This article's author is so completely missing the point it's fucking amazing.
The rise of podcasters like Andrew Huberman represent the accessibility of lectures by Stanford Professors to the general public. The fact that said scientists can cite research and people can easily reference them is the tearing down of ivory towers in action, whereas in the past scientific research was only accessible to the academic elite. People being able to improve their health through self-help rather than going through the cartel-like medical system is a huge boon to healthcare accessibility and affordability. You can live in rural bumfuck nowhere and be able to access a YouTube lecture far far more easily than you will EVER be able to access a board-certified MD.
Sure, some of the things people like Huberman recommend are expensive, and they even shill for overpriced supplements like AG1 which you can get an equivalent of for cheaper. But this is the societal change that the author evidently wants to see happening, happening. The thing is, a lot of people on soapboxes simply think by vapidly complaining about inequality and societal injustice that they're doing something about it to the extent that they can't recognise when it's breaking down. They seem to have no sincere motivation to resolve societal level injustice, they just seem to have a personal motivation to be seen as an equity thought leader to enrich their own lives.
This seems unnecessarily negative towards the trend of self-optimization. Self help media has been around for a long time, and this is just a new evolution of it targeted to a specific audience.
I have only watched a handful of episodes of the Huberman podcast, but I really appreciated that they have an actionable science-based takeway to help with the area you want to focus on.
Yeah, this article comes off as holier-than-thou and politically charged. It does not attempt to justify its assumptions (Why should improvement be centered on a community? This isn't a truth about the universe or anything like that.)
> I want to be clear that there isn't anything wrong with trying to make yourself better, healthier, or happier. But investigating _why_ we feel the need to optimize ourselves to cope with a system of political and social injustices that make life harder for us without actually questioning the injustices of that very system is not only unhelpful, but it's counterproductive. The people who hold the most power have a great deal of interest in us focusing on bettering ourselves instead of bettering our communities.
You can argue that this wrong in various ways but it's not true that the article fails to make any case.
Even Huberman admits that the reason many need to, e.g., stare toward the sun for 15 minutes a day is because they are disconnected from normal exposure to nature by the demands of work. In fact he remarks upon systemic causes of the needs for many of the health hacks he discusses.
I feel used having read this article. Used into getting enraged at the lack of respect the author has for their readers. Used into reading cheap clickbait that, at worst, is a shitty and throwaway attempt at eyeballs, and at worst is something the author was legitimately proud of having written. It is inconsiderate in its laziness and its nonchalance. Each paragraph is a mere two sentences long, sprinkled with "hella"s and "gonna"s. The arguments are caricatures that might have been radical 25 years ago, but today they add nothing new to the conversation. It's all been said before, and by people much better than yourself. Huberman's name is used as cheap clickbait, mentioned a little in the beginning, and then never again. We never get to understand what he does wrong aside from the fact that he sells supplements. The careless shrug with which she passes over the reasons we are attracted to self-help (overcoming childhood trauma, needing to prove ourselves strong to ourselves, being able to be a reliable adult in order to be a reliable partner/parent and all the rest of it) is a testament to her serious lack of empathy. The presumptuousness that we're all doing it to cope with social injustices or the political system (?!) rankles in its arrogance and cock-surity.
> But it isn't possible for many people who work even a 9-to-5 in certain parts of the U.S. — and certainly isn't possible for people who work odd hours.
So? They are free to seek out the litany of other methods of self improvement available on this vast, nearly infinite internet. Why must every piece of advice on the internet be applicable for everyone? If I can afford a gym or, fucking hell, sunlight, must I instead strenuously self-flagellate on my knees at the doorstep of every betrodden sod who ever walked the earth?
The FIRE community faces the same kind of reaction and it drives me nuts. Yes, a poorly-paid teacher likely cannot reach financial independence as easily as a highly paid software engineer. So? The FIRE community is trying to get that software engineer/dentist/lawyer who would otherwise frivolously spend all their money away and come to regret it to choose a better path. Teachers can look elsewhere.
This article is written by a caricature of a millenial and the arguments it makes, the structure of the story, the punchlines, they are all lousy and vapid.
I wonder how much self-optimization is motivated by wanting to demonstrate perceived superiority over other people.
In our society, good sleep, a good diet, good exercise and a job that doesn't compromise your health are a privilege, not a choice. It's unfortunate but that's what I believe.
I dunno.. just thoughts. But I think putting this out there is worth the downvotes.
I partially agree that it can be a privilege, but some of the actions listed are fairly doable by a large segment of the population. For example: exposure to sunlight for at least five to ten minutes, a cold shower, no smoking, no drinking, and intermittent fasting are actionable by most people. I do appreciate those who work the night/graveyard shifts and might miss out on proper daylight and sleep. But most people can follow some of these guidelines.
Personally, I find the idea of watching social media self-optimization hi-def videos very bizarre. I would view self optimization as youthful thoughts relating to ideals with very little awareness of other people, especially living ones who achieve some enlightenment and then collect likes, eat.. The written word makes a lot more sense for that.
Probably very little. Motivation to keep up with social signaling only goes so far, and habits / dedication are what actually leads to lasting improvements from self-optimization. Long-lasting habits really only stick if you actually want the changes for yourself, not to impress others.
"The people who hold the most power have a great deal of interest in us focusing on bettering ourselves instead of bettering our communities."
I may be out to lunch but, is a community not a group of individuals? And for an individual to make meaningful contributions to their community should they not first become the best version of themselves? If one cannot even improve themself, what gives them the moral authority to instruct others (a community) on how to improve or conduct themselves?
"Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world."
The rise of podcasters like Andrew Huberman represent the accessibility of lectures by Stanford Professors to the general public. The fact that said scientists can cite research and people can easily reference them is the tearing down of ivory towers in action, whereas in the past scientific research was only accessible to the academic elite. People being able to improve their health through self-help rather than going through the cartel-like medical system is a huge boon to healthcare accessibility and affordability. You can live in rural bumfuck nowhere and be able to access a YouTube lecture far far more easily than you will EVER be able to access a board-certified MD.
Sure, some of the things people like Huberman recommend are expensive, and they even shill for overpriced supplements like AG1 which you can get an equivalent of for cheaper. But this is the societal change that the author evidently wants to see happening, happening. The thing is, a lot of people on soapboxes simply think by vapidly complaining about inequality and societal injustice that they're doing something about it to the extent that they can't recognise when it's breaking down. They seem to have no sincere motivation to resolve societal level injustice, they just seem to have a personal motivation to be seen as an equity thought leader to enrich their own lives.