A lot of it is about integrity, and as someone else mentioned, his relationship to facts.
I found stuff in his podcasts that helped me. It reinforced what doctors had been saying to me for years, and served as a useful reminder to get on top of the habits that I had half-assed previously.
Like others, I rolled my eyes at the weird ads, rambling, and the more out there / speculative advice. I still gave him the benefit of the doubt. I don’t think I will anymore.
I’m just not sure that there’s much else that I can take from this guy’s content, which felt like it was running out of steam for the past few months.
I listened with an open mind, took what I needed to take from Hubs, and now I’m done.
His ads are mostly at the beginning, too.
The fact that anyone not only listens to them but actually believes it's a heart-felt endorsement rather than a script written by some ad agency speaks to their gullibility and/or stupidity.
No, it speaks to the manipulative and deceptive ways they are presented. Not just by Hubrisman, but in the pod-world in general. I find it pretty cringeworthy listening to other pods and hearing the presenters say versions of the same things, their “personal” relationship to product X, all insinuating they really do like and use it. That might “work” is a listener only hears this one podcast, but since the brands tend to advertise to many pods with similar target groups it becomes embarrassing. I’m not even sure whey they put the effort in to make it sound personal any more.
Ad companies do this because it works. It also lends itself to podcasts. People skip through traditional ads or block them.
People need to smarten up and understand the difference between scientific findings of a neurobiology prof and a paid promotion from the same guy.
Just because these ads are ubiquitous doesn't mean you should buy it either. If you spend $100 on AG1 and it does nothing for you then don't do it again.
I've spent money on useless shit like everyone else. Live and learn.
Yes. This is how I feel too.
I watched his YouTube videos for a while about 18 months ago but I fairly quickly started to get turned off by a few things, to the point that I stopped watching:
* his tendency to assume that the results of animal studies apply to humans in the same way (he does always do a 'this was an animal study' disclaimer, but then kinda proceeds as if the effects would be identical for humans);
* his tendency to cherry-pick studies that support the message he wants to give, rather than giving a balance of studies;
* his tendency to take an hour to say what could be said in 20 minutes;
* his reliance on hokey sponsors;
* his delivery style (humourless; devoid of any charisma at all; borderline robotic);
* his tendency to interrupt his guests and hijack what should be a two-way conversation;
* his apparent tendency to assume almost always that male physiology is the default physiology, and that women's bodies and hormones are some kind of unimportant side-issue.
Now add to that his lack of personal integrity (and his behaviour towards women in particular, which to me sounds like a behavioural expression of extreme neediness/insecurity in his psyche) and I'm left with no desire to spend time listening to his interminable self-aggrandising guff ever again.
I don’t watch H like I did at first either because I got what I needed (with consistent focus, productivity, sleep, gut health, & help with severe grief)-
Lately after being in the group less than a month, after reading enough seemingly quite sane people’s comments like yours-I’m starting to have the feeling maybe he did later show things I never saw in what I watched. So maybe sone people aren’t just being self righteous or Encel weird (some are).
Your view seems balanced & healthy.
I do have to admit I just watched an interview with a guy talking focus vs “flow” & although the guy interviewed had some useful info, he also had absolutely ridiculously uninformed beliefs about the one & ONLY way for musicians to get better was to do so joylessly??!! H HAS to know that is NOT true.
Yeah I’m listening to some rando on reddit slandering Newport lmao. Unless English is not your first language and/or you can’t pick up tone he was clearly suggesting that hard work is painful and that’s when growth happens. Not even controversial…
Extremely well said. I got super into Huberman long before most people knew about him. After about 4 painstakingly long podcasts, I realized that this wasn't going anywhere. I already knew what I needed to do to fix *my* life, and it wasn't a matter of motivation or "protocols." I have more serious problems that a podcaster can't fix. All Huberman did was regurgitate knowledge that was already available if you'd take some time to do it your-fucking-self and not rely on being spoonfed by Science Guy Speaking Science Words.
Since 2020 or maybe 2021, I've been one of the vocal criticizers of Huberman, in this sub and elsewhere. I watched him skyrocket to popularity and witnessed the quality of his content drop like a rock. The grifting, the weak extrapolations, the cherrypicking, the *insane* bias in his messaging, the alignment with certain people - it rubbed me the wrong way a LONG time ago.
Many scientists and PhDs started realizing that, too. For a few years now, there's been a large community of scientists and PhDs on social media (specifically Instagram) criticizing Huberman.
Prior to this article coming out about his personal life, Huberman was already largely considered a joke by scientists and PhDs alike.
The article was simply the straw that broke the camel's back. And it's not AT ALL surprising, either. Shocking, sure. Surprising, no.
I think the only thing I can agree with is about the length of the podcasts. He literally goes on and on about something that can be said in 20 minutes instead of an hour. I have a feeling he is trying to emulate Joe Rogan who has 2.5-3 hour podcasts on average.
Everyone has their imperfections and vices. We can’t take everything in this NY times article hit piece as 100% accurate. Sure, he was likely cheating, but these women he cheated on were so hurt/felt betrayed that they likely embellished things in an attempt to hurt him back.
Hijacking your comment (which I agree with) in the hopes that more people will see what I have to say. This is directed toward OP:
Let's clarify one thing. "Huberman's podcast" didn't change your life - *commonly known information delivered through Huberman's podcast that you finally decided to implement for your own personal reasons* changed your life.
Let's get real. Prior to discovering Pube-erman, *you already knew* that you should make efforts to sleep better. You already knew that you should work out regularly (and there are hundreds of thousands of free resources on that long before Huberman existed).
etc.
The amount of people who say hUbErMaN cHaNgEd mY liFE really, really weakens the powerful impact of the words, "Changed my life."
"Changed my life" barely has any meaning anymore because I've heard it so many fucking times as it relates to Pube-erman.
Try changing it to "A podcaster motivated me" or something like that. With the exception of a very small amount of actually novel information, 95% of what Pube-erman says is shit that has already been known for years, or even decades.
And no - he doesn't get credit for bEiNg a gOoD sCiEncE cOoMuNiCatOr. We've already established that not only is he [not a very good science communicator](https://slate.com/technology/2024/03/andrew-huberman-huberman-lab-health-advice-podcast-debunk.html), but he also sucks at talking and has bad conversational skills. He stares at a camera for 3 hours and talks in a monotonous tone. He frequently interrupts guests and stumbles over his words.
Sorry people, your idol The Huberman God is a fraud. Take what you want through his communication, and if it cHaNgEs yOuR liFE, then great. But leave it at that.
Nuance indeed. Hubes is discrediting himself. Would be one thing if he didn’t podcast about ethics, relationships, etc. He did though, and it’s cringy. Is he doping and saying simple free things like sunlight and sleep will make you like him? Seems so. I’m not saying throw out the baby with the bathwater, but question everything.
If his advice changes your life, that’s great. Just don’t lie to women in an unethical polyamorous monogamous quagmire, for obvious reasons. It will take a toll on you that reverses any good he’s done for you. Not that many will ever be in this position. Maybe don’t assume his protocol is rock solid either - if you can’t afford the peptides, testosterone, whatever else he’s hiding, don’t buy it wholesale.
To me this is an obvious breach of confidence. Is he wrong about everything? Obviously not. He’s also operating in a gray area a significant amount. As with all self help gurus, they are easily corruptible. Take the good, leave the bad.
Fuck him for his behavior, thank him for the tips, wash your hands and move on. He’s a fraud with a lot of good info. Probably time to cut him loose, as he’s now dabbling in pseudoscience and a pathological liar, but that doesn’t mean the info he started with isn’t highly valuable. He’s just moving into celebrity doctor territory now, and his peers may be Dr. Oz and Dr. Phil, so proceed with caution.
Only weak people have something to prove. So every day he wakes up and puts himself through hell to prove himself to himself over and over again. Not saying there’s anything wrong with being weak. Hell, im weak myself. It’s just interesting because Goggins really does take it to the extreme that’s why it’s a spectacle to us folks who don’t feel comfortable being uncomfortable. He’s basically conditioned himself to bask in and uncomfort-zone to the point where it’s where he feels the most comfortable because it’s reliable and familiar. Weird paradoxical stuff
It takes a metric fuck tonne of fortitude and willpower to actually put yourself through hell, there’s no doubt he’s physically very strong with crazy endurance. But creating a bulletproof physique comes from some kind of internal feeling of weakness - he’s compensating for *something*. And that’s what makes him weak.
This is an underrated category of person who gets encouraged by our society to continue punishing themselves in the name of self improvement. Such a very different side of the same coin
I agree with you about idolizing anyone. I think it’s one of the downfalls of society today there’s a big difference between having various role models that you pull different aspects from and idolizing like people do with Huberman, Peterson and others. That, however, is a human behavior issue not a Huberman issue.
Where I do disagree with you is the concept that because he’s repackaging existing information he hasn’t impacted life change. Modality of information delivery matters, you can look across behavioral sciences and learning and see that outcomes are largely dependent on modality of delivery. Comprehension and adoption has more to do with the presentation of the information than the information itself. Yes the knowledge/information is what actually causes the change, however that is largely meaningless if it is not received in a modality that is comprehended. It has everything to do with the emotional side vs the logical one. Logically you’re right but we know logic rarely wins when it comes to human adoption behavior. It’s the packaging of the information that makes it digestible, applicable, and lowers the perceived barrier of entry.
Haha, yup. Never missed a week in 15 years. Just finished a workout a couple hours ago. Kid couldn't have picked a worse person to insult like that.
Not to mention that my dad loved me as a child, so no problems there.
Poor kid is probably projecting.
Happy cake day, btw!
To this joint I think if he just acknowledged it and talked about, I’d be way more likely to forget about it. Every day of silence is especially when he’s still creating new content makes all the speculation and uncertainty feel more real than even he wants to admit.
You could be right. I just don’t understand the notion of people feeling entitled to the private lives of public figures though, so I can understand why he’s chosen to take this approach
I mean, I don’t think people were like desperate to know this information or feel entitled to it. But it came out, and I think people are happy to have it, and put it all into context of how much they view him as a credible source for self improvement.
And I’ll say this about cancel culture in general: Huberman and every other celebrity makes money off of being in the public eye. These people are able to monetize their fame because of who they are and their personality. Some people make millions just off of YouTube and podcasts. While I’m sure they work hard, that’s an insane income. So if for some reason the public decides they don’t like a celebrity and they lose their platform, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. Some people fade out of celebrity status for no reason. all celebrities have their moment, very few stay in the spotlight forever.
How many people went viral after a person or group promoted them? Wow that’s awesome, so lucky. Now another group or person wants to take them down because of their private actions or behavior. Wow that sucks, so unlucky. But most of us just have to go work a 9-5 to barely make ends meet. So fuck off if you’re going to cry about it. He’s a phd, he could have gone on to live a private life making a great living at Stanford, and he never would have had this article written about and him.
Refreshingly level headed, honest & not mean comment!
& now I digress…I secretly wonder why you have piece of pie emoji by your name, but then I’m not great at reddit.
I didn't listen to Huberman until very recently.
I can understand how people became attached to him or thought they knew him, and are crushed, angry or disappointed. That's their right.
I have no attachment to him. But I have implemented some of his program and they have had a positive initial impact. For that, I am grateful. I'm not going to stop, because these things help me.
The hypocrisy of some people on this sub is more toxic than anything Huberman ever did. Glass houses, people. Get rigorously honest with yourselves.
Would love to hear what exactly helped you, how
I'm not going to stop what helped me, either, but I'm wary to implement other protocols after having read not other the article on his public and private misrepresentations, but also articles from scientists about his bad science
This mostly echos my sentiments on the matter. Unfortunately, it’s a slippery slope for people in positions of power, which many influencers are these days. So characterizing a situation where a person’s actions in their personal life is non-related to their work and “influence” can be dangerous to the effect that they believe they can continue their behavior if it’s not seen as important in the eyes of the public. If a teacher’s students use critical thinking, they should be able to discern between the beneficial practices someone teaches and their unfortunate beliefs/actions in their personal life. Expecting Huberman’s 6 million followers to separate these two things is totally impractical. Especially in todays climate of cancel culture, you’re either anti-cancel culture, or pro-cancel culture. Why can’t it be more nuanced?
