
if you want to make fun of mefor keeping that one, you better
(07:53):
be able to finish the raceyourself.
But yeah, I do think some ofthis is going to sound kind of
foreign to our ears and I think,because we have a set of
debates going on that, you know,might sort of skew people's
priors, I think that it's alittle bit counterintuitive that
Caitlin Clark's path to theWNBA is actually generally
(08:18):
considered like the bestpractice for developing a young
athlete, at least according tothe available science.
And you know also shouldn'tpitch that.
The Scandinavian modelcertainly isn't, you know,
perfect.
There's, you know, definitelyissues there, but just in terms
of again being, on the percapita level, the thing that
(08:40):
produces the most Olympic medalwinners, that much is pretty
clear and so anyway, all that,just to say that you know,
caitlin Clark's path to the WNBAcan sort of seem surprising
just from the fact that shedidn't specialize at basketball
at a young age, but you knowagain, that's actually the more
(09:01):
common path.
So if you are a parent coach,anything like that, this is
something that I actually thinkthat we do have the ability to
really improve on what we'redoing for our young athletes.
I have, as you know,five-year-old so many times.
(09:23):
People are just coming up andasking me and my assumption is
they're assuming that I have herin leagues right now and I
don't.
I'm certainly not opposed to it,but we're just having enough
fun doing the stuff that we dogoing to the beach hiking we
live in Southern California, Ihave a gym in the backyard that
(09:45):
we do.
Going to the beach hiking welive in southern california, I
have a gym in the backyard, um,and yeah, frankly, you know,
getting to a sports league rightnow, just in terms of driving
around, the time it would take,that's probably the main reason
I'm not doing it right now.
It's definitely not that I'mopposed to it, um, but yeah,
we've got a basketball hoop inthe backyard.
Of course we do that stuff, butI'm not really doing sports.
Specific training um, we uh, ifwe got to call it something, I
(10:10):
guess it's mixed modality, butin a sense it's probably easier.
Just call it play.
Um, we just play around in thegym, we play around in the yard,
we play around in the parks.
We play around, we're hikingFor an athlete my daughter's age
.
I kind of think that's the Well,just think in terms of this way
(10:30):
, that's all you need to bedoing.
Don't feel like you're fallingbehind.
If you don't have your kidgoing in a league, you might
even go out to parks and I dosee this.
I have seen kids my daughter'sage getting put through cone
drills, stuff like that.
Again, I don't see any harm init.
I just know what the parentsare expecting, that are putting
(10:51):
their kids, you know, out thereand just for them.
Just don't be surprised if theresult you're expecting doesn't
happen.
Cone drills at five and sevenare not going to guarantee that
your kid makes it to the nfl.
Oddly specific, that's what Isee, at least in park.
We got some young guys workingon football and again, I I think
it's great, but just, I justhope dad knows that that doesn't
(11:13):
mean that they're they're goingto the league by any stretch.
Um, but yeah, if you are, youknow, coaching or developing
young athletes like I, I thinkthat you know what they've been
doing in the scandinavian modelis a pretty decent rule of thumb
.
Um, just in terms ofspecialization, even um 12 might
(11:35):
be the the time.
Um, again, it's just beenchanging so much even since I
left high school.
Um, uh, basketball was what Iplayed, but, but.
So now it just seems like mostpeople have gone round to year
round traveling.
I was kind of in the last partof playing varsity.
(11:57):
It was generally the highestlevel.
Playing for state championships, things like that were
generally considered the biggestthings.
Now there's going to be AAUchampionships.
Frankly, pay-for-play optionsthat if you're not involved in
that, you're not reallycompetitive in the sport anymore
(12:18):
.
And yeah, I think we kind ofsaw it as like an arms race or
an advancement, but ironicallyit was actually pushing way that
you can, you know, not overusea joint or you know anything too
(12:49):
early.
You see this the most inbaseball, really, with the rise
of Tommy Johns.
But I think a lot of thatreally can be attributed to the
fact that, you know, oftentimesparents are seeking out
specialized training at agesthat are probably a bit too
young.
And just you know, if theathletes don't burn out mentally
a lot of times, the body justphysically burns out ahead of
when it should.
So, yeah, all that.
(13:10):
I think that 12 is a decentmarker.
