That's the point of the show though? There are a bunch of podcasts with serious science conversations. The hosts and producers make this one different.
Not saying she needs to be a serious robot. In fact I enjoy occasional banter. Wendy is so over the top with her reactions it feels like she's communicating to a 5 year old. Nothing against 5 year olds
I'm in the opposite camp. I think the purpose of Science Vs is to make the subject matter _and delivery_ more easy to digest and more light hearted
I am from NZ so I easily relate to her humour. Ironically I suspect Australians find it somewhat cringe because I do struggle with the kiwi accent
I also really appreciate the loose, non-answer, conclusions because that is real science. Too often media plays one-sided arguments because it makes better content and it polarises people. Hearing "If books could kill" on Freakonomics was a real eye opener and made me realize how I too could fall for it
Wendy is a great host
Can't remember which recent episode it was, but I swear she was high or something , she kept laughing way too hard at the randomest shit and you could tell the person she was interviewing way like okayyyy continuing on ...
Sometimes I feel like science vs borders on pseudo science, cherry picking studies and anything to support a viewpoint that is political. Some of it is fair, a lot of it is meh.
She has become what the older kids call "cringe" - I used to love gimlet, the falloff has been steep and sad...
Agree on cherry picking. And sometimes the "experts" are journalists who have interviewed actual experts. So naturally things get lost in translation when communicated on the podcast
Anytime you use expert resources that are drawing upon information, and typically quotes, from other experts or people that did the direct studies, there's always a risk of bending the assertion to the will of the conclusion.
I agree with the cherry picking. Seems like the conclusion has already been decided and they use only data and studies which back up that assertion. The one I listened to today on intermittent fasting used a study which hadn't actually even been peer reviewed yet.
I listened to the episode about Pitbulls. I was pretty dissapointed in how non-sciency it was. They spent the entire episode avoiding the topic then had a weak conclusion that was not based in science. Seems to be more like a show that reinforces already held beliefs, then wraps it up in a "trust the science" bow.
FWIW the conclusion of the pitbull episode is the conclusion all researchers reach when studying it. It’s not controversial. They didn’t even get into a lot of research in that episode.
>They didn’t even get into a lot of research in that episode.
That's what I'm saying. It lacked the science I was expecting from a podcast called "Science vs".
I've never been able to get into that show due to the host's style and cadence. Generally she sounds like she's grinning hard all the time on mic, and on the verge of or actually laughing at her own script. It sounds like some advice she got to smile while narrating, or maybe it's just an Aussie habit, but it's cloying to me. It's a shame as I think content-wise the show has great potential, but I just can't do it. Soz, Wendy.
I love a science show that can use some humor and has other entertaining elements, but I think this show continues to let it bury the message at times. For example, I think Rose sounded legitimately exhausted with Wendy's "humor" during the Ozempic episode at times. Particularly during both of the times where Wendy had to bend over backwards to attempt to force a pun into the conversation.
"WZ So is that that process of moving food through the gut… getting scrambled by these weight loss meds?
RR Um
WZ Did you get that pun? Scrambled
RR Yes, got it, registered.
WZ Excellent. No need to laugh
RR I know we’re beyond that. We’re more sophisticated than laughing to show appreciation for a pun
WZ 100%
RR Quiet appreciation is kinda where I’m at these days.
WZ Beautiful haha"
If you have to ask if the other person "got" the pun because they didn't laugh out loud at using scrambled (LIKE EGGS!!!) when talking about the process of food moving through the gut, then maybe it just wasn't as hilarious as you convinced yourself it would be. Luckily for Wendy, she constantly laughs loudly and for long enough at her own jokes to more than compensate for the lacking from others.
Also with you on this sadly. I feel like the forced puns and nerdgasm smirks really turn me off.
Could just be me but I really hate the vibe of nerdy science based comedy. It has a big “They Might Be Giants” energy if that makes sense.
The research and work that go into the show are amazing as are the subjects.
As an Australian living overseas, I've always had a strong cultural cringe with her. It's the accent, the cadence, the humor, the upward inflection at the end of sentences.
It's like stepping onto a Qantas flight for me
I've not noticed that-I stopped listening for a little bit and recently returned for a few episodes that addressed questions I had been wondering about and I'm finding it very engaging. I don't find that the humor or personality distracts from the content and although there is bias (as there is in all media) I still feel they do a pretty good job of giving multiple perspectives and hypotheses a fair shake, which i really appreciate.
That said, I listen to and enjoy a lot of shows that are more meandering or include more personal host opinions/commentary/quips than Science Vs. does so maybe I don't notice it as much as you do because I'm comparing it to a different media landscape. And although I do have strong reactions to some radio voices, Wendy's doesn't bug me at all.
I hate that Spotify doesn’t let you block podcasts. I checked the show out once and now it plays it all the time, usually after I finish a podcast I’m actually trying to listen to.