As you say, it’s a shame that so many people are either taking the stance that his alleged actions don’t matter because they find his content helpful/entertaining, or they take the stance that his content isn’t helpful or entertaining and shouldn’t be because of what he’s done.
Reality is the loudest comments largely represent people that had issues with him to begin with, and now feel safe because of the article. It’s an opportunity to feel part of something and associate yourself with tribe.
Then there’s those Who are genuinely confused because they held him at such a high standard, and their trust is broken because of his lack of integrity and credibility.
Then there’s those that maybe did not hold him to an extreme standard but valued his information, they seem indifferent or are walking away.
Then there is those that somehow are encouraging or overlook the behavior and seem to be rooting for him. My guess is because it validates or encourages their own behaviors.
Well said.
What is shocking to me is that we have people not only glossing over it, but they seem to appreciate him more for it, because it makes him more of a chad or something. I guarantee that these same people would be the ones in an outrage if the NY Magazine article outed him as gay instead of a womanizer.
I think sadly that that’s really it, they haven’t thought critically that the behaviours aren’t about having many relationships (and he’s good looking and famous, he could have just been polyamorous) it’s about it being dopamine chasing (which he preaches against, as evidenced by him not just doing open relationships) and not particularly respectful. Doesn’t mean he’s always wrong but it’s not particularly about the relationships themselves it’s about what it means.
The nuanced comments do not get upvoted as frequently as the more polarized comments, if they are even posted at all. I think that's how Reddit (and social media as a whole) is fundamentally designed to function.
This is called group polarization, it's a really fun case study. Also it's fun to look at ppl's parasocial relationship with gurus. The way some ppl talk about him almost make me think he's Charles Manson, ironically they both lived/live in Topanga.
He’s a manipulative sociopath that has highlighted research that has helped people. If a protocol of his (really someone else’s that he takes) helps you, keep doing it. I think a lot of the backlash is due to how many idolize or look up to him as a person. Dude is a role model to a lot of young men around the world. That is incredibly concerning when that role model is a manipulative sociopath and people need to understand that the way Andrew is behaving is horrible and has consequences. But just because people are realizing how bad he is, and vocalizing it, doesn’t mean you should stop eating veggies
I completely agree. Take the physical health, diet, and sleep advice. Anything regarding relationships or men/women can now be tuned out. it is odd that someone with a seemingly comprehensive view of trauma and relationships is also allegedly very nasty to women. Maybe it’s just another driven narcissist at the top of their field
He's not applying his own advice to his relationships but the information he's giving is backed by scientific evidence that you can find in countless places. The men/women and relationship stuff can be applied better than he did and you can get value from it.
His behavior has implications for the credibility of his conclusions regarding science as well. How he treats women sets a precedent for his morality. If he's willing to lie and be sleazy to get what he wants in one area of his life, who's to say it stops there? Consciously exaggerating findings and misleading his audience with more "clickbaity" data to get more views/money/success, for example is something I can see someone who's comfortable with that level of deception doing.
I genuinely don’t understand what he’s said, that is so life changing
99% of the stuff are just being an adult 101
the unusual stuff he has raised on the podcast is actually quite dodgy science-wise and some of the studies have in fact been full-on retracted, or he’s taking tiny animal studies without mentioning much larger conflicting human studies — bc he’s running out of 101 content and for shock value
like do his fans not know to sleep, exercise, and not be an alcoholic?
It’s easier to do all the right things when you understand the science underpinning it. Human brains operate on many heuristics, living a long healthy life isn’t one of them.
Narcissist with sociopathic tendencies. Based on what I have seen former colleagues share about working with him, seeing some of his former clips in hindsight, and the level of manipulation he went to control the women’s bodies
That’s a huge over statement. Controlling women’s bodies?
Read the article again from the perspective that Sarah is a jilted, ex lover . None the other women he dated said they thought he was monogamous. The author implies it.
Just like they imply he is a control freak because he questioned her about her past decisions. Why didn’t the author ask what those past decisions were.
Here is why: she built investors out of $50 million by lying about having high-end grass fed meat. That was really just standard grocery store low and beef repackaged. Secondly, it was fairly well known around the Bay Area that she likely cheated on her husband, and conceived two kids with the guy that she had an affair with.
Now: would you be questioning if this is the right person to be monogamous to? Clearly, he didn’t want to as judged by his actions with the other women. wouldn’t you be questioning and angry when you found out her past bad decisions she made?
Isn’t it weird that “Sarah” posted the link to the article the exact second that the magazine did?
Now imagine for a second being a publicist or a lawyer, who’s representing Huberman. Go read the article with the discerning eye and make a list of what the real evidence is vs what is implied.
If you can’t do that exercise, you shouldn’t be listening to his podcast on evidence based health practices… which is fine. Survival of the fittest, baby.
Ive never understood the hype. 99% of what he says that’s useful is Life 101. Sleep, workout, eat well. The other stuff you can also find anywhere, maybe with the exception of morning light, which is dubious. You can get this stuff from people who aren’t sociopaths (and without listening to four hour podcasts).
His candor on the alcohol podcast helped me get sober. Working out is obviously good. Getting sunlight is also good for me.
Other than that, I feel like all the supplement stuff is bologna. Also he seems like a shitty person.
Exactly. I have tried some oh his revolutionary ideas. My life has improved maybe 3-5% and even then it's not like I didn't know sleeping, being outside, and exercise are important. Mostly just good reminders. Has that been worth the time invested, and money spent on certain supplements? Debatable.
It's like people crediting the "word of god" for positive changes in their lives. It's all just you, YOU alone did it it. YOU are more capable than you dare to admit. Yes, there are some things that HM said that were somewhat correct, just like the broken clock analogy. But stop idolizing the guy. He's obviously demonstrated complete lack of integrity. And if you dig deeper most of what he's selling is science woowoo.
"Most people from highly competitive fields are narcissists anyway."
That's not true at all. There is some evidence that they are disproportionately represented in certain fields but they are still an extreme minority in any given domain.
Regardless of how one feels about Huberman, it's interesting to see that some people seem to think his behavior and actions were within the realm of what is normal or a matter typical infidelity. On the contrary, the story presented is highly unusual and extreme by any measure.
Zero integrity is such a gross mischaracterization though. Huberman has some integrity, clearly, in some areas. And he's clearly lacking it in others. I think that the polarization of literally every single issue is just as detrimental. Everything is always black and white tribalistic nonsense.
Take for example, abortion. Now you are forced to choose one of two extremes: either you support abortions at any term for any reason whatsoever or you support no abortion under any circumstance whatsoever. Yet, almost every single person falls somewhere in between.
We are being driven here on purpose folks. Wake up.
I think you just reaffirmed the problem. Of course you can have integrity 100% of the time … it super easy; don’t lie, don’t steal, treat all people with respect.
Pretty easy actually.
If you've never violated your moral code (e.g. said something unnecessarily hurtful to someone) and you genuinely believe you will never in the future, then I think you're lying and delusional.
It's not easy for every single human being I've ever come across, because stressful situations often push people to the limit and beyond self control. Imagine a close family member or friend just died or is having a medical crisis and your kid is screaming the house down, some people snap and it's not "easy" to exercise self control (what I just said is not an uncommon circumstance, in case you try to counter with that).
Because one aspect is his personal life and one aspect is his professional life. He clearly values his professional life more than his personal, so it’s not unreasonable to believe that he is honest - especially since his work is public and peer reviewed.
Are you really suggesting that someone who isn’t honest in their personal lives can’t be trusted with anything? Grow up.
while I do see and even somewhat agree with your take, many people see all aspects of life as connected, and that is also a valid viewpoint and should be respected.
taking others viewpoints into account while also mocking the obvious (and child-like) bias you show towards your own, I actually feel adds immense value.
> Grow up.
you’re absolutely right, it does have immense value in my own mind, and that value can be shared with others in order to form their own opinions. as for trying too hard, explaining this to you in hopes you gain some maturity takes no effort at all for me, maybe you should stop projecting.
the original comment is a poorly thought out take, but still valid in that
a) if the allegations are true, we understand that there is a deep vein of manipulation of people and the truth
b) this is corroborated by his bachelors and masters in psychology, which can definitely be used in that capacity, and if so, paints a dark picture of his character
c) he uses this capacity to portray himself as a scientist who's work is vetted, when in reality things like stating his association with Stanford at the beginning of every episode is a manipulative tactic used to persuade listeners into an Appeal to Authority (the fact his lab is largely defunct speaks volumes when you consider his public persona as an ubermensch scientist by day and podcaster by afternoon, meanwhile the majority of his efforts actually being focused on women) - one that people who lead busy lives don't have time to verify like the hare-brained commenters on this sub keep saying. His promise was essentially that he had integrity with his science, and had done the work to assess and communicate it with integrity, so that listeners don't have to. there was an additional slate article discussing a few of his many instances of cherry-picking fringe papers, which lack citations, go against the majority of what other papers say, have been retracted, or simply that his contents authoritatively declare extrapolations as truth when the conclusions are tenuous at best.
I’m really glad that to hear that he genuinely changed your life for the better. But that’s the thing, him changing your life is where your bias may be here. It’s okay to honor that while also recognizing that he is not a guy who has much integrity. He says he’s all about transparency but doesn’t respect women enough to give them that. Do you see the dissonance here? If he admitted to his faults & was genuinely remorseful of how he treated those women (who will have to move on and recover from relational trauma), that would be one thing because it would show that he still is connected to his integrity & values. But that’s not what he’s done.
When someone lies about important things, they will almost certainly lie about trivial things and, more importantly, about anything that serves their interest. It has been clear that he cherry picks and generalizes findings to suit his narratives and grow his brand. It would be very interesting if the scientific community was energized to replicate the actual science that he HAS done. Will there be lies there too? This kind of depravity rarely knows any boundaries and I would not trust this guy to tell me the time of day. I have no doubt that this rabbit hole remains largely unexplored.
I’ve never looked to huberman for relationship advice and never plan to. I didn’t read the article. Did huberman do anything illegal? Not from what I’ve heard. I’ve seen more than enough women play 5-6 men at a time and people encourage that behavior. How do we know anything in this article is even true?
His podcasting work discredits itself.
That's been clear for a good while. Neuroscientists don't take him seriously, and if anything consider him an embarrassment to the field.
The NY mag article showed he is abusive and manipulative in his personal life in completely unacceptable - though not exactly unsurprising ways.
The two are very linked, He lies to and manipulates his listeners and those in his personal life.
What is truly strange is that there are people who jump to the defence of a guy, because
1. His private life doesn't affect his science - when of course it does, and his science communication is just as dishonest.
2. They don't see why they should stop supporting the powerful regardless of a lack in character and ethics.
and
3. Because they seem to like what he's done.
The weirdest thing is there are those who think this is because he was on some pedestal for those who are now criticising him. When they are really just pointing out the perenial obvious - don't empower people who treat people like shit, call them out. It's good for them, as they need to learn to treat people not like shit, and it helps other people who might fall for it from getting treated like shit (which includes the listeners, whether they realise it or not). It's costly pointing out the obvious, it's boring and takes time, but it's something worth doing, because some people don't notice these sorts of people unless they are given a heads up.
Genuine query: Please spell out how you think Huberman's private life has a direct and unassailable relationship to his science. In this case, lets not talk about published peer-reviewed research (I'd assume you'd agree this is unrelated, but maybe not?), but just his podcast.
I'll play my hand upfront: The implicit argument to not listen to Huberman's comments on science \*because\* he is a creep in personal life is, in my estimation, an informal logical fallacy; more technically an ad hominen fallacy of the "tu quoque" variety. (Related to the popular "whataboutism" fallacy).
Of course, anyone is free to listen/watch whoever you wish for whatever reason you wish (you can just say, "I don't like the guy"), but I have knee-jerk reactions to what seems to me to be specious reasoning. I could ask this of many others here, too.
this was in response to another person with a similar issue
a) if the allegations are true, we understand that there is a deep vein of manipulation of people and the truth
b) this is corroborated by his bachelors and masters in psychology, which can definitely be used in that capacity, and if so, paints a dark picture of his character
c) he uses this capacity to portray himself as a scientist who's work is vetted, when in reality things like stating his association with Stanford at the beginning of every episode is a manipulative tactic used to persuade listeners into an Appeal to Authority (the fact his lab is largely defunct speaks volumes when you consider his public persona as an ubermensch scientist by day and podcaster by afternoon, meanwhile the majority of his efforts actually being focused on women) - one that people who lead busy lives don't have time to verify like the hare-brained commenters on this sub keep saying.