Like I was saying, putting yourkid in a sports league is.
I'm not saying that's a badidea at all.
All I'm, you know, pushingagainst is the idea of just
specializing in one thing.
If you're going to do that,pick a few different things,
rotate them.
The seasons can be a greatreminder to switch it up and do
(13:34):
something different, get alittle bit of variation going.
But for the young athletessensitive to all this, just
because obviously I have a kid,so it's just something I'm
talking about, thinking about.
I know other people are too,but that you know that's what
we're doing and anybody who asksme that that's essentially what
we always talk about is youknow early on and again, I don't
(14:02):
really have none of this for meis coming out of that like
participation, trophy discussion.
I'm just in a completelydifferent world.
So if I have to use a couple ofthe same words, just excuse
that.
But yeah, at this stage, likeyou actually want them to, you
know one, develop the broad baseof athletics so that they have
all the athletic abilities todraw on balance, strength,
agility, speed, just as we don'treally know how their body is
(14:26):
going to develop yet.
So just build up all theaptitudes.
Once their body grows andmatures a little bit, we've got
a better idea of what they mightactually be good at, um, and
obviously anybody with a kid.
You see, this growth isn'tlinear.
So you might think you have abasketball player one day and
then figure out that, uh,actually you have a weightlifter
(14:47):
who just shot up before theother kids.
So for so many reasons, I justdon't think it makes sense to
specialize until you really knowwhat you're working with.
While you're in that periodwhere you're figuring out what
their body is best suited for,the best way to cover your base
is just by developing a broadset of skills.
(15:08):
You work with a broad set ofactivities.
You also learn different mentalskills.
Ironically, I played golf.
That was one of the sports thatwas my spring sport in high
school and, honestly, what Iliked about it was I got to use
different muscles literally Toplay basketball.
(15:30):
You had to do some fall sportand the basketball coach was
also the track coach at myschool.
So running track was a way thatyou could kind of ease your
transition into basketball andbasically if you didn't run in
the fall you probably weren'tgoing to get through hell week
and our coach also was justgoing to hold a bias against you
(15:52):
for not having played a sportin the fall.
So you just probably weren'tgoing to make the team.
I don't that wasn't like a hardrule.
I just don't remember anybodyactually making the team who
didn't run in the fall.
So maybe it was a rule for allI know, but no, that to say,
obviously.
So golf looked really differentwhen you would go from track to
(16:12):
basketball to golf.
That didn't make sense to somepeople, but obviously golf is a
very mental game to me.
So I got to practice a lot ofpressure situations and then
also I just had a season where Iwas just outside walking
carrying a golf bag, whichobviously wasn't using any of
(16:34):
the movements and things that Iwas doing in basketball or track
, so it was just giving thosejoints a chance to have a break.
You don't think about that atall when you're a kid, but now
when I can see the toll thatsports has had on not only my
body but, like my other One timewe were putting on our cleats,
(16:57):
my flag football team and thenanother buddy of mine next to me
who had also played asignificant amount of sports
Somebody was commentingbasically on how ugly our feet
were, and then I just kind ofconnected it then that, oh like,
if you play enough sports youget dinged up, you've got the
injuries, and so, yeah, I justhad a theory that you're not
(17:18):
going to find many guys who haveplayed college sports that can
be foot models.
I just don't think that that'sa good, probable outcome.
So anyway, I can only imaginehow much worse it would be had I
never had a season to giverunning a break.
I already did enough damage, asis, and the evidence is there
(17:43):
on my feet, but yeah anyway.
So that's kind of it, mythoughts in general on.
I know that Caitlin Clark, whenthis article popped, some people
found her path surprising.
I just don't think this shouldbe surprising.
I hope this becomes commonknowledge because it's been the
direction that at least thescience isn't pushing, but again
(18:03):
, we haven't quite adapted it.
So anyway, if I can bore youguys just for a little bit.
I actually want to make alittle bit of a defense of
philosophy, which I actuallyfeel.
You know.
Get it back at least.
Analogy in my field carbs rightnow, because philosophy isn't
(18:24):
popular, and not just withpeople that don't want to read.
Stephen Hawking had declaredphilosophy dead.
Neil deGrasse Tyson says itdoesn't contribute to scientific
discovery and that itencourages unproductive debates.
