This seems like the perfect time to recall Peter Drucker's famous (apocryphal?) line about himself: We are using the word “guru” only because “charlatan” is too long to fit into a headline.
Just exchange guru for expert and you've got the essence of your excellent post.
Mike, thank you for that chuckle. I really wish there were a two-syllable word for chiseler, because I have feeling that word will animate a few more headlines here.
Love your pieces on sub stack! I’m a 65 year-old women’s health nurse practitioner who has been prescribing hormone replacement therapy for 20 years (after doing the appropriate, extensive research). I remember exactly where I was on the July 2002 morning when by Matt Lauer, on The Today Show announced HRT caused breast cancer, increased cardiac events and blood clots. I’ve done the research, read the studies, and have been prescribing by bioidentical hormone replacement for over 20 years. Not exactly sure why I felt the need to share all of that~ Except to say there are many people making claims, claiming to be experts that simply aren’t experts. Personally, if I had the opportunity to get health (or any) advice from your 90-year-old grandmother in Sardinia that’s where I head. Thanks for sharing all of the valuable insight!!!!
Josephine, i'd call you an expert before any of the three folks mentioned in the post. The experts we all want to hear from tend to be those who aren't talking the loudest or posing for Instagram.
Yes Tom, of course you are correct. In comparison to the "influencer" cohort, the only true criteria you need is... how much attention can you grab regardless of whether you know what you are talking about or not. Pretty sad state of affairs.
I listen to a several different PhD researchers. Of course they don't all agree, and I don't take anyone as gospel because nobody is. So I then just make my own decisions on what seems to make sense. No bottom line always right guru.
Heidi, thank you for posting this. I do the same: sample a range of ostensibly credible sources, toss out the ones that disqualify themselves (for any one of myriad reasons) and then total up the advice of those who remain and triangulate my path forward, if there is one. It's not so different from geographic orienteering (which I've never done as a sport).
Hyman's book "Young Forever" is a goldmine of longevity information and cutting edge diagnostics. The title is glib but I'm guessing that's due to the publisher's insistence.
I am 82 but not an "expert" on anyone else's aging issues, and a "learning everyday" expert on my own (because I experience the results); I'm good example of paying attention to, understanding and incorporating research and advice. One particularly influential experience was a few years of many visits with an orthomolecular psychiatrist in the early 70s. it was mind blowing to discover schizophrenia had been cured in the late 50s with nutrients and much more.
This made me laugh really hard. What a world we live in! I developed a body of work in my late 50s that I called “Becoming Ageless As We Age.” The primary premise of it was that *regret* is oxidative to our soul and consequently to our body. So the focus was on clearing regrets from the past so that we could, in the words of Louise Hay, “make the rest of our life the best of our life.”
In my book, in order to be a “longevity expert,” one has to have lived long enough to have those regrets—the marriage proposal I didn’t accept, the career decision that ended up bust—no regrets, no wisdom, no “expertise.” 🦉
I get your point Paul, and agree there is some validity to it. But I also believe there is validity in someone spending hundreds of hours researching and studying the data on longevity from large populations of individuals who have been aging for long periods of time, as well as people who have aged out. I’m a retired Clinical Psychologist. Should I have waited until I developed a psychological problem before I tried to help someone else (not that we don’t all have some level of psychological problems!)? If I was a physician, would I have to wait until I developed a physical problem before I could help someone with that problem? All I’m saying is there might be a limit on limiting people’s well earned expertise in a field within which they themselves have never experienced the issue for which they have spent so much of their time developing some expertise. And BTW, I don’t believe in the term expert, as it is often implied and/or inferred to mean the equivalent of “settled science” - the person has learned everything they need to know on a subject. As we all know, “settled science” is anathema to true science, and I believe similarly with “expert”. Field’s of knowledge are always in flux, and you’re never an expert because you can’t know everything. Isn’t that why all of us in the healthcare field say that we are in the “practice” of…?
Well said. Thank you for that nuance. My way of evaluating people calling themselves experts on aging and longevity is to focus on their motivations and how loudly they're talking and who they associate with. You can learn a lot about their expertise, or facsimile thereof, by looking at those things.
The difference between yourself as a physician with years of training and the so called influencer expert is that this alleged expert typically has no MD in longevity or anything else and their expertise is basically self designated. As a physician, you may not have performed a specific procedure but I bet you have some knowledge about it.
This seems like the perfect time to recall Peter Drucker's famous (apocryphal?) line about himself: We are using the word “guru” only because “charlatan” is too long to fit into a headline.
Just exchange guru for expert and you've got the essence of your excellent post.
Mike, thank you for that chuckle. I really wish there were a two-syllable word for chiseler, because I have feeling that word will animate a few more headlines here.