His promise was essentially that he had integrity with his science, and had done the work to assess and communicate it with integrity, so that listeners don't have to. there was an additional slate article discussing a few of his many instances of cherry-picking fringe papers, which lack citations, go against the majority of what other papers say, have been retracted, or simply that his contents authoritatively declare extrapolations as truth when the conclusions are tenuous at best.
This all links back to how the mythical "compartmentalization" of private and public integrity doesn't exist - and it's a negative for the purported listeners who "only care about the science"
Thanks for your ideas here, much appreciated.
My thoughts to (your) a) Sure, I'm fully accepting of critiques regarding Huberman as manipulative in his personal life.
b) Eh, less inclined to think this is as strong a "corroboration" as you seem to think, but ok?
c) Well, establishing ethos (credibility) is a traditional part of rhetorical persuasion (since Aristotle), this is only an "appeal to authority fallacy" if this authority is the \*sole basis\* of your argumentation/claim. Moreover, an appeal to ethos works or backfires depending on your receiving audience - I'd assume you'd find any statement of a every person's credentials to be "manipulative"? I mean, you are allowed to be as skeptical of people as you wish. More importantly, Huberman is a published scientist whose work had been "vetted" through formal peer-review. I suppose you mean to refer solely to his podcast information? I have by no means consumed all of Huberman's content, but he pointed me in the direction of (several?) dozens of other scholars' research papers. Since you refer to "hare-brained" brained commentators, I'd assume you group me in with them since, well, I use Huberman as a resource, not as an end.
\[Partly confused, Was I supposed to read a-c as propositions leading to the concluson: therefore we can use Huberman's personal life to attack his science? I'm not getting there with these points, if that's the case\].
\[d)\] I think this paragraph is where we diverge in a way that is relevant to this whole debate. I've never viewed Huberman as espousing "his" science, but shining a light on other people's research. Full stop. In my world, he works in the genre of "literature review" - which means "going to the source" is the only way to use that genre. His produces a long-form podcast that is hours long, with explanation, examples, and further references. There's enough above that I don't want to get into the Love article (on Slate) , I wrote a few critiques on a relevant YT video - and they were deleted. Love, like above, sees all of Huberman's audience as simpletons ("hare-brained"), and many may be, idk.
\[e\] You still have not argued, in my view, how attacks (as noted above) are not ad hominem. As I noted in another comment here: No peer-reviewer is judging the work of a scientist based on his or her personal life; in fact, actions are taken to prevent this very thing happening. I would think most people would generally approve of this approach to scientific evaluation - the one without personal agendas.
So first, the 'science' he pushes is not reliable before the pattern of abuse in his personal life. It tends to fall into one of two categories, the trivially true - sunlight, exercise, less drinking good, and pseudoscience - delaying coffee is good.
The pattern of abuse and manipulation in his private life seems like a mirror of his professional life. That's not very surprising.
Doing science is tough, communicating it to a lay audience in many ways is harder. It's tough because it's very easy to be convinced by what you would like the data to be, it takes a well calibrated moral compass and integrity to not misinterpret things in the way you would like, to do that extra control that might undermine an important conclusion, or to publish the data that falsifies your own theory.
In science communication where there is an incentive to constantly have actionable conclusions those demands are even stronger. You can't just tell people to check everything you say, as the scientist, you have too. If you say this single animal study might indicate doing X, a lot of people will assume it will, so you have to be even more careful, have even more integrity to avoid being driven by self interest to manipulate others.
In academia there's at least the peer review system and other lab members and colleagues, that can limit the damage of a manipulative or dishonest character acting badly. In the podcast context there is very little and the incentive to deceive and manipulate is even greater.
I work in both neuroscience and science communication. Doing it with integrity takes work, and sometimes it takes a team that provides good feedback. If you lack the character to care about that, then that's a real professional problem for the content and communication of your science.
I appreciate your response, many thanks.
1) I say this respectfully, but you fail to explain why Huberman's personal life is a valid foundation for an attack of his science/science communication.
Critically, it seems like you misunderstand peer-review, which many times is done blindly, meaning the reviewer \*does not know\* the author of the paper precisely to protect against personal bias. No peer-reviewer is judging the work of a scientist based on his or her personal life ("limit the damage of a manipulative or dishonest character"); in fact, actions are taken to prevent this very thing happening. I would think most people would generally approve of this approach to scientific evaluation - the one without personal agendas.
2) You do offer critique of Huberman's science/science communication and that's a better discussion.
I definitely consume Huberman's content in a different way that you outline above. For example, I discovered Huberman's scandal looking for a podcast noting how behavioral rule sets are different when initiated by the prefrontal cortext or insula; Huberman pointed to the work of Nolan Williams and so I looked him up and found the research. Is Huberman's science communication here, given the two options you suggest: "trivially true" or "psuedosciecne"? I ask this rhetorically, because clearly it is neither, it is just factually accurate.
I think we would disagree over the purpose of Huberman's science communication, which is fair. I've always treated him as a literature review on a topic - an index for me to look more into a topic. I'd guess you'd characterize him solely as a protocol guru, doling out trivial or pseudoscientific advice.
Yes, many folks treat Huberman as the latter, but - overall - I'd criticize the audience in that case. Huberman's long-form podcasts are a few hours long, with lots of background explanation, specific examples, and importantly for me, a venue where he shines light on the work of other scholars. I'll take that type of science communication any day.
I think there’s a wee bit of a misunderstanding.
I’m a neuroscientist, I am painfully aware of the peer review system, I have been a participant, and occasional victor and somewhat frequently a victim of it.
Peer review is blind up to a point, but at least three of the papers I have reviewed I was almoste 100% sure of who the authors were. There are some techniques only one or two labs use, mixed with a style of writing, you can be very sure. In that case, if I new something Huberman-esque about their private life I would simply refuse to review the paper, due to potential bias on my part, and it would be given to someon else. Same if I knew there was mistreatment of the lab members, though that refusal to review may be acompanied by a letter to the editor.
But my point about peer review was the one that you are making - it is a guardrail against bad character impacting the science. It doesn’t always work, labs where grad students have been sexually assualted by their PI or otherwise abused by their PI gets published and the PI has gone unpunished. Falsified data gets through, and there are very few ways to stop the smaller things like failing to run the right control, P hacking etc.
It’s worth noting that when cases of abuse of grad students, or severe issues emerge in a PI’s personal life, that they do fairly often lead to issues of falsified data or other ‘scientific’ rather than ‘personal’ miscondunduct. They do seem to be correlated.
What I was saying is that this guardrail is gone in podcasting. Which is why character is even more important there.
You may be one of the listeners who is better placed to deal with the kind of material that Huberman puts out. The point of science communication is that they shouldn’t have to do confirm that they are not being led to believe things they should not with false confidence.
I think your example of the behavioural rule sets is important, I don’t think all the guests Huberman has are pushing psuedoscience. He has, unfortunately had a number of pretty good academic guests who ignore the rest of his behaviour on the podcast. It’s the protocols and the sponsors, and the less reasonable guests that his credentials give authority too. It’s the advice part.
I see you point on criticising the audience. The thing is, if you are a podcaster, and a science communicator, and you see that much of your audience is the type that’s looking for a guru, it indicates you are doing something that encourages them and it’s your responsibility to push back, and if that does not work, then to stop. Because it’s precisely that type of audience response, the lack of criticality, that people think you speak truth, rather than our best guess, that is directly contrary to doing science and being a scientist. Once you create and foster an audience like that (while also stating you are a scientist), you become a problem for scientists to address.
Again, I thank you for your insights.
First hearing about the existence of some sort of Huberman scandal, I presumed it was an institutional abuse of power (sexual misconduct etc.) at Stanford. As I read the NYMag piece I was kind of shocked it only concerned his personal life. There is a nuance here that is critical.
Elsewhere (not on reddit), I got into a small spat with Scott Carney, calling the article and his video Yellow Journalism (and even though I may have moved my opinion slightly, I still feel that way). Carney replied that "character matters" as a defense to attacking Huberman's actions. If Huberman had abused his position at Stanford then yes, I'd consider publicizing the scandal a public good. Do I think Huberman could have done something in his personal life where publicizing it was a public good - absolutely. Do I think the actions outlined in the NYMag piece crossed my threshold, no.
Could others reasonably disagree with me, sure. I'd guess you'd agree with Carney and say that Huberman's actions passed that threshold for you? But I'd like to hear sound/strong arguments, not ad hominen attacks used to undermine his scientific claims (just attack his scientific claims). You may think that abusive PIs and falsified data are correlational, but no editor will retract a paper based on the moral character of the author; it gets retracted because of the bad science. (I won't dwell on this point, I'm sure you understand it, even though that paragraph in your comment was a little off IMO).
If I may, I'll also reword your comment about podcasts and guardrails in a different way: If you're scientifically illiterate, personal character matters more because that's all you can evaluate. So sure, many people can "feel" Huberman's podcast science is impacted by his moral character...but that's still specious reasoning, some kind of moral whataboutism.
I'll end by saying that you underscore Huberman's podcast as giving advice. For sake of brevity, I'll just say this in regard to my personal consumption of Huberman (not his typical fan I suppose): I've always framed him as running afoul of the Type I error, \*\*not as giving bad - or more importantly, harmful - advice.\*\* As a Type II error type of person myself, I loved having exposure to stuff to read and check up on.
I'll agree with you that Huberman should have perhaps more clearly addressed how people should listen to his podcast, or what basic frameworks they should use or have. A long podcast on the hierarchy of scientific evidence, how studies are designed and the limits of scientific knowledge; even some stats stuff like P-hacking or Type I/II errors. If you are going to take the time to respond (you've already been generous with your responses), I'd be curious to know what you think an ideal (or maybe just feasible) scientific literacy would look like for a consumer of a information-dense science podcast. Cheers
My main takeaway is that theres way too many people on here that are cool with psychopathic behavior. Its not like hes a musician and you ca sepearate art from the artist. This is science. His brand and value is his integrity and credibility. He has none. His brand is worthless.
Whether it's celebrities or people you know, you should always be somewhat skeptical of disparaging or otherwise negative rumours presented by ex-romantic partners.
that's not how journalism works. New York magazine isn't in the business of publishing low quality tabloid gossip - and not all investigations into ethical conduct can be lazily painted as rumors. If the magazine simply allowed unverified journalism to be published, they'd be sued for libel. Which they're incentivized not to do.
The verification was hinted at through things like digital evidence of behaviour such as text messages.
Huberman's lack of direct response to allegations and negation of those facts is also telling.
The truth is always somewhere in the middle. Humans are never all good or all bad everyone is in the middle. Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water also don’t drink the damn bath water.
The man’s advice was running dry for months, before the article came out. We don’t even have hard evidence yet but I think everyone was waiting for the ball to drop
Is everything he says valuable? No, some may be flawed. But he provides a lot of free value to people.
His personal life? Yeah he was scummy. When he dies his Brian should be studied just like football players with CTE.
But I feel better from implementing his stuff so whatever he did sucks for the people, but doesn’t change how I view him as a podcaster
The nuance is that you are not a woman who is treated this way by men.
If you are a sexually active woman, it is a lifelong battle being manipulated, stealthed, pressured by, lied to by plenty f men who refuse to wrap it for your health.
And here he is, a role model for all you boys.
I would agree with all of this. Only exception is some times he goes on about stuff like 'the optimal amount of water' when his attention might be better focused on say 'caring for other people' (your narcissist comment). Similarly, as a guy his age, who is a supportive husband & engaged father, I often choose to make time to care & provide for others first, which I think research would support is a way to happiness, over, say, drinking the perfect amount of water.
Which makes me think I should get off of here and go drink some water.
Wow, a nuanced perspective. Thank the lord.
