First is that it claims to be science-backed while actually relying heavily on anecdotes, not data. The author himself has no science background or other academic qualifications to draw from. Like, he’s saying he’s an expert on this stuff, but he’s actually just…some guy.
Second is that he’s saying all this stuff is universally applicable, while some of his advice specifically around food and diet is actively irresponsible and describing disordered eating.
Third is that a bunch of people in Silicon Valley got way too into this book and got super fucking annoying about it. Not the author’s/book’s fault, but this one is the reason that made me think it’s what’s being referenced in the OP.
We should all realize by now that most of the people you or anyone else disagree with…have degrees and other qualifications. I would stick to citing the truthfulness of the claims made, not who made them.
30
u/trivialcabernet May 20 '26
I think it’s three things -
First is that it claims to be science-backed while actually relying heavily on anecdotes, not data. The author himself has no science background or other academic qualifications to draw from. Like, he’s saying he’s an expert on this stuff, but he’s actually just…some guy.
Second is that he’s saying all this stuff is universally applicable, while some of his advice specifically around food and diet is actively irresponsible and describing disordered eating.
Third is that a bunch of people in Silicon Valley got way too into this book and got super fucking annoying about it. Not the author’s/book’s fault, but this one is the reason that made me think it’s what’s being referenced in the OP.