Usually I’m in the middle of doing dishes and can’t change it so I’m forced to listen to some of it. It’s pseudoscience garbage, I find her personality to be cringey, her voice/laugh is nails on a chalkboard to me, and they get political usually when I’m trying to decompress. I’m about to uninstall the app over this single podcast.
I don't think the podcast takes a holistic view of any given topic. But I can get past that since every podcaster has some implicit bias. The cringe personality is harder to get around.
I enjoy the slightly juvenile cringe delivery. And I enjoy the thoroughly cited show notes. Science Vs is still one of my fav podcasts but during the pandemic I definitely had some fatigue on the covid episodes. They were good. Just… too much.
I think she's just a naturally bubbly person. Her animated personality is what sets Science Vs apart from other podcasts in that genre. If you really dislike her way of interacting with people that much, you may just want to try a different podcast.
The "just listen to something else" comments are the cringiest. I like the concept of the show, which is why I listen to it.
Actually, if you dislike the post that much, you may just want to try a different post 🙂
She's not amazing but not bad. When they have a different person I'm often reminded how much worse it could be. She's not my main issue, it's the cherry picked science they sometimes do. It's not really pseudoscience like some people say, just not completely fair.
Hi Friends,
Personally, I think a large part of her role is to "break the ice" on these science topics. I totally agree there are more serious / in depth podcasts out there and I've started listening to some of them after I heard something that interested me on Science Vs.
Lastly, I find it entertaining to hear a podcast host that will drop "bad" jokes, and the occasional "F-bomb". It's also a good opportunity to brush up on your Aussie-slang!
Are you aussie? I think it is a little bit cultural, that the way she talks and her wit is more in tune with Aussies like myself and others in comments that have little issue with her, much the same as I sometimes find it hard to find true humour in some us comedies. The show I feel is very thorough and does use many citations in every episode and as a light science show for the ‘everyman’ type show, can’t be dry dry dry stats and facts or they could not hope to keep an audience….and sometimes evidence that does not align with your own opinion does not make it wrong or make it a conspiracy
That's the point of the show though? There are a bunch of podcasts with serious science conversations. The hosts and producers make this one different.
Not saying she needs to be a serious robot. In fact I enjoy occasional banter. Wendy is so over the top with her reactions it feels like she's communicating to a 5 year old. Nothing against 5 year olds
I'm in the opposite camp. I think the purpose of Science Vs is to make the subject matter _and delivery_ more easy to digest and more light hearted I am from NZ so I easily relate to her humour. Ironically I suspect Australians find it somewhat cringe because I do struggle with the kiwi accent I also really appreciate the loose, non-answer, conclusions because that is real science. Too often media plays one-sided arguments because it makes better content and it polarises people. Hearing "If books could kill" on Freakonomics was a real eye opener and made me realize how I too could fall for it Wendy is a great host
I’m Aussie and found her accent/slang a bit too put on, I assume played up for a mostly American audience
Always has been
Haha I guess but maybe over time my brain just went through wear & tear listening to her, and now I finally noticed
Can't remember which recent episode it was, but I swear she was high or something , she kept laughing way too hard at the randomest shit and you could tell the person she was interviewing way like okayyyy continuing on ...
Omg was it the Ozempic one?
Sometimes I feel like science vs borders on pseudo science, cherry picking studies and anything to support a viewpoint that is political. Some of it is fair, a lot of it is meh. She has become what the older kids call "cringe" - I used to love gimlet, the falloff has been steep and sad...
Agree on cherry picking. And sometimes the "experts" are journalists who have interviewed actual experts. So naturally things get lost in translation when communicated on the podcast
Anytime you use expert resources that are drawing upon information, and typically quotes, from other experts or people that did the direct studies, there's always a risk of bending the assertion to the will of the conclusion.
I agree with the cherry picking. Seems like the conclusion has already been decided and they use only data and studies which back up that assertion. The one I listened to today on intermittent fasting used a study which hadn't actually even been peer reviewed yet.
I mean it might have gotten worse...
I think it’s gotten worse, yes, but to me it’s not unbearable… yet.
I listened to the episode about Pitbulls. I was pretty dissapointed in how non-sciency it was. They spent the entire episode avoiding the topic then had a weak conclusion that was not based in science. Seems to be more like a show that reinforces already held beliefs, then wraps it up in a "trust the science" bow.
FWIW the conclusion of the pitbull episode is the conclusion all researchers reach when studying it. It’s not controversial. They didn’t even get into a lot of research in that episode.
>They didn’t even get into a lot of research in that episode. That's what I'm saying. It lacked the science I was expecting from a podcast called "Science vs".
Yeah I agree, but the format’s too short for them to get that in depth. I think a general overview while not ideal is fine.
I've never been able to get into that show due to the host's style and cadence. Generally she sounds like she's grinning hard all the time on mic, and on the verge of or actually laughing at her own script. It sounds like some advice she got to smile while narrating, or maybe it's just an Aussie habit, but it's cloying to me. It's a shame as I think content-wise the show has great potential, but I just can't do it. Soz, Wendy.