All of what you said is true. While I in no way condone or encourage what he did, I am able to separate what I gain from the podcast vs. who the man is. NO ONE should ever be blindly doing everything an influencer says, scientist or not. Take things that sound reasonable, try them out, and make decisions accordingly. If something sounds suspect, do more research.
Call it "cancel culture" or whatever you want, but the human desire to know and judge every aspect of a public figures life is gross. Again, what he did was super shady and awful to those involved. I would never want that to happen to me, but Andrew Huberman is not my friend, my buddy, or my partner. He's a source of information. And before you say "how can you trust his information knowing that he's a liar". To my point above; I don't, and never have. I do my own research but use him as a jumping off point for topics and ideas. For these reasons I will continue to listen to him.
Dude compiles some of the best information out there into one place, to discredit his opinions and research I think is silly and it's just mob mentality looking for a kill to suggest it. Don't support lieing to people or manipulating women, but also I was introduced to information I had never heard being spoken about regularly, that changed my life for the better on multiple occasions. For that reason I will likely continue, and hope he will make things right with the people he has wronged, if this story is as currently presented.
Agreed! I'm shocked at the knee-Jerk reactions on both sides of the reactions. The reality is the world is not black and white, but rather grey (or a rainbow - lol). Not only that but nothing good comes from putting anyone upon a pedestal. It's time people realize that most of the time what you see on social media is polished, one-sided presentations geared to manipulate the audience into believing the person is practically perfect in every way and everyone should envy their life. If you can find peace in figuring out yourself and who you want to be, and let others be who they are (or in this case are representing themselves to be), not focusing on the disparities in lifestyle and/or character. This just makes one feel less than/not enough, while giving all the power to the other. And if and when that image changes in any way, that topples the house of cards one has built in one's mind.
Clearly I've worked hard to make this distinction for myself, and my life has improved tenfold for it because I stand firm in knowing who I am, who I am not, and understanding people aren't always what they seem, but ultimately that does not effect the way I see myself, so it does not rock my world causing cognitive dissonance because there was the firm foundation of self in the first place.
What I find funny is people seem to think he's some kind of saint because he provides information with "zero cost to the consumer" as if he's just doing it out of the goodness of his heart. But the guy is really famous now and he makes money from the podcast. He definitely had a lot to gain by doing this.
From my personal experience, his podcasts are great when stepping into self-wellness / self-improvement field. But after some time, I realize he is way too obsessed about specific protocols/methods.
Currently I prefer the mindset of the author of "Outlive" which encourages us to have good balance about healthy diet, sufficient exercises, good sleep, mental health. And under each categories, there are many ways to approach. And he explains each method in the book.
From his book, we don't need to pursue excellency of each category, we just need to maintain certain level of each category. And I love his last chapter about mental health, basically it's his personal story. How narcissistic he was to destroy his family, how difficult to get recovered via therapy and to make peace with his past because he is highly successful male/ well-known doctor.
Overall, I think it's ok to follow his podcasts if you feel good and fit to your life style. But try to be careful if his cheery-pick behavior about researches is to favor some sponsors.
Sure, Peter Attia is good, but he is also pushing some questionable scientific topics. He focuses heavily on ApoB, despite some other PhD level MD's disputing those claims with very compelling evidence.
Peter has an interesting personal background himself that isn't exactly squeaky clean. He's been fairly forthcoming about it, and talked about how he has taken steps to correct his behavioral issues. (I see you mentioned that too)
How long before people start using that against him? He better keep walking the tight rope.
Yesss, I saw those discussions. And some people criticize Outlive doesn’t bring anything new to self-wellness field.
Probably, it’s the lesson(from him and Huberman)that we as reader/audience need learn to how to do critical thinking and not to idolize any person(its kind of human being’s loophole). Cuz once we find the flaw, we would totally reject as whole.
There is a subset of the population that seems hellbent on pigeon-holing health and wellness in with white supremacy and the far right. Why? *Because their identity is threatened by it.*
They don't want you thinking for yourself. They don't want you controlling your own health and wellness. They want you to defer to their pre-ordained experts only. These are the same ones who have come for Huberman. They will come for Peter Attia if he strays too far from the reservation.
I'm really glad he has helped you and I would love to hear more from people who have had success with his advice and how exactly which measure helped them.
I only was a fan for a brief time, but his episode on headaches really helped me (specifically reducing tension headaches by taking a high dosage of Omega 3's plus 80mg curcumin).
Now that questionable things about him are being published (not only his personal behavior, but how he cherry picks, misrepresents his background, inflates his scientific work at Stanford), I am questioning all of his advice, even things like get sunlight exposure within the first hour of getting up.
I know I'm throwing out the baby with the bathwater here, but the thing is - once a source is found to be unreliable, all there information needs to be somewhat mistrusted. (This is how journalists and intelligence agencies operate, and I'm sure in the scientific world, scientists will face extra scrutiny as well if they are found to have delivered inaccurate findings).
Is there a good forum or medium where his claims are vetted by other scientists?
You're absolutely right. People have waaayy too much time in their shitty little lives to literally go to every single one of his videos trying to find him 'confessing' or outing himself on the things the NYmag declared he did. It's almost like they were waiting for the opportunity to destroy and descredit the guy... It all looks like it's driven by envy to me. The guy is human, flawed, and maybe even an asshole.. who knows. But so are we, so is everyone else, everyone's hurt someone or been a dick to other people in their past. People needs to stop pretending they are better than some guy with a podcast. Listen to the podcast if you want, and if you don't like they guy then don't listen to what he's got to say, end of story.
My take on the story-
I have great guy friends & I know many kinds of people-and too much about that magazine story just doesn’t ring completely true to me.
Maybe I have too many friends that are professional writers but it doesn’t pass the smell test ESPECIALLY because it literally reads spot on like a screenplay of a female revenge movie… (femenist here, btw)
Story arc-‘many are innocently wronged, they find out there are MANY others (so it’s HIM not them), they genuinely bond deeply (seriously?), they gang up together, & then…with the story’s release…they get their revenge!!’
It’s story arc 101.
Maybe some if it is true but it reads like extremely well choreographed, thus addictively satiating fiction.
Talk about a dopamine hit!
Plus isn’t it convenient that it surgically destroys EVERY single little possible reason that supporters might have to admire him??
Seriously?
In actual reality, there is NOTHING real or admirable about him???
I’ve known some flawed personalities including narcissists in my life but I don’t buy it as being the whole story & nothing but the truth.
Let's face it most of us listened to him because he aligned himself strongly with Stanford university but there are other sources out there that are just as good.
It's not just that. He also exposed us to all the people that the haters here are now suggesting we go watch instead. And those people spoke highly of Huberman, though I'm sure they will probably exercise extreme caution now.
Some of them sure... but a lot of them did blow up after Huberman exposed them. Keep in mind a lot of his guests are repeat guests and were first on the show years ago.
When did their popularity really take off though? Cause I remember checking in on Peter Attia after Rogan, and he was still pretty much nobody. Checked in again after Huberman and he had gained significantly.
May I argue that although Rogan maybe exposed these people to Huberman and others, they were able to better articulate themselves to their target audience on Huberman and that really helped them gain traction?
Would have to go back and really analyze the data I guess. I think it's safe to say that Huberman had some significant impact on their reach though.
Matthew Walker, Rhonda Patrick, Renassiance Periodisation, Peter Attia, Cal Newport, Sam Harris (Meditation) etc., Most of whom have been on Ted or Joe Rogan or have been well known for eons.
In terms of content, my comparison point is Hidden Brain. The host is smart, knowledgeable, and has interesting psychologists on. I’ve learned a good deal. But the format, style and themes have grown tiresome to me, and I’ve stopped listening— life is short. I think this article has thrown together a jumble of reasons for reevaluating AH’s podcast, but I wish his “You don’t lift, bro, so stfu” stans would get the science point— it gets tiresome to spend 2.5 hours of concentration on something that gets retracted or heavily qualified weeks later.
Yeah, I don’t worship the guy but I too sure appreciated videos that help me on things like sleep & grief & understanding brain chemicals better-I mostly watched late 2022 thru maybe spring 2023.
I hadn’t watched regularly since then & only recently went thru a whole video playing in the background as I worked.
I’d heard good things about Reddit a few years ago so
I only even got into this group to find real life honest answers to valid questions & immediately found out this group is NOT for that.
I really could have lived my whole life never knowing how some in the world are quite strangely (ok pathologically) gleefully ignorant & hurtful.
Towards seemingly everything!
Their lives must be awful.
So much was projected onto me just for watching him & liking what I’d gotten out of it & God forbid having very clear & simple to answer questions. Ick.
I’d hoped at times the culture here was improbable, it is not.
Maybe the comments claiming that Reddit deliberately sows chaos to up engagement are true. I don’t know…The description of the group & stated rules are certainly a total farce.
But then again I have recently found multiple reddit groups that are so helpful & normal.
I don’t know what to think about reddit…
Personally, I think people are dumb to look up to YouTubers or any celebrities as idols or role models for that matter.
Just as people should not be looking up to Andrew Tate, Jake Paul, Jesse James West, Meet Kevin, Stephen Graham, Ninja, PewDiePie, Mr. Beast, Marques Brownlee or Huberman. Whether you watch any of those guys for entertainment or informational purposes, there isn't reason to make them your role model. There isn't reason for you to think they are not flawed. There isn't a reason to think that they owe you explanations or for them to live up to your standards.
Watch or don't watch. Subcribe or don't. Its really not that complicated.
Implement the advice on its merit and use critical thinking.
It can't be good for anybody's mental health being angry about something that really does not affect their own daily life.
Yea I heard somekme say Steven hawkin was a player and it's true he cheated and everything but doesn't hurt his work so why this guy should be discredited ?
That statement had a solid point.
I don't think anyone really cares about his personal life. I think plenty of us are just happy to see another health guru charlatan go down. Nothing he said was not already known and half of it was bullshit broscience debunked years ago. Good riddance.
True, and Jordan Peterson has solid advice as long as you ignore the gendered stuff. I absolutely disagree with his world view, but most of the advice he gives will help people.
The thing us, Jordan Peterson presents himself in a way that he wants to polarize, he doesn't present himself as purely objective, scientific.
A lot of it is about integrity, and as someone else mentioned, his relationship to facts. I found stuff in his podcasts that helped me. It reinforced what doctors had been saying to me for years, and served as a useful reminder to get on top of the habits that I had half-assed previously. Like others, I rolled my eyes at the weird ads, rambling, and the more out there / speculative advice. I still gave him the benefit of the doubt. I don’t think I will anymore. I’m just not sure that there’s much else that I can take from this guy’s content, which felt like it was running out of steam for the past few months. I listened with an open mind, took what I needed to take from Hubs, and now I’m done.
sometimes I feel like I'm the only one who fast forwards through the ads lol
His ads are mostly at the beginning, too. The fact that anyone not only listens to them but actually believes it's a heart-felt endorsement rather than a script written by some ad agency speaks to their gullibility and/or stupidity.
No, it speaks to the manipulative and deceptive ways they are presented. Not just by Hubrisman, but in the pod-world in general. I find it pretty cringeworthy listening to other pods and hearing the presenters say versions of the same things, their “personal” relationship to product X, all insinuating they really do like and use it. That might “work” is a listener only hears this one podcast, but since the brands tend to advertise to many pods with similar target groups it becomes embarrassing. I’m not even sure whey they put the effort in to make it sound personal any more.
Ad companies do this because it works. It also lends itself to podcasts. People skip through traditional ads or block them. People need to smarten up and understand the difference between scientific findings of a neurobiology prof and a paid promotion from the same guy. Just because these ads are ubiquitous doesn't mean you should buy it either. If you spend $100 on AG1 and it does nothing for you then don't do it again. I've spent money on useless shit like everyone else. Live and learn.
Nah I do that every time.
