Ep. 12: Continuing the Conversation
EPISODE DESCRIPTION
Some topics just need a second conversation. This week, we revisit looksmaxxing culture, weirdness inside elite financial institutions, and Spotify's 20th birthday festivities exposing how many days of my life I’ve spent listening to Kygo. So naturally, we had to discuss all of it.
TRANSCRIPT
Some stories seem to disappear as quickly as they arrive. Others stick around because there’s still something worth discussing.
Looksmaxxing and the Pursuit of Perfection
If you’ve spent any time online recently, you’ve probably seen conversations about looksmaxxing. The topic has exploded across social media, podcasts, and news outlets, especially after a prominent looksmaxxing influencer reportedly overdosed during a livestream that generated enormous attention online.
The latest development comes from a Wall Street Journal article examining the growing use of peptides among young men who are trying to improve their appearance. The article focuses largely on Trevor Larkham, a former child actor who lost more than 100 pounds and now uses peptides as part of his effort to further refine his appearance.
What struck me most wasn’t necessarily the peptides themselves. It was the contradictions that appeared throughout the article.
One example involved an endocrinologist who advised a young man against using growth hormones and peptides because he was too young and didn’t have a medical need for them. At the same time, that same endocrinologist is involved with an organization advocating against restrictions on peptides.
Another example came from Trevor himself. According to the article, he expressed concern about teenagers using peptides because their bodies are still developing. Yet he remains comfortable using them in his own early twenties.
The pattern felt familiar: it’s okay for me, but not for you.
That mindset shows up everywhere. People often support behaviors when they benefit personally while criticizing those same behaviors when others engage in them. The problem is that once something is promoted publicly, it becomes very difficult to control who ultimately adopts it.
The article also discussed young adults obtaining peptides from overseas suppliers despite warnings about safety, quality control, and the possibility of counterfeit products. Even after consulting medical professionals who advised against it, some individuals chose to move forward anyway.
One quote from the article particularly stood out to me.
Trevor acknowledged that there may be risks associated with peptide use, including concerns raised by experiences within his own social circle. Yet he ultimately concluded that the possibility of looking a little better was worth the risk.
Not dramatically better.
Not life-changingly better.
Possibly a little better.
That distinction matters.
If you look at the photos included in the article, most people would probably agree that he already appears healthy, fit, and conventionally attractive. Which raises an uncomfortable question: if someone who already looks objectively great still feels compelled to keep pushing further, where exactly does the process end?
I’m not convinced it does.
The more I think about looksmaxxing, the less it seems like a fitness story and the more it seems like a perfection story. And perfection has a way of constantly moving the finish line.
The article also touched on a broader issue: trust.
Some people are willing to take unregulated substances purchased online while simultaneously rejecting more established medical recommendations. To be clear, not everyone using peptides falls into that category. But the tension is interesting. It suggests that people are increasingly placing trust in sources that promise visible, immediate results while becoming more skeptical of traditional institutions and regulatory systems.
For me, that may be one of the most important parts of the entire conversation. Looksmaxxing isn’t just about appearance. It’s revealing deeper questions about trust, authority, risk, and how people decide what advice they’re willing to follow.
Another Strange Story From Wall Street
Speaking of trust, another story caught my attention this week.
A New York Magazine article covered a lawsuit involving JPMorgan and allegations made by a former employee against a high-ranking executive. The allegations themselves are serious, but what interested me most wasn’t the specifics of the claims.
It was how difficult it has become to know what to believe.
According to the lawsuit, the plaintiff alleges sexual harassment, assault, coercion, and discrimination. The executive named in the suit has categorically denied the allegations. JPMorgan says it conducted an investigation and believes the claims lack merit.
On paper, that’s straightforward enough.
In reality, it feels far more complicated.
We’ve reached a point where public statements often carry very little weight on their own. Companies deny wrongdoing. Plaintiffs deny fabricating claims. Attorneys issue statements. Public relations teams craft responses. Everyone sounds confident, and everyone insists they’re telling the truth.
The result is a strange kind of uncertainty where nearly every statement feels incomplete.
The article also explored aspects of the plaintiff’s background, including reports from former teammates and coworkers who described him as ambitious, intense, and occasionally difficult to work with. His attorney dismissed those characterizations as attempts to discredit his client.
Again, who do you believe?
One detail especially stood out. According to the article, the plaintiff initially sought a $22 million settlement through an internal complaint process. JPMorgan reportedly countered with an offer of $1 million.
That immediately raised questions for me.
If a company truly believes allegations have absolutely no merit, why offer such a substantial settlement at all?
Of course, litigation is expensive. Reputations are valuable. Companies often settle for practical reasons. But it’s difficult to ignore the contradiction between publicly declaring confidence and privately offering significant money to resolve a dispute.
Then there were smaller details that added even more complexity, including questions surrounding statements about the death of a father figure who was initially described as the plaintiff’s father.
Individually, none of these details prove anything.
Collectively, they create a picture that feels messy, confusing, and difficult to evaluate from the outside.
And maybe that’s the larger takeaway.
Whether we’re talking about corporations, employees, politicians, celebrities, or public figures, trust feels increasingly difficult to establish. More information doesn’t always create more clarity. Sometimes it simply creates more uncertainty.
Spotify’s 20th Birthday and a Walk Down Memory Lane
Let’s end on something considerably lighter.
Spotify recently continued celebrating its 20th anniversary with a collection of personalized features that give listeners a chance to revisit their history on the platform.
One feature shows the first day you used Spotify and the first song you ever played.
For me, that song was “No Promises” by Cheat Codes and Demi Lovato.
That result made perfect sense. I’ve always loved remixes and covers, and while many people have been using Spotify for years, I arrived relatively late. I was a Pandora loyalist for a long time before finally making the switch.
Spotify also revealed that I’ve listened to 3,518 unique songs since joining the platform and identified my all-time most-streamed artist.
No surprise there.
It’s Kygo.
I’ve spent 5,458 minutes listening to his music, which works out to roughly 91 hours, or nearly four full days of my life. And honestly? I regret absolutely none of it.
The other feature I enjoyed was Spotify’s “All-Time Top Songs” playlist, which ranks your most-played tracks throughout your history on the platform.
My top five looked like this:
“For Life” – Kygo featuring Zak Abel
“The Feeling” – Kygo
“Brooklyn” – Patrick Droney
“Plum” – Troye Sivan
“Runaway” – P!nk
What fascinated me wasn’t just the rankings but the listening numbers attached to them. My top song had been played 160 times. Assuming an average song length of around three minutes, that’s roughly eight hours spent listening to a single track.
And somehow I’m still not tired of it.
If you’re a Spotify user, I’d highly recommend checking out these anniversary features. They’re a fun reminder of how much our music habits become part of our personal history.
Keep the Conversation Going
What tied all of these stories together for me wasn’t the specific subject matter.
It was the idea that some conversations deserve revisiting.
Sometimes there’s a new development. Sometimes there’s a new perspective. Sometimes enough time has passed that we can see the original story differently.
Whether we’re talking about looksmaxxing, trust in institutions, workplace culture, or simply the music we’ve spent years listening to, the discussion doesn’t always end when the headlines move on.
And that’s probably a good thing.
The more willing we are to keep asking questions, revisiting assumptions, and staying curious, the better chance we have of understanding what’s actually going on.
And if we can do that, there’s a pretty good chance it’s gonna be fine.
This transcript has been lightly edited for readability.
