This was because of the belief that views thrown at the individual have a certain stickiness to them. And unless the individual is trained to triage out the nonsensical, the dangerous, and the detrimental from the enriching, the person is susceptible to corruption.
This is true for exposure to views on social media. Even a casual glance at a post can leave an impression. There is intense competition from influencers for our attention. Controversy, often at the expense of truth, garners attention. Eloquence can win over substance. No matter the confidence we have in our rationality, we are prone to the manipulation of charmers, and those with an outsized following. The Pied-Piper also had a huge following.
How, then, to separate the wheat from the chaff? Podcasts have two main formats. Q&A has fewer red alerts because the expert guest provides the content, not the podcast host. (Even here, some caution is needed, since not all experts propound proven theories.) The second format wherein the host is the knowledge dispenser should be scrutinised thoroughly. This checklist is a useful evaluation tool:
Individual’s education, experience, and expertise Alignment of these with the topic of discussion increases confidence in the host’s content. Unfortunately, this alignment is not guaranteed. Most often, the opposite is true. The host has gained some minimal experience, and is able to confidently present ideas on the broader subject mainly on the strength of his or her personality. Furthermore, the real people behind the science are busy doing the science and can’t host podcasts leaving that space empty for these presentation gurus. This is especially prevalent in the health and nutrition space. Use of facts vs opinions Good influencers will ensure that the fact-base is highlighted. The best ones will indicate gaps in knowledge and point out opinion vs facts.
Shedding light on counter-facts Rarely is any topic settled. There are facts that run counter to the conclusion being presented. A good host will showcase these and explain reasons for espousing a PoV in the face of these opposing facts.
Explaining supporting evidence thoroughly This is especially important in health-based podcasts because not all evidence is applicable to humans. There are lab data, animal trial data, human epidemiological data (uncontrolled trials), and randomised controlled trials (the gold standard). Conscientious influencers will explain the quality of data used to support the conclusions. There are several instances of individuals simply stating: ‘There is evidence to suggest that….,’ and the evidence, it turns out, is only in rats.
Our endorsement means real money. The Economist estimates that there are 50 mn influencers worldwide, and growing in double digits. The chase for subscribers can cloud judgment regarding content, sometimes resulting in straying from the truth, especially when the truth isn’t catchy.
For example, a proven (and boring) method to maintain health is to consume fewer calories, eat less processed food, and engage in regular moderate exercise. To make the podcast attention-grabbing, an X-point plan is created and touted with thin evidence.
Health trends are a particular morass where influencers of all stripes can be found. A recent trend is this mindset of controlling one’s sugar within 70-110 mg/dl based on Continuous Glucose Monitor (CGM) readings. The science behind this is still developing.
It’s not yet established that for individuals without diabetes, the effort of reformatting one’s routine and likes-dislikes to achieve this narrower level of glucose control is worth a benefit. But hyping an intensive target of 110 mg/dl (as opposed to the traditional 140 mg/dl) allows influencers to peddle diets, meal plans, sell books, and supplements.
The irony of this column is not lost on me. Nevertheless, a generally watchful eye and ear, and some due diligence before following any influencer are habits that can only have an upside.