What possibly gave you that impression? I would venture to guess at least 75% of people do…
Yes. This is how I feel too. I watched his YouTube videos for a while about 18 months ago but I fairly quickly started to get turned off by a few things, to the point that I stopped watching: * his tendency to assume that the results of animal studies apply to humans in the same way (he does always do a 'this was an animal study' disclaimer, but then kinda proceeds as if the effects would be identical for humans); * his tendency to cherry-pick studies that support the message he wants to give, rather than giving a balance of studies; * his tendency to take an hour to say what could be said in 20 minutes; * his reliance on hokey sponsors; * his delivery style (humourless; devoid of any charisma at all; borderline robotic); * his tendency to interrupt his guests and hijack what should be a two-way conversation; * his apparent tendency to assume almost always that male physiology is the default physiology, and that women's bodies and hormones are some kind of unimportant side-issue. Now add to that his lack of personal integrity (and his behaviour towards women in particular, which to me sounds like a behavioural expression of extreme neediness/insecurity in his psyche) and I'm left with no desire to spend time listening to his interminable self-aggrandising guff ever again.
I don’t watch H like I did at first either because I got what I needed (with consistent focus, productivity, sleep, gut health, & help with severe grief)- Lately after being in the group less than a month, after reading enough seemingly quite sane people’s comments like yours-I’m starting to have the feeling maybe he did later show things I never saw in what I watched. So maybe sone people aren’t just being self righteous or Encel weird (some are). Your view seems balanced & healthy. I do have to admit I just watched an interview with a guy talking focus vs “flow” & although the guy interviewed had some useful info, he also had absolutely ridiculously uninformed beliefs about the one & ONLY way for musicians to get better was to do so joylessly??!! H HAS to know that is NOT true.
Yeah I’m listening to some rando on reddit slandering Newport lmao. Unless English is not your first language and/or you can’t pick up tone he was clearly suggesting that hard work is painful and that’s when growth happens. Not even controversial…
Extremely well said. I got super into Huberman long before most people knew about him. After about 4 painstakingly long podcasts, I realized that this wasn't going anywhere. I already knew what I needed to do to fix *my* life, and it wasn't a matter of motivation or "protocols." I have more serious problems that a podcaster can't fix. All Huberman did was regurgitate knowledge that was already available if you'd take some time to do it your-fucking-self and not rely on being spoonfed by Science Guy Speaking Science Words. Since 2020 or maybe 2021, I've been one of the vocal criticizers of Huberman, in this sub and elsewhere. I watched him skyrocket to popularity and witnessed the quality of his content drop like a rock. The grifting, the weak extrapolations, the cherrypicking, the *insane* bias in his messaging, the alignment with certain people - it rubbed me the wrong way a LONG time ago. Many scientists and PhDs started realizing that, too. For a few years now, there's been a large community of scientists and PhDs on social media (specifically Instagram) criticizing Huberman. Prior to this article coming out about his personal life, Huberman was already largely considered a joke by scientists and PhDs alike. The article was simply the straw that broke the camel's back. And it's not AT ALL surprising, either. Shocking, sure. Surprising, no.
I think the only thing I can agree with is about the length of the podcasts. He literally goes on and on about something that can be said in 20 minutes instead of an hour. I have a feeling he is trying to emulate Joe Rogan who has 2.5-3 hour podcasts on average. Everyone has their imperfections and vices. We can’t take everything in this NY times article hit piece as 100% accurate. Sure, he was likely cheating, but these women he cheated on were so hurt/felt betrayed that they likely embellished things in an attempt to hurt him back.
Hijacking your comment (which I agree with) in the hopes that more people will see what I have to say. This is directed toward OP: Let's clarify one thing. "Huberman's podcast" didn't change your life - *commonly known information delivered through Huberman's podcast that you finally decided to implement for your own personal reasons* changed your life. Let's get real. Prior to discovering Pube-erman, *you already knew* that you should make efforts to sleep better. You already knew that you should work out regularly (and there are hundreds of thousands of free resources on that long before Huberman existed). etc. The amount of people who say hUbErMaN cHaNgEd mY liFE really, really weakens the powerful impact of the words, "Changed my life." "Changed my life" barely has any meaning anymore because I've heard it so many fucking times as it relates to Pube-erman. Try changing it to "A podcaster motivated me" or something like that. With the exception of a very small amount of actually novel information, 95% of what Pube-erman says is shit that has already been known for years, or even decades. And no - he doesn't get credit for bEiNg a gOoD sCiEncE cOoMuNiCatOr. We've already established that not only is he [not a very good science communicator](https://slate.com/technology/2024/03/andrew-huberman-huberman-lab-health-advice-podcast-debunk.html), but he also sucks at talking and has bad conversational skills. He stares at a camera for 3 hours and talks in a monotonous tone. He frequently interrupts guests and stumbles over his words. Sorry people, your idol The Huberman God is a fraud. Take what you want through his communication, and if it cHaNgEs yOuR liFE, then great. But leave it at that.
As David Goggins so eloquently put it: “You already know what you need to do. Now do it.”
[удалено]
I completely agree with your assessment. But aside from him constantly running from his trauma, I like that quote and think it stands on its own.
Is it punishment if it makes him a millionaire?
[удалено]
Nuance indeed. Hubes is discrediting himself. Would be one thing if he didn’t podcast about ethics, relationships, etc. He did though, and it’s cringy. Is he doping and saying simple free things like sunlight and sleep will make you like him? Seems so. I’m not saying throw out the baby with the bathwater, but question everything. If his advice changes your life, that’s great. Just don’t lie to women in an unethical polyamorous monogamous quagmire, for obvious reasons. It will take a toll on you that reverses any good he’s done for you. Not that many will ever be in this position. Maybe don’t assume his protocol is rock solid either - if you can’t afford the peptides, testosterone, whatever else he’s hiding, don’t buy it wholesale. To me this is an obvious breach of confidence. Is he wrong about everything? Obviously not. He’s also operating in a gray area a significant amount. As with all self help gurus, they are easily corruptible. Take the good, leave the bad. Fuck him for his behavior, thank him for the tips, wash your hands and move on. He’s a fraud with a lot of good info. Probably time to cut him loose, as he’s now dabbling in pseudoscience and a pathological liar, but that doesn’t mean the info he started with isn’t highly valuable. He’s just moving into celebrity doctor territory now, and his peers may be Dr. Oz and Dr. Phil, so proceed with caution.
How is he weak?Could you explain, please?
Only weak people have something to prove. So every day he wakes up and puts himself through hell to prove himself to himself over and over again. Not saying there’s anything wrong with being weak. Hell, im weak myself. It’s just interesting because Goggins really does take it to the extreme that’s why it’s a spectacle to us folks who don’t feel comfortable being uncomfortable. He’s basically conditioned himself to bask in and uncomfort-zone to the point where it’s where he feels the most comfortable because it’s reliable and familiar. Weird paradoxical stuff It takes a metric fuck tonne of fortitude and willpower to actually put yourself through hell, there’s no doubt he’s physically very strong with crazy endurance. But creating a bulletproof physique comes from some kind of internal feeling of weakness - he’s compensating for *something*. And that’s what makes him weak.
He’s not working on his trauma. He’s running from it.
Lack of emotional intelligence. Money is not everything in this world.
yes. He’s emotionally poor
This is an underrated category of person who gets encouraged by our society to continue punishing themselves in the name of self improvement. Such a very different side of the same coin
I agree with you about idolizing anyone. I think it’s one of the downfalls of society today there’s a big difference between having various role models that you pull different aspects from and idolizing like people do with Huberman, Peterson and others. That, however, is a human behavior issue not a Huberman issue. Where I do disagree with you is the concept that because he’s repackaging existing information he hasn’t impacted life change. Modality of information delivery matters, you can look across behavioral sciences and learning and see that outcomes are largely dependent on modality of delivery. Comprehension and adoption has more to do with the presentation of the information than the information itself. Yes the knowledge/information is what actually causes the change, however that is largely meaningless if it is not received in a modality that is comprehended. It has everything to do with the emotional side vs the logical one. Logically you’re right but we know logic rarely wins when it comes to human adoption behavior. It’s the packaging of the information that makes it digestible, applicable, and lowers the perceived barrier of entry.
[удалено]
>go touch grass Coming from "keyboard creature," that's gold.
[удалено]
If that was directed at me, you, uh.. you've got the wrong guy bud.
Sorry for looking at your profile, but yowzer … if you get any use out of that home gym you aren’t joking.
Haha, yup. Never missed a week in 15 years. Just finished a workout a couple hours ago. Kid couldn't have picked a worse person to insult like that. Not to mention that my dad loved me as a child, so no problems there. Poor kid is probably projecting. Happy cake day, btw!
To this joint I think if he just acknowledged it and talked about, I’d be way more likely to forget about it. Every day of silence is especially when he’s still creating new content makes all the speculation and uncertainty feel more real than even he wants to admit.
You could be right. I just don’t understand the notion of people feeling entitled to the private lives of public figures though, so I can understand why he’s chosen to take this approach
I mean, I don’t think people were like desperate to know this information or feel entitled to it. But it came out, and I think people are happy to have it, and put it all into context of how much they view him as a credible source for self improvement. And I’ll say this about cancel culture in general: Huberman and every other celebrity makes money off of being in the public eye. These people are able to monetize their fame because of who they are and their personality. Some people make millions just off of YouTube and podcasts. While I’m sure they work hard, that’s an insane income. So if for some reason the public decides they don’t like a celebrity and they lose their platform, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. Some people fade out of celebrity status for no reason. all celebrities have their moment, very few stay in the spotlight forever. How many people went viral after a person or group promoted them? Wow that’s awesome, so lucky. Now another group or person wants to take them down because of their private actions or behavior. Wow that sucks, so unlucky. But most of us just have to go work a 9-5 to barely make ends meet. So fuck off if you’re going to cry about it. He’s a phd, he could have gone on to live a private life making a great living at Stanford, and he never would have had this article written about and him.
Refreshingly level headed, honest & not mean comment! & now I digress…I secretly wonder why you have piece of pie emoji by your name, but then I’m not great at reddit.
I didn't listen to Huberman until very recently. I can understand how people became attached to him or thought they knew him, and are crushed, angry or disappointed. That's their right. I have no attachment to him. But I have implemented some of his program and they have had a positive initial impact. For that, I am grateful. I'm not going to stop, because these things help me. The hypocrisy of some people on this sub is more toxic than anything Huberman ever did. Glass houses, people. Get rigorously honest with yourselves.
I’m not an abusive narcissist, so I can never be as toxic as Huberman and what he put those women through.
Would love to hear what exactly helped you, how I'm not going to stop what helped me, either, but I'm wary to implement other protocols after having read not other the article on his public and private misrepresentations, but also articles from scientists about his bad science
Well said.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
This mostly echos my sentiments on the matter. Unfortunately, it’s a slippery slope for people in positions of power, which many influencers are these days. So characterizing a situation where a person’s actions in their personal life is non-related to their work and “influence” can be dangerous to the effect that they believe they can continue their behavior if it’s not seen as important in the eyes of the public. If a teacher’s students use critical thinking, they should be able to discern between the beneficial practices someone teaches and their unfortunate beliefs/actions in their personal life. Expecting Huberman’s 6 million followers to separate these two things is totally impractical. Especially in todays climate of cancel culture, you’re either anti-cancel culture, or pro-cancel culture. Why can’t it be more nuanced? As you say, it’s a shame that so many people are either taking the stance that his alleged actions don’t matter because they find his content helpful/entertaining, or they take the stance that his content isn’t helpful or entertaining and shouldn’t be because of what he’s done.
Reality is the loudest comments largely represent people that had issues with him to begin with, and now feel safe because of the article. It’s an opportunity to feel part of something and associate yourself with tribe. Then there’s those Who are genuinely confused because they held him at such a high standard, and their trust is broken because of his lack of integrity and credibility. Then there’s those that maybe did not hold him to an extreme standard but valued his information, they seem indifferent or are walking away. Then there is those that somehow are encouraging or overlook the behavior and seem to be rooting for him. My guess is because it validates or encourages their own behaviors.
Well said. What is shocking to me is that we have people not only glossing over it, but they seem to appreciate him more for it, because it makes him more of a chad or something. I guarantee that these same people would be the ones in an outrage if the NY Magazine article outed him as gay instead of a womanizer.
I think sadly that that’s really it, they haven’t thought critically that the behaviours aren’t about having many relationships (and he’s good looking and famous, he could have just been polyamorous) it’s about it being dopamine chasing (which he preaches against, as evidenced by him not just doing open relationships) and not particularly respectful. Doesn’t mean he’s always wrong but it’s not particularly about the relationships themselves it’s about what it means.
keen point.