Richard Feynman believed thatit complicated straightforward
empirical study and so, yeah,these are really smart people
(18:50):
and I actually see it in adifferent way than they do, and
admittedly, I don't think I'msmarter than they are.
So I do think I'm just lookingat this in a different way.
But I have read their arguments.
I do see what they're talkingabout.
(19:10):
I actually think there's a farbigger problem of people lacking
philosophy than that there is.
You know too much, you know,and I guess we'll get into these
in detail, but I thinkscientists at that level, what
they see of people mostly doingwith philosophy is probably
casting doubt on scientificconsensus is using what I almost
(19:31):
consider well, they're not justelements of philosophy, of
science.
To try to cast doubt on ascientific consensus is using,
but what I almost consider.
Well, they're not just elementsof philosophy, of science, to
try to cast out on a scientificconsensus, you know, which
probably comes up when you knowscience gets into, you know,
anything with a politicalcomponent, like climate change
or the pandemic, for example.
Scientists have had people intheir fields that they don't
(19:57):
respect use these arguments totry to cast out on consensus.
So I do understand why theywould feel that way, or at least
why they're not interested inphilosophy after encountering
those arguments, and I alsothink that most of the people
that they would talk with intheir daily lives, in their
(20:20):
research and in their fields,probably already understand
everything that I'm going to say.
But so my point, in a way, isthat it's actually not important
for them, perhaps, but I thinkit's really important for the
general public, and I actuallythink I have concerns on the
exact same issue of people notbeing able to, you know, just
(20:47):
figure out what's going on inthe world around them.
Quite frankly, and I actuallythink a little bit of philosophy
for the general public notnecessarily for scientists, but
for the general public it coulddefinitely help, because I think
it would help them spot whenpeople are using certain
techniques to try to muddy thewater in a scientific discussion
(21:08):
Offline.
I was having a discussion with afriend just about.
In some ways it does feel likeit's the best time ever for
grifters and and, and I do.
I think it's just because ofthe technology.
It's nothing inherent in humanbeings, we're still the same,
but we, we have powerful toolsthat we've never had before and,
(21:31):
you know, the snake oilsalesman used to have to leave
town and now on the internet,the options are just endless and
no one's coming with pitchforksto your house.
So, yeah, just in so many ways,it just seems like it is a
golden age for grifters, and Ido think that philosophy is, you
(21:56):
know, maybe one of the besttools that people have, because,
again, I'm not seeingphilosophy as you know, just
people sitting on a pillow andtrying to think profound
thoughts.
I'm actually thinking of it asjust a critical process and
basically a set of askingquestions that, when done
(22:20):
correctly, you know, doesn'tthreaten science at all.
Obviously, science is built onwell, a philosophical position
by Francis Bacon in one regard.
But no, what I was going to saywas that it's built upon an
iterative process.
So, again, having a criticalset of questions that one asks,
(22:45):
being trained in.
That to me obviously just hasbenefits, not only for science
but for every single domain,literally anything that you
could be working on.
I think it has a very nuts andbolts pragmatic benefit and you
know, thankfully, you know, Ifeel like I'm actually not the
(23:06):
only person seeing this One ofthe.
You know we've already talkedabout it here, but I think one
of the technologies that ishelping people see that there
actually might be a point tophilosophy has been the
development of AI.
Like, oh, my obsession withphilosophy might actually have
(23:36):
some practical purpose becauseit was basically engaging with
the machine.
I was realizing that not allprompts were created equal, that
sometimes, if I would take ondifferent roles and personas
with the AI, I could getdifferent output from it.
So, anyway, I didn't want totalk too much about my
experience, but actually what Isaw was Harvard Business School
had an article they put aboutwhy engineers should study
(24:01):
philosophy.
This was echoing some of thethings I was seeing, but I
actually want to focus more onwhat HBS put out than my
experience for now.
But yeah, the reason Harvardwants engineers studying
philosophy is they're sayingthat understanding the why
(24:22):
before you start working on thehow is an increasingly important
skill when working with AI,particularly for coders, and the
issue they're noting is thatcode that is created by an AI
can be correct syntax andsemantically correct, but not
(24:43):
functionally correct.
So it'll work well, but not atwhat you want it to do.