Con man, swindler
Love your pieces on sub stack! I’m a 65 year-old women’s health nurse practitioner who has been prescribing hormone replacement therapy for 20 years (after doing the appropriate, extensive research). I remember exactly where I was on the July 2002 morning when by Matt Lauer, on The Today Show announced HRT caused breast cancer, increased cardiac events and blood clots. I’ve done the research, read the studies, and have been prescribing by bioidentical hormone replacement for over 20 years. Not exactly sure why I felt the need to share all of that~ Except to say there are many people making claims, claiming to be experts that simply aren’t experts. Personally, if I had the opportunity to get health (or any) advice from your 90-year-old grandmother in Sardinia that’s where I head. Thanks for sharing all of the valuable insight!!!!
Josephine, i'd call you an expert before any of the three folks mentioned in the post. The experts we all want to hear from tend to be those who aren't talking the loudest or posing for Instagram.
Yes Tom, of course you are correct. In comparison to the "influencer" cohort, the only true criteria you need is... how much attention can you grab regardless of whether you know what you are talking about or not. Pretty sad state of affairs.
I listen to a several different PhD researchers. Of course they don't all agree, and I don't take anyone as gospel because nobody is. So I then just make my own decisions on what seems to make sense. No bottom line always right guru.
Heidi, thank you for posting this. I do the same: sample a range of ostensibly credible sources, toss out the ones that disqualify themselves (for any one of myriad reasons) and then total up the advice of those who remain and triangulate my path forward, if there is one. It's not so different from geographic orienteering (which I've never done as a sport).
💯
Hyman's book "Young Forever" is a goldmine of longevity information and cutting edge diagnostics. The title is glib but I'm guessing that's due to the publisher's insistence.
I am 82 but not an "expert" on anyone else's aging issues, and a "learning everyday" expert on my own (because I experience the results); I'm good example of paying attention to, understanding and incorporating research and advice. One particularly influential experience was a few years of many visits with an orthomolecular psychiatrist in the early 70s. it was mind blowing to discover schizophrenia had been cured in the late 50s with nutrients and much more.
I'll look into his book. What were your top takeaways from it, of the diagnostics that helped you the most, if you don't mind me asking?
This made me laugh really hard. What a world we live in! I developed a body of work in my late 50s that I called “Becoming Ageless As We Age.” The primary premise of it was that *regret* is oxidative to our soul and consequently to our body. So the focus was on clearing regrets from the past so that we could, in the words of Louise Hay, “make the rest of our life the best of our life.”
In my book, in order to be a “longevity expert,” one has to have lived long enough to have those regrets—the marriage proposal I didn’t accept, the career decision that ended up bust—no regrets, no wisdom, no “expertise.” 🦉
Marcella, that all sounds right to me. Regret as oxidative to our souls — hat tip to you, madame. Wish I had thought of that phrase.
What gets me is the faux sincerity of the typical social media-optimized longevity flâneur.
Oh I know, it's complete garbage. Pay it no mind. They're all just the flavor of the month. I would never deign to give them my precious attention.
I get your point Paul, and agree there is some validity to it. But I also believe there is validity in someone spending hundreds of hours researching and studying the data on longevity from large populations of individuals who have been aging for long periods of time, as well as people who have aged out. I’m a retired Clinical Psychologist. Should I have waited until I developed a psychological problem before I tried to help someone else (not that we don’t all have some level of psychological problems!)? If I was a physician, would I have to wait until I developed a physical problem before I could help someone with that problem? All I’m saying is there might be a limit on limiting people’s well earned expertise in a field within which they themselves have never experienced the issue for which they have spent so much of their time developing some expertise. And BTW, I don’t believe in the term expert, as it is often implied and/or inferred to mean the equivalent of “settled science” - the person has learned everything they need to know on a subject. As we all know, “settled science” is anathema to true science, and I believe similarly with “expert”. Field’s of knowledge are always in flux, and you’re never an expert because you can’t know everything. Isn’t that why all of us in the healthcare field say that we are in the “practice” of…?
Well said. Thank you for that nuance. My way of evaluating people calling themselves experts on aging and longevity is to focus on their motivations and how loudly they're talking and who they associate with. You can learn a lot about their expertise, or facsimile thereof, by looking at those things.
The difference between yourself as a physician with years of training and the so called influencer expert is that this alleged expert typically has no MD in longevity or anything else and their expertise is basically self designated. As a physician, you may not have performed a specific procedure but I bet you have some knowledge about it.
I’m curious about your thoughts on Peter Attia. He seems to be a major influence in the Longevity movement.
Agreed. Thanks for posting this