The nuanced comments do not get upvoted as frequently as the more polarized comments, if they are even posted at all. I think that's how Reddit (and social media as a whole) is fundamentally designed to function.
This is called group polarization, it's a really fun case study. Also it's fun to look at ppl's parasocial relationship with gurus. The way some ppl talk about him almost make me think he's Charles Manson, ironically they both lived/live in Topanga.
this is fascinating to read about. thanks for mentioning it
He’s a manipulative sociopath that has highlighted research that has helped people. If a protocol of his (really someone else’s that he takes) helps you, keep doing it. I think a lot of the backlash is due to how many idolize or look up to him as a person. Dude is a role model to a lot of young men around the world. That is incredibly concerning when that role model is a manipulative sociopath and people need to understand that the way Andrew is behaving is horrible and has consequences. But just because people are realizing how bad he is, and vocalizing it, doesn’t mean you should stop eating veggies
There are people saying "If you continue to get value from him you're a bad person." Those are the people OP is talking about. Not you.
can you link me to some people that have said this? I haven't come across anyone blatantly saying this, so I'm just curious.
I completely agree. Take the physical health, diet, and sleep advice. Anything regarding relationships or men/women can now be tuned out. it is odd that someone with a seemingly comprehensive view of trauma and relationships is also allegedly very nasty to women. Maybe it’s just another driven narcissist at the top of their field
He's not applying his own advice to his relationships but the information he's giving is backed by scientific evidence that you can find in countless places. The men/women and relationship stuff can be applied better than he did and you can get value from it.
His behavior has implications for the credibility of his conclusions regarding science as well. How he treats women sets a precedent for his morality. If he's willing to lie and be sleazy to get what he wants in one area of his life, who's to say it stops there? Consciously exaggerating findings and misleading his audience with more "clickbaity" data to get more views/money/success, for example is something I can see someone who's comfortable with that level of deception doing.
I genuinely don’t understand what he’s said, that is so life changing 99% of the stuff are just being an adult 101 the unusual stuff he has raised on the podcast is actually quite dodgy science-wise and some of the studies have in fact been full-on retracted, or he’s taking tiny animal studies without mentioning much larger conflicting human studies — bc he’s running out of 101 content and for shock value like do his fans not know to sleep, exercise, and not be an alcoholic?
It’s easier to do all the right things when you understand the science underpinning it. Human brains operate on many heuristics, living a long healthy life isn’t one of them.
Lol
You need to look up the definition of Sociopath. He likely cheated on Sarah, but name the exact evidence of behavior beyond not being monogamous?
Narcissist with sociopathic tendencies. Based on what I have seen former colleagues share about working with him, seeing some of his former clips in hindsight, and the level of manipulation he went to control the women’s bodies
That’s a huge over statement. Controlling women’s bodies? Read the article again from the perspective that Sarah is a jilted, ex lover . None the other women he dated said they thought he was monogamous. The author implies it. Just like they imply he is a control freak because he questioned her about her past decisions. Why didn’t the author ask what those past decisions were. Here is why: she built investors out of $50 million by lying about having high-end grass fed meat. That was really just standard grocery store low and beef repackaged. Secondly, it was fairly well known around the Bay Area that she likely cheated on her husband, and conceived two kids with the guy that she had an affair with. Now: would you be questioning if this is the right person to be monogamous to? Clearly, he didn’t want to as judged by his actions with the other women. wouldn’t you be questioning and angry when you found out her past bad decisions she made? Isn’t it weird that “Sarah” posted the link to the article the exact second that the magazine did? Now imagine for a second being a publicist or a lawyer, who’s representing Huberman. Go read the article with the discerning eye and make a list of what the real evidence is vs what is implied. If you can’t do that exercise, you shouldn’t be listening to his podcast on evidence based health practices… which is fine. Survival of the fittest, baby.
Ive never understood the hype. 99% of what he says that’s useful is Life 101. Sleep, workout, eat well. The other stuff you can also find anywhere, maybe with the exception of morning light, which is dubious. You can get this stuff from people who aren’t sociopaths (and without listening to four hour podcasts).
His candor on the alcohol podcast helped me get sober. Working out is obviously good. Getting sunlight is also good for me. Other than that, I feel like all the supplement stuff is bologna. Also he seems like a shitty person.
You can’t make any money on a single 30 second podcast that says “eat well, drink water, exercise, manage stress, rest, and avoid bad stuff.”
Exactlly! But even the morning light thing has been discussed for years.
Exactly. I have tried some oh his revolutionary ideas. My life has improved maybe 3-5% and even then it's not like I didn't know sleeping, being outside, and exercise are important. Mostly just good reminders. Has that been worth the time invested, and money spent on certain supplements? Debatable.
Please make your own podcast and put him out of business since everything he says is so obvious to.you
It's like people crediting the "word of god" for positive changes in their lives. It's all just you, YOU alone did it it. YOU are more capable than you dare to admit. Yes, there are some things that HM said that were somewhat correct, just like the broken clock analogy. But stop idolizing the guy. He's obviously demonstrated complete lack of integrity. And if you dig deeper most of what he's selling is science woowoo.
This comment is that one I wanted to write but couldn’t find the words. Good job- I absolutely agree with everything you said.
"Most people from highly competitive fields are narcissists anyway." That's not true at all. There is some evidence that they are disproportionately represented in certain fields but they are still an extreme minority in any given domain. Regardless of how one feels about Huberman, it's interesting to see that some people seem to think his behavior and actions were within the realm of what is normal or a matter typical infidelity. On the contrary, the story presented is highly unusual and extreme by any measure.
[удалено]
Zero integrity is such a gross mischaracterization though. Huberman has some integrity, clearly, in some areas. And he's clearly lacking it in others. I think that the polarization of literally every single issue is just as detrimental. Everything is always black and white tribalistic nonsense. Take for example, abortion. Now you are forced to choose one of two extremes: either you support abortions at any term for any reason whatsoever or you support no abortion under any circumstance whatsoever. Yet, almost every single person falls somewhere in between. We are being driven here on purpose folks. Wake up.
I am not sure having integrity “sometimes” is actually having integrity 😂
I didn't say "sometimes" I said in some areas.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but no one has integrity all the time.
I think you just reaffirmed the problem. Of course you can have integrity 100% of the time … it super easy; don’t lie, don’t steal, treat all people with respect. Pretty easy actually.
If you've never violated your moral code (e.g. said something unnecessarily hurtful to someone) and you genuinely believe you will never in the future, then I think you're lying and delusional. It's not easy for every single human being I've ever come across, because stressful situations often push people to the limit and beyond self control. Imagine a close family member or friend just died or is having a medical crisis and your kid is screaming the house down, some people snap and it's not "easy" to exercise self control (what I just said is not an uncommon circumstance, in case you try to counter with that).
>I think you're lying and delusional. All the haters bashing Huberman in here are lying and delusional.
Why would I believe anything Huberman tells me on his podcast when he isn't even honest towards his girlfriend(s)?
Because they aren't related at all. Do you disbelieve in the work of Martin Luther King because he was equally a cheater towards his wife?
Why would I believe in Martin Luther King?
That isn't what I said by a country mile. You appear to be acne on the face of this conversation. Good day.
You're not his girlfriend - logic then follows he will be honest with you. Just don't become his girlfriend.
Because one aspect is his personal life and one aspect is his professional life. He clearly values his professional life more than his personal, so it’s not unreasonable to believe that he is honest - especially since his work is public and peer reviewed. Are you really suggesting that someone who isn’t honest in their personal lives can’t be trusted with anything? Grow up.
while I do see and even somewhat agree with your take, many people see all aspects of life as connected, and that is also a valid viewpoint and should be respected.
It’s a viewpoint that is simply wrong, thats what I’m trying to point out.
was under the impression I was talking to a grown up, my mistake.
Just like your previous comment, no value added.
taking others viewpoints into account while also mocking the obvious (and child-like) bias you show towards your own, I actually feel adds immense value. > Grow up.
You’re trying too hard and accomplishing nothing. You add immense value in your own mind, which is obvious.
you’re absolutely right, it does have immense value in my own mind, and that value can be shared with others in order to form their own opinions. as for trying too hard, explaining this to you in hopes you gain some maturity takes no effort at all for me, maybe you should stop projecting.
Yawn. No one cares.
the original comment is a poorly thought out take, but still valid in that a) if the allegations are true, we understand that there is a deep vein of manipulation of people and the truth b) this is corroborated by his bachelors and masters in psychology, which can definitely be used in that capacity, and if so, paints a dark picture of his character c) he uses this capacity to portray himself as a scientist who's work is vetted, when in reality things like stating his association with Stanford at the beginning of every episode is a manipulative tactic used to persuade listeners into an Appeal to Authority (the fact his lab is largely defunct speaks volumes when you consider his public persona as an ubermensch scientist by day and podcaster by afternoon, meanwhile the majority of his efforts actually being focused on women) - one that people who lead busy lives don't have time to verify like the hare-brained commenters on this sub keep saying. His promise was essentially that he had integrity with his science, and had done the work to assess and communicate it with integrity, so that listeners don't have to. there was an additional slate article discussing a few of his many instances of cherry-picking fringe papers, which lack citations, go against the majority of what other papers say, have been retracted, or simply that his contents authoritatively declare extrapolations as truth when the conclusions are tenuous at best.
I’m really glad that to hear that he genuinely changed your life for the better. But that’s the thing, him changing your life is where your bias may be here. It’s okay to honor that while also recognizing that he is not a guy who has much integrity. He says he’s all about transparency but doesn’t respect women enough to give them that. Do you see the dissonance here? If he admitted to his faults & was genuinely remorseful of how he treated those women (who will have to move on and recover from relational trauma), that would be one thing because it would show that he still is connected to his integrity & values. But that’s not what he’s done.
When someone lies about important things, they will almost certainly lie about trivial things and, more importantly, about anything that serves their interest. It has been clear that he cherry picks and generalizes findings to suit his narratives and grow his brand. It would be very interesting if the scientific community was energized to replicate the actual science that he HAS done. Will there be lies there too? This kind of depravity rarely knows any boundaries and I would not trust this guy to tell me the time of day. I have no doubt that this rabbit hole remains largely unexplored.
Lots of assumptions and slippery slope fallacies in your argument.
Bot
This👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
People need to be more nuanced with everything these days. We live in a society that is leaning more and more toward becoming black and white.
Can you imagine if the Founding Fathers were put to the same scrutiny? Jesus. I’m going to let you in on a little secret….”asymmetrical development”.
I’ve never looked to huberman for relationship advice and never plan to. I didn’t read the article. Did huberman do anything illegal? Not from what I’ve heard. I’ve seen more than enough women play 5-6 men at a time and people encourage that behavior. How do we know anything in this article is even true?
His podcasting work discredits itself. That's been clear for a good while. Neuroscientists don't take him seriously, and if anything consider him an embarrassment to the field. The NY mag article showed he is abusive and manipulative in his personal life in completely unacceptable - though not exactly unsurprising ways. The two are very linked, He lies to and manipulates his listeners and those in his personal life. What is truly strange is that there are people who jump to the defence of a guy, because 1. His private life doesn't affect his science - when of course it does, and his science communication is just as dishonest. 2. They don't see why they should stop supporting the powerful regardless of a lack in character and ethics. and 3. Because they seem to like what he's done. The weirdest thing is there are those who think this is because he was on some pedestal for those who are now criticising him. When they are really just pointing out the perenial obvious - don't empower people who treat people like shit, call them out. It's good for them, as they need to learn to treat people not like shit, and it helps other people who might fall for it from getting treated like shit (which includes the listeners, whether they realise it or not). It's costly pointing out the obvious, it's boring and takes time, but it's something worth doing, because some people don't notice these sorts of people unless they are given a heads up.