Like I've been saying for awhile now, a model's output is
very sensitive to the way aprompt is written, and if you
miss the mark on a prompt, thenthe AI is going to produce code
that is plausible but probablyincorrect.
(25:07):
This when they're using it forlanguage tasks, when you are
generating hallucinations.
A lot of these instances, atleast as I had seen them covered
in the popular media, were kindof generated to show like oh
hey, look at the limits of thisAI system.
But in my experience using them, oftentimes if you are getting
(25:33):
a lot of hallucinations in yourprompts, it's probably because
your prompts are not very clear.
So, anyway, this is somethingthat even Harvard Business
School is starting to note andthat whenever engineers are
managing teams, at least fromthe study Harvard Business
School, one of the mostimportant issues was knowing how
(25:55):
to ask the right questions.
This is very, very similar toworking with AI Knowing the
right questions to ask canreally make the difference
between having usable output orerror-ridden.
And obviously, as we come torely on ai systems more I'm not
(26:15):
somebody who has the not on thedoomer end of the spectrum, but
I understand their arguments aswell and that's where these
errors can become, you know,kind of a big issue.
Um, could, could becomedangerous if, if you don't have
people that have the rightskills, that know how to prompt
systems to get them to do whatthey need to do.
The the main skill I think thatwe can actually get and again,
(26:37):
this is just, it's a pragmaticnuts and bolts skill that you
will just get from studyingphilosophy, any philosophy, it
doesn't matter who you read.
It's not like a body ofknowledge you're trying to
inject into somebody, but you'regoing to learn how to just
basically have crisp mentalmodels around a problem and
learn how to break that down anddeconstruct it Logical steps
(26:59):
that you're going to use to becritical of anything, and
obviously I talk about this allthe time.
But this is a skill that I knowI use as I am combing through
health and fitness studies.
Through health and fitnessstudies, you don't need to have
(27:20):
like a PhD in philosophy andhave studied a specific school
of philosophy.
I just think it's a good ideathat you have engaged in the
pursuit and just kind of learnedhow to be critical of things,
because you will be able to takeand adapt that and use it to
the problems that you actuallyengage in your real life.
And you know, and obviously anyof the scientists that I
(27:42):
mentioned at the top of the show, they already know this.
So, again, I don't think any ofmy comments are going to help
them out on any of the stuffthey're working on, but I don't
know if the public that againgets, you know, not only fooled
in the big and this is again whyI almost want to leave aside,
like the pandemic and climatechange, because I know people
are bringing in deep priors thatI don't even want to touch on.
(28:07):
The number one realm where Iactually have seen this come in
and this is why I think it'srelevant here is, you know,
quite frankly, supplements.
Most of us, when we get intosupplements, we're probably
reading some, you knowscientific study and then making
(28:29):
a choice to go purchase or notpurchase.
And actually, let's be honest,that's probably even, you know,
some of the more informedsupplement consumers, if you
will, because some people arejust looking at the ad and if
they like the picture andaesthetic elements of the
advertisement and then they'remaking their decision to
purchase.
But then there's a set ofconsumers that are actually
going to go out and look at thestudies, or they're listening to
(28:51):
a podcast, like this one, andthey hear about a study and they
go seek out a supplement thathas the thing that they heard
about.
But if we don't have theability to ask the right
questions about the studieswe're seeing so many times, we
can and will be misled.
(29:13):
I myself have done this far moretimes than I can count.
And so, again, this is why Ialmost had to learn this rule,
or I just had to put in, quitefrankly, a heuristic to just
doubt or at least go look at thecriticisms because I have
bought too many things, becauseI have bought too many things, I
have just fallen for magicpixie dust too many times in my
(29:36):
life.
And so, yeah, I obviously I'mgoing to still stay open,
knowing that maybe there will bea new discovery one day, maybe
there will be a big gamechanging thing, but I'm still
waiting as of now, and I'vefallen for it a lot.
So again, my critique on thatwe need a better understanding
(29:59):
of science for the layman, Ithink more so than some of the
best scientists in the world,Because it has to do with the
fact, too, that most of us inthe real world we're not
participating in researchstudies and things like that.
The questions we ask aren'tactually.
Because it has to do with thefact, too, that most of us in
the real world we're notparticipating in research
studies and things like that.
