The stunning "gotcha" of this witch hunt (undoubtedly brought on by his proximity to individuals that the author doesn't like) is that Andrew Huberman was a bad boyfriend, weirdly flaky in his social life, and not an expert in all of the 100s of topics he discusses on his podcast (usually discussed with actual experts in the topics).
Okay...
Listen, if we stopped deriving information, education, or entertainment from people who have weird personal flaws, we would not read books, go to school, listen to music, or watch movies. Or have friends. What a silly article.
My goodness what a cavalcade of tedious gossip. I had no idea who this "famous" Andrew Huberman chap is. Sure, neuroscience is interesting but pop professors seem ten a penny these days. Reading a mini PhD thesis on what felt a far too intimate a deconstruction of someone's personal life was uncomfortable. I thought this "journalism" died with Hello Magazine.
Anecdote. I saw him talk on stage ant Psychedelic Science '23 about his MDMA experiences and he recounted how in his 3-4th experience he did it alone and at home and he felt nothing but hours of anger and rage. He didn't go into more detail about it but it raised an a big eyebrow and left me confused how that could happen.
sudden anger seemed to be reflected in the witness accounts from ex girlfriends and a recent YouTube video of a reporter, Scott Carney, who recounted being befriended by Huberman, ghosted, ghosted again on a trip that involved learning to dive and swim with shark. The journalist had a scathing impression of Huberman.
https://youtu.be/d1oTcX7SoE8?si=MVSYriHGy_GcMkp1 https://youtu.be/RvOKFXmkmc0?si=-yQcyGF90UWQ_iW4
Of the alcohol episode, the article says:
>While he claims repeatedly that he doesn’t want to “demonize alcohol,” he fails to mask his obvious disapproval of anyone who consumes alcohol in any quantity.
I've listened to that ep a couple of times and not once did I come away with that impression, even remotely. This article is kind of garbage.
so many academics and doctors have been criticizing his "science" for years, this total loss of integrity should be the final straw that breaks the camels back
From the article:
> Sarah was, in fact, changing. She felt herself getting smaller, constantly appeasing. She apologized, again and again and again. “I have been selfish, childish, and confused,” she said. “As a result, I need your protection.” A spokesperson for Huberman denies Sarah’s accounts of their fights,
Having played around with local LLM chatbots using different models and templates ("characters"), I find this pattern of talking _remarkably_ similar to how chatbots would respond to certain situations. The repetition ("again and again and again"), the use of multiple adjectives in a row as self-description ("I have been selfish, childish, and confused"), and the explicit closing of sentences ("As a result, I need your protection") fits almost perfectly with what I would expect from a waifu/husbando chatbot at the ChatGPT 3.5 level.
Does anyone talk like this in real life? English is not my native language, but this all sounds extremely weird to me.
There is a reason why I rarely trust teetotalers.
I'd be more interested in the dirty personal laundry of the author of the article.
Are they a model boy scout in all aspects? Did they ever lied in a relationship? Did they ever cheated? Did they back stab some colleague to get a leg up? Do they write hypocritically about things they don't believe in because they sell? Do they ever call their aging mother who sacrificed her life to raise them? Have they hurled abuse at their ex while drunk?
Sadly we will never know. We could really use some quality journalism such as this.
There's something real here.
As someone whose life has been changed by Huberman's advice, I have to say that systemic lying in his personal relationships makes me doubt the soundness of information on his podcast.
Over the last three years, he's slowly moved out of his area of expertise and into fameland, interviewing whoever has a new book out or has a brand name and opinions. There is less and less scientific foundation for the information he's selling.
And if he behaves in such a way with people close to him, why should he treat strangers on the Internet any better? He's made a lot of choices that damage his image as a paragon of good behavior. He's hurt the movement he created.
Now that this is out, there will be other shoes to drop. Lies are like Pringles and cockroaches.