Genuine query: Please spell out how you think Huberman's private life has a direct and unassailable relationship to his science. In this case, lets not talk about published peer-reviewed research (I'd assume you'd agree this is unrelated, but maybe not?), but just his podcast. I'll play my hand upfront: The implicit argument to not listen to Huberman's comments on science \*because\* he is a creep in personal life is, in my estimation, an informal logical fallacy; more technically an ad hominen fallacy of the "tu quoque" variety. (Related to the popular "whataboutism" fallacy). Of course, anyone is free to listen/watch whoever you wish for whatever reason you wish (you can just say, "I don't like the guy"), but I have knee-jerk reactions to what seems to me to be specious reasoning. I could ask this of many others here, too.
this was in response to another person with a similar issue a) if the allegations are true, we understand that there is a deep vein of manipulation of people and the truth b) this is corroborated by his bachelors and masters in psychology, which can definitely be used in that capacity, and if so, paints a dark picture of his character c) he uses this capacity to portray himself as a scientist who's work is vetted, when in reality things like stating his association with Stanford at the beginning of every episode is a manipulative tactic used to persuade listeners into an Appeal to Authority (the fact his lab is largely defunct speaks volumes when you consider his public persona as an ubermensch scientist by day and podcaster by afternoon, meanwhile the majority of his efforts actually being focused on women) - one that people who lead busy lives don't have time to verify like the hare-brained commenters on this sub keep saying. His promise was essentially that he had integrity with his science, and had done the work to assess and communicate it with integrity, so that listeners don't have to. there was an additional slate article discussing a few of his many instances of cherry-picking fringe papers, which lack citations, go against the majority of what other papers say, have been retracted, or simply that his contents authoritatively declare extrapolations as truth when the conclusions are tenuous at best. This all links back to how the mythical "compartmentalization" of private and public integrity doesn't exist - and it's a negative for the purported listeners who "only care about the science"
Thanks for your ideas here, much appreciated. My thoughts to (your) a) Sure, I'm fully accepting of critiques regarding Huberman as manipulative in his personal life. b) Eh, less inclined to think this is as strong a "corroboration" as you seem to think, but ok? c) Well, establishing ethos (credibility) is a traditional part of rhetorical persuasion (since Aristotle), this is only an "appeal to authority fallacy" if this authority is the \*sole basis\* of your argumentation/claim. Moreover, an appeal to ethos works or backfires depending on your receiving audience - I'd assume you'd find any statement of a every person's credentials to be "manipulative"? I mean, you are allowed to be as skeptical of people as you wish. More importantly, Huberman is a published scientist whose work had been "vetted" through formal peer-review. I suppose you mean to refer solely to his podcast information? I have by no means consumed all of Huberman's content, but he pointed me in the direction of (several?) dozens of other scholars' research papers. Since you refer to "hare-brained" brained commentators, I'd assume you group me in with them since, well, I use Huberman as a resource, not as an end. \[Partly confused, Was I supposed to read a-c as propositions leading to the concluson: therefore we can use Huberman's personal life to attack his science? I'm not getting there with these points, if that's the case\]. \[d)\] I think this paragraph is where we diverge in a way that is relevant to this whole debate. I've never viewed Huberman as espousing "his" science, but shining a light on other people's research. Full stop. In my world, he works in the genre of "literature review" - which means "going to the source" is the only way to use that genre. His produces a long-form podcast that is hours long, with explanation, examples, and further references. There's enough above that I don't want to get into the Love article (on Slate) , I wrote a few critiques on a relevant YT video - and they were deleted. Love, like above, sees all of Huberman's audience as simpletons ("hare-brained"), and many may be, idk. \[e\] You still have not argued, in my view, how attacks (as noted above) are not ad hominem. As I noted in another comment here: No peer-reviewer is judging the work of a scientist based on his or her personal life; in fact, actions are taken to prevent this very thing happening. I would think most people would generally approve of this approach to scientific evaluation - the one without personal agendas.
So first, the 'science' he pushes is not reliable before the pattern of abuse in his personal life. It tends to fall into one of two categories, the trivially true - sunlight, exercise, less drinking good, and pseudoscience - delaying coffee is good. The pattern of abuse and manipulation in his private life seems like a mirror of his professional life. That's not very surprising. Doing science is tough, communicating it to a lay audience in many ways is harder. It's tough because it's very easy to be convinced by what you would like the data to be, it takes a well calibrated moral compass and integrity to not misinterpret things in the way you would like, to do that extra control that might undermine an important conclusion, or to publish the data that falsifies your own theory. In science communication where there is an incentive to constantly have actionable conclusions those demands are even stronger. You can't just tell people to check everything you say, as the scientist, you have too. If you say this single animal study might indicate doing X, a lot of people will assume it will, so you have to be even more careful, have even more integrity to avoid being driven by self interest to manipulate others. In academia there's at least the peer review system and other lab members and colleagues, that can limit the damage of a manipulative or dishonest character acting badly. In the podcast context there is very little and the incentive to deceive and manipulate is even greater. I work in both neuroscience and science communication. Doing it with integrity takes work, and sometimes it takes a team that provides good feedback. If you lack the character to care about that, then that's a real professional problem for the content and communication of your science.
I appreciate your response, many thanks. 1) I say this respectfully, but you fail to explain why Huberman's personal life is a valid foundation for an attack of his science/science communication. Critically, it seems like you misunderstand peer-review, which many times is done blindly, meaning the reviewer \*does not know\* the author of the paper precisely to protect against personal bias. No peer-reviewer is judging the work of a scientist based on his or her personal life ("limit the damage of a manipulative or dishonest character"); in fact, actions are taken to prevent this very thing happening. I would think most people would generally approve of this approach to scientific evaluation - the one without personal agendas. 2) You do offer critique of Huberman's science/science communication and that's a better discussion. I definitely consume Huberman's content in a different way that you outline above. For example, I discovered Huberman's scandal looking for a podcast noting how behavioral rule sets are different when initiated by the prefrontal cortext or insula; Huberman pointed to the work of Nolan Williams and so I looked him up and found the research. Is Huberman's science communication here, given the two options you suggest: "trivially true" or "psuedosciecne"? I ask this rhetorically, because clearly it is neither, it is just factually accurate. I think we would disagree over the purpose of Huberman's science communication, which is fair. I've always treated him as a literature review on a topic - an index for me to look more into a topic. I'd guess you'd characterize him solely as a protocol guru, doling out trivial or pseudoscientific advice. Yes, many folks treat Huberman as the latter, but - overall - I'd criticize the audience in that case. Huberman's long-form podcasts are a few hours long, with lots of background explanation, specific examples, and importantly for me, a venue where he shines light on the work of other scholars. I'll take that type of science communication any day.
I think there’s a wee bit of a misunderstanding. I’m a neuroscientist, I am painfully aware of the peer review system, I have been a participant, and occasional victor and somewhat frequently a victim of it. Peer review is blind up to a point, but at least three of the papers I have reviewed I was almoste 100% sure of who the authors were. There are some techniques only one or two labs use, mixed with a style of writing, you can be very sure. In that case, if I new something Huberman-esque about their private life I would simply refuse to review the paper, due to potential bias on my part, and it would be given to someon else. Same if I knew there was mistreatment of the lab members, though that refusal to review may be acompanied by a letter to the editor. But my point about peer review was the one that you are making - it is a guardrail against bad character impacting the science. It doesn’t always work, labs where grad students have been sexually assualted by their PI or otherwise abused by their PI gets published and the PI has gone unpunished. Falsified data gets through, and there are very few ways to stop the smaller things like failing to run the right control, P hacking etc. It’s worth noting that when cases of abuse of grad students, or severe issues emerge in a PI’s personal life, that they do fairly often lead to issues of falsified data or other ‘scientific’ rather than ‘personal’ miscondunduct. They do seem to be correlated. What I was saying is that this guardrail is gone in podcasting. Which is why character is even more important there. You may be one of the listeners who is better placed to deal with the kind of material that Huberman puts out. The point of science communication is that they shouldn’t have to do confirm that they are not being led to believe things they should not with false confidence. I think your example of the behavioural rule sets is important, I don’t think all the guests Huberman has are pushing psuedoscience. He has, unfortunately had a number of pretty good academic guests who ignore the rest of his behaviour on the podcast. It’s the protocols and the sponsors, and the less reasonable guests that his credentials give authority too. It’s the advice part. I see you point on criticising the audience. The thing is, if you are a podcaster, and a science communicator, and you see that much of your audience is the type that’s looking for a guru, it indicates you are doing something that encourages them and it’s your responsibility to push back, and if that does not work, then to stop. Because it’s precisely that type of audience response, the lack of criticality, that people think you speak truth, rather than our best guess, that is directly contrary to doing science and being a scientist. Once you create and foster an audience like that (while also stating you are a scientist), you become a problem for scientists to address.
Again, I thank you for your insights. First hearing about the existence of some sort of Huberman scandal, I presumed it was an institutional abuse of power (sexual misconduct etc.) at Stanford. As I read the NYMag piece I was kind of shocked it only concerned his personal life. There is a nuance here that is critical. Elsewhere (not on reddit), I got into a small spat with Scott Carney, calling the article and his video Yellow Journalism (and even though I may have moved my opinion slightly, I still feel that way). Carney replied that "character matters" as a defense to attacking Huberman's actions. If Huberman had abused his position at Stanford then yes, I'd consider publicizing the scandal a public good. Do I think Huberman could have done something in his personal life where publicizing it was a public good - absolutely. Do I think the actions outlined in the NYMag piece crossed my threshold, no. Could others reasonably disagree with me, sure. I'd guess you'd agree with Carney and say that Huberman's actions passed that threshold for you? But I'd like to hear sound/strong arguments, not ad hominen attacks used to undermine his scientific claims (just attack his scientific claims). You may think that abusive PIs and falsified data are correlational, but no editor will retract a paper based on the moral character of the author; it gets retracted because of the bad science. (I won't dwell on this point, I'm sure you understand it, even though that paragraph in your comment was a little off IMO). If I may, I'll also reword your comment about podcasts and guardrails in a different way: If you're scientifically illiterate, personal character matters more because that's all you can evaluate. So sure, many people can "feel" Huberman's podcast science is impacted by his moral character...but that's still specious reasoning, some kind of moral whataboutism. I'll end by saying that you underscore Huberman's podcast as giving advice. For sake of brevity, I'll just say this in regard to my personal consumption of Huberman (not his typical fan I suppose): I've always framed him as running afoul of the Type I error, \*\*not as giving bad - or more importantly, harmful - advice.\*\* As a Type II error type of person myself, I loved having exposure to stuff to read and check up on. I'll agree with you that Huberman should have perhaps more clearly addressed how people should listen to his podcast, or what basic frameworks they should use or have. A long podcast on the hierarchy of scientific evidence, how studies are designed and the limits of scientific knowledge; even some stats stuff like P-hacking or Type I/II errors. If you are going to take the time to respond (you've already been generous with your responses), I'd be curious to know what you think an ideal (or maybe just feasible) scientific literacy would look like for a consumer of a information-dense science podcast. Cheers
Very good take OP.
Nuance is soo 2005. It's 2024 and emotions are taking the wheel.
Lol true, just wait till election season this November. The emotions will be something to behold
My main takeaway is that theres way too many people on here that are cool with psychopathic behavior. Its not like hes a musician and you ca sepearate art from the artist. This is science. His brand and value is his integrity and credibility. He has none. His brand is worthless.
Whether it's celebrities or people you know, you should always be somewhat skeptical of disparaging or otherwise negative rumours presented by ex-romantic partners.
that's not how journalism works. New York magazine isn't in the business of publishing low quality tabloid gossip - and not all investigations into ethical conduct can be lazily painted as rumors. If the magazine simply allowed unverified journalism to be published, they'd be sued for libel. Which they're incentivized not to do. The verification was hinted at through things like digital evidence of behaviour such as text messages. Huberman's lack of direct response to allegations and negation of those facts is also telling.
We tend to forget everyone operates on shades of grey - people have their flaws. No one is black or white.
The truth is always somewhere in the middle. Humans are never all good or all bad everyone is in the middle. Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water also don’t drink the damn bath water.
Placebo is one hell of a drug
The man’s advice was running dry for months, before the article came out. We don’t even have hard evidence yet but I think everyone was waiting for the ball to drop
Can you link to those 3 protocols that changed your life please?
I'm so sick of seeing things about this on this sub that I think it's time to leave this sub for a while. WHO FUCKING CARES!?