The questions we ask aren'tactually scientific questions.
And you can try to train peopleto ask those types of questions
(30:23):
, but the reality is people arestill going to ask things like
what's the best diet?
What should I do for a workout?
That's how people talk, andthose are technically not
scientific questions.
So people aren't going to beable to turn to studies.
People talk and those aretechnically not scientific
questions.
So you know, people aren'tgoing to be able to turn to
studies and if they do, they'renot going to find answers.
They're going to have to learnanother set of skills One, just
(30:48):
to get their question into ascientific form so they can go
and map it up, but two, if youactually have to go work on a
problem that there hasn'talready been studies done on.
If you actually have to go workon a problem that there hasn't
already been studies done on,this is again where it's going
to be kind of necessary that youhave your own process that
you're able to run.
You've got to have somecritical process and even as
I've combed the literature andtried to be an informed consumer
(31:09):
in my own, I clearly have madetons of mistakes with
supplements over the years.
The truth is, even though Ilike to think of myself as an
informed consumer, is that mostof us, without a critical
process, we're actually justgoing to default to superstition
and placebos, maybe in theinstance of supplements.
(31:35):
But there was a great articlein Scientific American kind of,
about why and the reason Iwanted to highlight this is I
think that there is even a tabooor stigma was positing that the
(31:55):
role of superstitions wereactually, you know, basically
just because human beings had todeal with a lot of unknown
situations and rituals linked tocertain actions could actually
decrease stress.
Yeah, so yeah again, it wasjust making me think that if we
don't have a critical process,we're probably just going to
(32:20):
default back to superstition,and not because we're dumb.
We all intend to be informed,but no, we're kind of hardwired
that way.
There's in this proverbialstate of nature that
philosophers love to try toimagine that doesn't exist at
all.
But no, you can obviouslyimagine that before, at least
(32:43):
societies that had abundance andsecurity, that risks certainly
should be more salient in yourmind than they would be today,
because you know there reallywere, you know things that could
kill you right around thecorner, quite frankly, and most
(33:03):
of us have kind of been able toremove a lot of those obvious
risks from our life.
So, anyway, all that to saythat when loss aversion we know
from behavioral economics is afeature of our psyche, we strive
very, very hard to avoid losses, more so than we do to set
(33:24):
ourselves up for benefits, or wedon't feel the impacts of
benefits as much as we feel oururge to avoid losses.
Our urge to avoid losses, allof that again, I think, just
comes from the fact that weevolved in an environment where
you needed to respond to risksand it was okay if you were
(33:46):
wrong when you responded to arisk, and so, anyway, that's
again a roundabout way ofgetting that.
That's kind of almost how I seesuperstitions functioning, these
rituals, that they don'tactually work, but they give you
a feeling of control and evenif they don't work 100% of the
time, they only have to workonce or twice in a high stress
(34:06):
moment to become something thatcan calm you down.
Hence the lucky sweaters.
(34:27):
If that worked, the 49ers neverwould have lost a Super Bowl.
On the one hand, I literallyknow that it isn't true.
On the other hand, I still trychanging influence, the outcomes
of sporting events, althoughnow, as I say that, obviously
the Niners suffered a prettytragic for us loss this year,
and here I was at home, notbeing superstitious and not
(34:48):
doing anything.
Maybe that's it, maybe I justgot outworked by the Chiefs fans
this year.
So I don't know, maybesuperstition is back, but no.
What I wanted to point out,though in a serious note, is
that they again.
The point of people falling forsuperstition isn't that they're
stupid.
I think it's probably somethingthat can alleviate stress and
(35:09):
help us deal with uncertainty.
That being said, they do havesome costs, and what I
essentially there?
It's just wasted energy, wastedeffort.
If it really isn't working ordoing anything, then it is
technically harming.
So, again, this is now why it'sso central for me to avoid
(35:35):
taking on new supplements, whereI do see people that are more
interested like I was at anothertime at trying every new thing
that comes out.
I can justify it because I usedto do it myself.
There you can sort of thinkthat there just isn't a lot of
downside, that if I can try thisand there is an edge, then cool
, I've uncovered something.
(35:57):
But more I've actually justgotten into that.
Your resources are technicallynot unlimited.