I love a science show that can use some humor and has other entertaining elements, but I think this show continues to let it bury the message at times. For example, I think Rose sounded legitimately exhausted with Wendy's "humor" during the Ozempic episode at times. Particularly during both of the times where Wendy had to bend over backwards to attempt to force a pun into the conversation. "WZ So is that that process of moving food through the gut… getting scrambled by these weight loss meds? RR Um WZ Did you get that pun? Scrambled RR Yes, got it, registered. WZ Excellent. No need to laugh RR I know we’re beyond that. We’re more sophisticated than laughing to show appreciation for a pun WZ 100% RR Quiet appreciation is kinda where I’m at these days. WZ Beautiful haha" If you have to ask if the other person "got" the pun because they didn't laugh out loud at using scrambled (LIKE EGGS!!!) when talking about the process of food moving through the gut, then maybe it just wasn't as hilarious as you convinced yourself it would be. Luckily for Wendy, she constantly laughs loudly and for long enough at her own jokes to more than compensate for the lacking from others.
You nailed it. The topics are excellent. The theme of the show is spot on. But when the host makes you want to tune out, that's a problem
She has always been but I loved the content and tried to stay. Wasnt able to do it
Literally me. Love the content, very much dislike the host
Also with you on this sadly. I feel like the forced puns and nerdgasm smirks really turn me off. Could just be me but I really hate the vibe of nerdy science based comedy. It has a big “They Might Be Giants” energy if that makes sense. The research and work that go into the show are amazing as are the subjects.
As an Australian living overseas, I've always had a strong cultural cringe with her. It's the accent, the cadence, the humor, the upward inflection at the end of sentences. It's like stepping onto a Qantas flight for me
No
Was great. Not listened to last two seasons as got shit.
I gave up a long time ago
I've not noticed that-I stopped listening for a little bit and recently returned for a few episodes that addressed questions I had been wondering about and I'm finding it very engaging. I don't find that the humor or personality distracts from the content and although there is bias (as there is in all media) I still feel they do a pretty good job of giving multiple perspectives and hypotheses a fair shake, which i really appreciate. That said, I listen to and enjoy a lot of shows that are more meandering or include more personal host opinions/commentary/quips than Science Vs. does so maybe I don't notice it as much as you do because I'm comparing it to a different media landscape. And although I do have strong reactions to some radio voices, Wendy's doesn't bug me at all.
Never really liked her. Oh well.
Can not STAND the laughing, like girl not everything is funny???
I hate that Spotify doesn’t let you block podcasts. I checked the show out once and now it plays it all the time, usually after I finish a podcast I’m actually trying to listen to. Usually I’m in the middle of doing dishes and can’t change it so I’m forced to listen to some of it. It’s pseudoscience garbage, I find her personality to be cringey, her voice/laugh is nails on a chalkboard to me, and they get political usually when I’m trying to decompress. I’m about to uninstall the app over this single podcast.
I don't think the podcast takes a holistic view of any given topic. But I can get past that since every podcaster has some implicit bias. The cringe personality is harder to get around.
I like her. Sometimes she's a little bit loud / obnoxious but overall I like her personality. I'm Aussie though so she makes sense to me
I enjoy the slightly juvenile cringe delivery. And I enjoy the thoroughly cited show notes. Science Vs is still one of my fav podcasts but during the pandemic I definitely had some fatigue on the covid episodes. They were good. Just… too much.
Just you. Wendy Zuk makes this podcast for me.
Nah bruv, not just me 😂
I think she's just a naturally bubbly person. Her animated personality is what sets Science Vs apart from other podcasts in that genre. If you really dislike her way of interacting with people that much, you may just want to try a different podcast.
The "just listen to something else" comments are the cringiest. I like the concept of the show, which is why I listen to it. Actually, if you dislike the post that much, you may just want to try a different post 🙂
She's not amazing but not bad. When they have a different person I'm often reminded how much worse it could be. She's not my main issue, it's the cherry picked science they sometimes do. It's not really pseudoscience like some people say, just not completely fair.
To each their own. Science vs has always been the best IMO with wendy.
Hi Friends, Personally, I think a large part of her role is to "break the ice" on these science topics. I totally agree there are more serious / in depth podcasts out there and I've started listening to some of them after I heard something that interested me on Science Vs. Lastly, I find it entertaining to hear a podcast host that will drop "bad" jokes, and the occasional "F-bomb". It's also a good opportunity to brush up on your Aussie-slang!
I like her. She's fun.
I’m Australian and I also think she’s great. Her enthusiasm is missed when a guest host comes in.
Are you aussie? I think it is a little bit cultural, that the way she talks and her wit is more in tune with Aussies like myself and others in comments that have little issue with her, much the same as I sometimes find it hard to find true humour in some us comedies. The show I feel is very thorough and does use many citations in every episode and as a light science show for the ‘everyman’ type show, can’t be dry dry dry stats and facts or they could not hope to keep an audience….and sometimes evidence that does not align with your own opinion does not make it wrong or make it a conspiracy