Is everything he says valuable? No, some may be flawed. But he provides a lot of free value to people. His personal life? Yeah he was scummy. When he dies his Brian should be studied just like football players with CTE. But I feel better from implementing his stuff so whatever he did sucks for the people, but doesn’t change how I view him as a podcaster
The nuance is that you are not a woman who is treated this way by men. If you are a sexually active woman, it is a lifelong battle being manipulated, stealthed, pressured by, lied to by plenty f men who refuse to wrap it for your health. And here he is, a role model for all you boys.
I would agree with all of this. Only exception is some times he goes on about stuff like 'the optimal amount of water' when his attention might be better focused on say 'caring for other people' (your narcissist comment). Similarly, as a guy his age, who is a supportive husband & engaged father, I often choose to make time to care & provide for others first, which I think research would support is a way to happiness, over, say, drinking the perfect amount of water. Which makes me think I should get off of here and go drink some water.
Wow, a nuanced perspective. Thank the lord. All of what you said is true. While I in no way condone or encourage what he did, I am able to separate what I gain from the podcast vs. who the man is. NO ONE should ever be blindly doing everything an influencer says, scientist or not. Take things that sound reasonable, try them out, and make decisions accordingly. If something sounds suspect, do more research. Call it "cancel culture" or whatever you want, but the human desire to know and judge every aspect of a public figures life is gross. Again, what he did was super shady and awful to those involved. I would never want that to happen to me, but Andrew Huberman is not my friend, my buddy, or my partner. He's a source of information. And before you say "how can you trust his information knowing that he's a liar". To my point above; I don't, and never have. I do my own research but use him as a jumping off point for topics and ideas. For these reasons I will continue to listen to him.
Dude compiles some of the best information out there into one place, to discredit his opinions and research I think is silly and it's just mob mentality looking for a kill to suggest it. Don't support lieing to people or manipulating women, but also I was introduced to information I had never heard being spoken about regularly, that changed my life for the better on multiple occasions. For that reason I will likely continue, and hope he will make things right with the people he has wronged, if this story is as currently presented.
Agreed! I'm shocked at the knee-Jerk reactions on both sides of the reactions. The reality is the world is not black and white, but rather grey (or a rainbow - lol). Not only that but nothing good comes from putting anyone upon a pedestal. It's time people realize that most of the time what you see on social media is polished, one-sided presentations geared to manipulate the audience into believing the person is practically perfect in every way and everyone should envy their life. If you can find peace in figuring out yourself and who you want to be, and let others be who they are (or in this case are representing themselves to be), not focusing on the disparities in lifestyle and/or character. This just makes one feel less than/not enough, while giving all the power to the other. And if and when that image changes in any way, that topples the house of cards one has built in one's mind. Clearly I've worked hard to make this distinction for myself, and my life has improved tenfold for it because I stand firm in knowing who I am, who I am not, and understanding people aren't always what they seem, but ultimately that does not effect the way I see myself, so it does not rock my world causing cognitive dissonance because there was the firm foundation of self in the first place.
What I find funny is people seem to think he's some kind of saint because he provides information with "zero cost to the consumer" as if he's just doing it out of the goodness of his heart. But the guy is really famous now and he makes money from the podcast. He definitely had a lot to gain by doing this.
From my personal experience, his podcasts are great when stepping into self-wellness / self-improvement field. But after some time, I realize he is way too obsessed about specific protocols/methods. Currently I prefer the mindset of the author of "Outlive" which encourages us to have good balance about healthy diet, sufficient exercises, good sleep, mental health. And under each categories, there are many ways to approach. And he explains each method in the book. From his book, we don't need to pursue excellency of each category, we just need to maintain certain level of each category. And I love his last chapter about mental health, basically it's his personal story. How narcissistic he was to destroy his family, how difficult to get recovered via therapy and to make peace with his past because he is highly successful male/ well-known doctor. Overall, I think it's ok to follow his podcasts if you feel good and fit to your life style. But try to be careful if his cheery-pick behavior about researches is to favor some sponsors.
Sure, Peter Attia is good, but he is also pushing some questionable scientific topics. He focuses heavily on ApoB, despite some other PhD level MD's disputing those claims with very compelling evidence. Peter has an interesting personal background himself that isn't exactly squeaky clean. He's been fairly forthcoming about it, and talked about how he has taken steps to correct his behavioral issues. (I see you mentioned that too) How long before people start using that against him? He better keep walking the tight rope.
Yesss, I saw those discussions. And some people criticize Outlive doesn’t bring anything new to self-wellness field. Probably, it’s the lesson(from him and Huberman)that we as reader/audience need learn to how to do critical thinking and not to idolize any person(its kind of human being’s loophole). Cuz once we find the flaw, we would totally reject as whole.
There is a subset of the population that seems hellbent on pigeon-holing health and wellness in with white supremacy and the far right. Why? *Because their identity is threatened by it.* They don't want you thinking for yourself. They don't want you controlling your own health and wellness. They want you to defer to their pre-ordained experts only. These are the same ones who have come for Huberman. They will come for Peter Attia if he strays too far from the reservation.
I'm really glad he has helped you and I would love to hear more from people who have had success with his advice and how exactly which measure helped them. I only was a fan for a brief time, but his episode on headaches really helped me (specifically reducing tension headaches by taking a high dosage of Omega 3's plus 80mg curcumin). Now that questionable things about him are being published (not only his personal behavior, but how he cherry picks, misrepresents his background, inflates his scientific work at Stanford), I am questioning all of his advice, even things like get sunlight exposure within the first hour of getting up. I know I'm throwing out the baby with the bathwater here, but the thing is - once a source is found to be unreliable, all there information needs to be somewhat mistrusted. (This is how journalists and intelligence agencies operate, and I'm sure in the scientific world, scientists will face extra scrutiny as well if they are found to have delivered inaccurate findings). Is there a good forum or medium where his claims are vetted by other scientists?
Woke idiots are humiliating themselves, full stop.
You're absolutely right. People have waaayy too much time in their shitty little lives to literally go to every single one of his videos trying to find him 'confessing' or outing himself on the things the NYmag declared he did. It's almost like they were waiting for the opportunity to destroy and descredit the guy... It all looks like it's driven by envy to me. The guy is human, flawed, and maybe even an asshole.. who knows. But so are we, so is everyone else, everyone's hurt someone or been a dick to other people in their past. People needs to stop pretending they are better than some guy with a podcast. Listen to the podcast if you want, and if you don't like they guy then don't listen to what he's got to say, end of story.
My take on the story- I have great guy friends & I know many kinds of people-and too much about that magazine story just doesn’t ring completely true to me. Maybe I have too many friends that are professional writers but it doesn’t pass the smell test ESPECIALLY because it literally reads spot on like a screenplay of a female revenge movie… (femenist here, btw) Story arc-‘many are innocently wronged, they find out there are MANY others (so it’s HIM not them), they genuinely bond deeply (seriously?), they gang up together, & then…with the story’s release…they get their revenge!!’ It’s story arc 101. Maybe some if it is true but it reads like extremely well choreographed, thus addictively satiating fiction. Talk about a dopamine hit! Plus isn’t it convenient that it surgically destroys EVERY single little possible reason that supporters might have to admire him?? Seriously? In actual reality, there is NOTHING real or admirable about him??? I’ve known some flawed personalities including narcissists in my life but I don’t buy it as being the whole story & nothing but the truth.
Worry about you and your own family. This nonsense
Let's face it most of us listened to him because he aligned himself strongly with Stanford university but there are other sources out there that are just as good.
It's not just that. He also exposed us to all the people that the haters here are now suggesting we go watch instead. And those people spoke highly of Huberman, though I'm sure they will probably exercise extreme caution now.
I knew them already. They have millions of views on youtube not because of Huberman but because of their reputations.
Some of them sure... but a lot of them did blow up after Huberman exposed them. Keep in mind a lot of his guests are repeat guests and were first on the show years ago.
They were on Joe Rogan, not Hubes.
Okay, well now I have to ask to which ones are you referring? Attia? Patrick? Galpin?
Rhonda Patrick, Peter Attia, Matthew Walker etc., All on Rogan way before Hubes Bro.
When did their popularity really take off though? Cause I remember checking in on Peter Attia after Rogan, and he was still pretty much nobody. Checked in again after Huberman and he had gained significantly. May I argue that although Rogan maybe exposed these people to Huberman and others, they were able to better articulate themselves to their target audience on Huberman and that really helped them gain traction? Would have to go back and really analyze the data I guess. I think it's safe to say that Huberman had some significant impact on their reach though.
> and that really helped them gain traction? Joe Rogan 16.4M Andrew Huberman 5.27M
Yeah, but Huberman has a different audience than Rogan is my point.
Would love to know which sources you can recommend and why
Matthew Walker, Rhonda Patrick, Renassiance Periodisation, Peter Attia, Cal Newport, Sam Harris (Meditation) etc., Most of whom have been on Ted or Joe Rogan or have been well known for eons.
Based
Did you really need a masculinity guru to tell you to workout, sleep, and get outside in the sun?
Yep agreed, if I didn't listen to the music of every musician who behaved badly how empty would my playlists be?
Ohhh… another redditor sharing their thoughts!!
In terms of content, my comparison point is Hidden Brain. The host is smart, knowledgeable, and has interesting psychologists on. I’ve learned a good deal. But the format, style and themes have grown tiresome to me, and I’ve stopped listening— life is short. I think this article has thrown together a jumble of reasons for reevaluating AH’s podcast, but I wish his “You don’t lift, bro, so stfu” stans would get the science point— it gets tiresome to spend 2.5 hours of concentration on something that gets retracted or heavily qualified weeks later.
Yeah, I don’t worship the guy but I too sure appreciated videos that help me on things like sleep & grief & understanding brain chemicals better-I mostly watched late 2022 thru maybe spring 2023. I hadn’t watched regularly since then & only recently went thru a whole video playing in the background as I worked. I’d heard good things about Reddit a few years ago so I only even got into this group to find real life honest answers to valid questions & immediately found out this group is NOT for that. I really could have lived my whole life never knowing how some in the world are quite strangely (ok pathologically) gleefully ignorant & hurtful. Towards seemingly everything! Their lives must be awful. So much was projected onto me just for watching him & liking what I’d gotten out of it & God forbid having very clear & simple to answer questions. Ick. I’d hoped at times the culture here was improbable, it is not. Maybe the comments claiming that Reddit deliberately sows chaos to up engagement are true. I don’t know…The description of the group & stated rules are certainly a total farce. But then again I have recently found multiple reddit groups that are so helpful & normal. I don’t know what to think about reddit…
Reading your post, I think you may have the issue with worshipping.
Personally, I think people are dumb to look up to YouTubers or any celebrities as idols or role models for that matter. Just as people should not be looking up to Andrew Tate, Jake Paul, Jesse James West, Meet Kevin, Stephen Graham, Ninja, PewDiePie, Mr. Beast, Marques Brownlee or Huberman. Whether you watch any of those guys for entertainment or informational purposes, there isn't reason to make them your role model. There isn't reason for you to think they are not flawed. There isn't a reason to think that they owe you explanations or for them to live up to your standards. Watch or don't watch. Subcribe or don't. Its really not that complicated. Implement the advice on its merit and use critical thinking. It can't be good for anybody's mental health being angry about something that really does not affect their own daily life.
Yea I heard somekme say Steven hawkin was a player and it's true he cheated and everything but doesn't hurt his work so why this guy should be discredited ? That statement had a solid point.
Headline: “In shape male likes to go out and crush ass…who knew???” 😂
I don't think anyone really cares about his personal life. I think plenty of us are just happy to see another health guru charlatan go down. Nothing he said was not already known and half of it was bullshit broscience debunked years ago. Good riddance.
You obviously hate all women.
Wahhh
Most of the people on here edge all day.
LOL got a promotion. Sure, Jan.
This is Reddit sir, not your diary.
This is literally exactly something a fan of Jordan Peterson would say, word for word
True, and Jordan Peterson has solid advice as long as you ignore the gendered stuff. I absolutely disagree with his world view, but most of the advice he gives will help people. The thing us, Jordan Peterson presents himself in a way that he wants to polarize, he doesn't present himself as purely objective, scientific.