So even if it is something thatyou're price insensitive to,
you technically still could havedone something else with that
money.
Still could have done somethingelse with that money.
(36:19):
And then you know also, as weget you know older, frankly,
just health kind of gets to be alittle bit more important.
So for me anyway, with theperformance supplements, that
was something that the algorithmand the calculation just kind
of you know, keeps changing.
If I introduce something and Idon't know all the side effects
and you have a kid, it's just alittle different than when
(36:41):
you're just 18 to 20 and you'rechasing after some goals.
But yeah, just kind of can't getaround the idea that there's so
many other interactions andthings going well in my body
that I want to be able to takecredit for.
But you don't really know whyit's working.
So adding anything new in themix can tend to disrupt things
(37:03):
that you don't understand, which, again, I just sort of started
to realize with age.
There's a lot that I don'tunderstand.
So when things are going well,sometimes you just don't rock
the boat with new things.
When I was younger I was muchmore willing to try it and I
felt like it was staying up onthe cutting edge in a sense.
But yeah, now I'm meandering.
(37:25):
That again, is where I thinkthat we actually do need a
little bit more engagement withphilosophy.
I felt that I was beingscientific by taking all of the
latest supplements, and at leastI was to an extent.
Because I was being scientificby taking all of the latest
supplements, and at least I wasto an extent because I was at
least disciplined when I wouldtake them and I kind of was
running little trials.
But also that's how Idiscovered so many of them
(37:47):
didn't actually work.
You know, had I had all ofthese successful trials, that
would have been great, but itdidn't work out that way.
But yeah, one way that Iactually think that this can, or
just a little engagement withphilosophy is very necessary is
(38:08):
in nutrition.
If we just break in nutritiondown to what we can know about
food through science, that's aparadigm, that that has been
coined nutritionism, and youknow essentially what I mean.
There is that if you think foodis just the the named vitamins,
nutrients and other components,that that I still used to talk
(38:31):
about food, but that's all thereis to it.
This, to me, is one of thebiggest problems that I see in
nutrition.
Just got done talking about wedon't like supplements, but this
is the result of thinking thatfood is just merely the sum of
the named nutrients is that youstart to believe that you can go
(38:51):
out and make supplements.
You can identify the goodnutrients, the bad nutrients,
and and to an extent you can.
But I just think it's prettyfair to say in our modern
paradigm that I think we do alittle bit too much of this.
This is also the same thinkingthat got me.
You know, antidepressants andthings like that is identifying
(39:13):
a neurotransmitter, let's say,and then you know, designing a
drug to increase thatneurotransmitter, let's say, and
then designing a drug toincrease that neurotransmitter
that you see as low.
There's other ways that we cango about addressing problems.
And again the issue because Idon't want to be somebody who's
this is where we get into theissues.
I guess, and probably whyscientists don't like the
(39:33):
philosophy crowd.
Some people have used some ofthese same techniques that I'm
going to basically be using hereor asking questions to disprove
or to try to cast out or muddythe waters in things where
there's a broad scientificconsensus.
So that, to me, is kind of theimportant bit that I'm going to
highlight here, because I'm notusing these little philosophy of
(39:54):
science games to cast doubt onsomething where there's broad
consensus.
I'm using these in a realmwhere actually the consensus is
not that it works.
So we've talked about this alot here.
But when we look at the studiesthat have been done on
multivitamins, they're not good.
You're not going to go likeseriously, do this.
(40:16):
I'm not just saying this likeAndrew Huberman like actually go
look for some studies and seeif you can find one that says
that multivitamins areefficacious in humans.
And seriously, if you find one,that would be great, because I
wasted a lot of money on them.
But reductionist nutritionthinking is what gives you a
(40:36):
multivitamin.
In theory that should work, butit doesn't.
So again, all I'm showing youis that I'm not using this to
cast doubt on climate change orwhether vaccines work.
I'm not trying to take up aposition where I'm all by myself
and then I get to appointmyself the expert of this thing
and then also I'm going to getincreased search relevance
(40:59):
because I'm the only personsaying something different.
No, I mean, obviously, in thefield of nutrition, it actually
is not accepted that we can makeand reduce food down to pills
and introduce them or sorry, andjust ingest them rather and get
all the nutrition that we needout of them.
(41:19):
Again, though it's mixed, mostof the scientific literature,
even these reductionist studies,actually tell us that whole
food nutrition is superior.
So you know, again, I'm justpointing out, I'm not going to
go and use a philosophy ofscience, if you will, to try to
go out on my own and carve outand make a name for myself and
(41:43):
my own lane and go against thescientific consensus.
I think it's fair to criticizethe field of nutrition, that
maybe we don't have all theright answers.
We can look at the shiftingnutritional guidelines.
It's fair to ask a lot ofquestions in this field and,
again, I actually think that alittle bit of philosophical
(42:05):
training can actually help withgetting you to ask the right
questions.
And you know, like just thatone you might want to be
thinking about, like you know,we have these studies that say
and admittedly I don't have theanswers to any of this, I'm just
the guy asking questions, butnot like like tucker carlson,
(42:26):
like where I have an agenda andI'm asking a question.
I'm literally asking a questionthat I don't know the answer to
.
Um, but no, there you, you seethat there are these studies
that say whole food nutritionworks and you see these studies
that say that multivitaminsdon't.
So it just kind of begs thequestion well, what do we not
know?
That there must be interactionsor context within the whole
(42:47):
food that we just haven't namedor don't know or I don't
actually know.
But this is all I'm pointingout to is that we can't actually
answer all of the questionsthat we have, because a real
question people are going to askyou they're not going to
formulate it scientifically,they're just going to say what
should I eat?
You're going to have to come upwith ways to communicate that
(43:10):
so people can actually do it.
People can actually do it, andthis is where I think that we
actually do need a little bit ofphilosophy.
I think it was Thoreau which isfunny because he probably wrote
this while he was sitting inEmerson's yard.
I like to make fun of him forthat, but I think it's still a
good line.
(43:30):
He said something like to be aphilosopher is not merely to
have subtle thoughts but tosolve some of the problems of
life, not theoretically butpractically.
So it's really in that veinthat I'm trying to sort of push
people in the direction ofphilosophy.
(43:51):
I'm not trying to push you intoany specific camp.
And then I also want to beclear, too, that I'm definitely
not advocating against scienceor the scientists that I
mentioned in particular.
More, what I'm reacting to isit just seems to me that
philosophy is really out offashion.
Some of my favoriteconversations, by the way, are
(44:15):
some of the scientists I get totalk to.
But I just have noticed when Ibring up any of the philosophy I
read, I think it's kind ofviewed as something indulgent
and silly, and I do respectfullydisagree.
I think I got most of that outalready.
But yeah, I still am just atrainer, so I'm still going to
run with the narrative that,like philosophy right now to me
(44:37):
is a bit like carbs.
It's just something that is inneed of a defense.
And then, if I can because I ama trainer push my macronutrient
in a metaphor further, I'mstill saying that we need our
protein and fat.
So that could be.
I don't know your science andother, I'm just defending carbs.
(44:59):
I'm not saying that the otherthings aren't important.
And carb metaphor is stillworking for me because you're
going to run into people today alot of them, like maybe the
keto community who say that youcan survive without carbs, and
they're technically correct, whosay that you can survive
without carbs and they'retechnically correct.
You could go your whole lifewithout reading or doing any
(45:20):
philosophy and actually youwouldn't die.
But I don't actually think thatyou would thrive that way, just
like if you chose to never havecarbohydrates.
One, carbs are tasty.
That's not really an enjoyablelife.
Two, they have a lot ofbenefits with muscle building
and performance.
So you're just not going toconvince me, keto community,
that though you can technicallylive your life without ever
(45:44):
eating a carbohydrate, that thatwould ever be something you
would want to do, sort of likeSocrates the unexamined life is
not worth living.
But yeah, you guys are notgoing to convince me that.
You know, peeing on keto stripsand reducing my life down to
whether I'm in ketosis or not isa meaningful life.
I kid you guys a little bit.
(46:08):
I actually have used keto as aweight loss tool, so that's not
a shot at the keto community atall.
But again, it's a personality,or sorry, it's a tool, not a
personality.
Got that backwards?
Yeah, unless they've updatedthe Myers-Briggs or something,
just use your ketogenic diet asa tool.
This doesn't have to becomeyour whole sense of being.
(46:31):
Clearly, too, I'm not againstscience at all.
I look at studies all the time.
I am trying to use that toinform myself.
But again, I'm just speakingthat reality that that's not the
only thing that I do.
I don't go and read studies andadapt my behavior based.
I do think that I've actuallylearned most of that just
through, frankly, just throughengaging with philosophy.
(47:01):
And again, that to me is thepoint of reading these texts.
You don't go read a philosopherto go get a new personality.
What you should be doing whenyou're reading a philosopher
again is asking do I think anyof this shit is true?
How does that hold up.
What I think a lot ofphilosophical tests are going to
(47:21):
force you to do is just makeyou do that self-examining, and
I literally don't know where itwill make you end up.
This isn't the point.
I'm not trying to indoctrinateyou that this is fundamentally
different.
It's fascinating because I haveno idea where you'll go.
We could read the exact samebook by the same philosopher and
(47:42):
go completely differentdirections.
That's actually what happens toa lot of people when they
engage.
That's why we have differentphilosophical schools and
there's a timeless and vibrantdiscussion around all of these
issues.
A, you know, timeless andvibrant discussion around all of
these issues.
The point to me isn't thebeliefs that you'll have and
what you'll argue for.
The point to me is that byreading these texts and engaging
(48:05):
these texts, you're going tojust get used to asking those
types of questions all the time.
So again, when you step out ofyour indulgent little hobby of
reading philosophy, maybe thosenutrition studies won't hit
quite the same way, maybe someof these ads won't hit quite the
same way.
Maybe you'll just startintuitively asking some of the
(48:26):
same questions that you kind offeel that you have to ask when
you're reading a philosophicaltext.
But you know I do want to.
There's something I want topush back against a little bit,
because I know that there aresome people who have used you
know particularly those who areusing these things to push
against a scientific consensus.
I want to put some distancebetween what I'm saying and what
(48:50):
they say, but also I'm clearlynot in support of them.
I actually think that the bestway for people to be able to
suss out who those people arewould again be with just a
little bit of philosophicaltraining, because, almost like
parlor tricks or moves, if youplay video games like I remember
(49:11):
Mortal Kombat when I was a kid,to do a special kick you'd have
to push left, left, aba orsomething like that and when you
see charlatans doing thesetricks, instead of getting
wrapped up in their charisma orhow good they look, you just see
like, oh, he just did left,left, abab.
It really does kind ofinoculate you a little bit too.
(49:34):
You know particularly just someof the most common techniques
Because, as we always say onthis show, there is nothing new
except all that has beenforgotten.
Nobody has reinvented thecharlatan game.
It's the same thing and, like Isaid earlier in the show, in
some ways, I feel like we are ina golden age of grifters.
(49:54):
What's up, dave?
I feel like we are in a goldenage of grifters.
What's up, dave?
But yeah, this is kind of mybest answer for the tool that we
all need to protect ourselvesagainst it.
It's not indulgent to readphilosophy.
At its best, I think it's goingto teach you just a set of
critical skills that I think weactually need, not only in
(50:17):
health and fitness, but in thisbrave new world that we're
entering into, I think you'regoing to need more and more.
Harvard Business School agreeswith me.
So, anyway, there's my cheapappeal to authority on the way
out the door.
But anyway, guys, thanks forbearing with me today.
You guys know philosophy iskind of my indulgent, nerdy
hobby.
So there you go.
(50:37):
There's my full-throateddefense of why it is not a
complete waste of time.
That being said, I could bedead wrong.
But, um, I appreciate youspending your time with me here.
Um, remember, guys, mind andmuscle are inseparably
intertwined.
There are no, no gains withoutbrains.
Keep lifting and learning.
(50:58):
I'll do the same.
Popular Podcasts
Bookmarked by Reese's Book Club
Welcome to Bookmarked by Reese’s Book Club — the podcast where great stories, bold women, and irresistible conversations collide! Hosted by award-winning journalist Danielle Robay, each week new episodes balance thoughtful literary insight with the fervor of buzzy book trends, pop culture and more. Bookmarked brings together celebrities, tastemakers, influencers and authors from Reese's Book Club and beyond to share stories that transcend the page. Pull up a chair. You’re not just listening — you’re part of the conversation.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com