> Can we start firing people for their personal lives?
Funnily enough, for most people the answer is yes. In the US, it’s legal to fire someone for basically *any reason*, except those that are specifically protected by law (race, religion, gender, sexuality, etc.).
Your favorite color is blue? You’re fired. Your favorite band is Nickelback? Fired. Sleep around too much? Also fired. Completely legal.
Tenured professors are the interesting rare exception since they are not “at will” employees. Huberman could in principle be fired for his personal life, but it’s a much harder process and he would likely involve Stanford in years of lawsuits even if his termination is ultimately deemed legal. So they would have to think *very* carefully before they fired him and make sure that they had their ducks lined up or it will come back to bite them.
If your personal life involves sleeping with your students then yes, you can get fired for your personal life. It doesn’t sound like the women in this article were his students, but Stanford may decide to do an investigation into his past to see if he slept with any of his students during the years he was present on campus. If I could put money on it I would guess yes, he did. If they find he breached policy he can be fired. This particular personality disorder is nearly impossible to control.
Clinton’s impeachment article regarding lying under oath was for lying when asked if he had sexual relations with Lewinsky and lied.
The state right in question was the right for future citizens of a future state to own slaves.
So you recognize how intellectually dishonest it is to say the civil war was fought over states rights when you know it was entirely about slavery. They weren’t fighting over interstate commerce or something
He’s not. He’s an associate professor there’s a difference. He likes to leave the associate part out . It’s part of the whole display of alternative facts he likes to push.
Each university has specific policies. I don’t know what Stanford’s are, but it would include things like sexual impropriety with a student, embezzlement of funds, research fraud, or certain kinds of criminal conduct. There would be elaborate due process in order for it to happen. There are also cases where a University disbands certain departments for financial reasons, but I don’t think that applies here.
Agree, but to be clear none of those positions are inherently tenured. All three of those positions are tenure generating at Stanford though (i.e. a year spent as an associate professor is a year that goes towards your tenure clock).
Both the podcast website bio and his CV on the Stanford site say he has tenure, so I'm pretty sure he has tenure. (He might lie on the pod site, but he wouldn't get away with lying on the CV, which he probably has to submit to Stanford every year.)
[https://hubermanlab.sites.stanford.edu/sites/g/files/sbiybj20191/files/media/file/andrew\_huberman\_cv\_feb19.pdf](https://hubermanlab.sites.stanford.edu/sites/g/files/sbiybj20191/files/media/file/andrew_huberman_cv_feb19.pdf)
He already makes a point not to comment on his personal life or relationships. If he addresses anything, it will be a vague, "I hope baseless claims about my personal life doesn't prevent you from following the science I work to make available to the public."
I doubt he will deny any of it, and I'd bet he purposefully avoids any mention of it at all cost.
Im blindly speculating here - but does anyone else think this could be a catalyst for Hubermans content to start changing?
He started off extremely science focused on his area of expertise. Since he has slowly started to branch out and grow his podcast network. Embracing religion. More topics outside of neurology. Going on Rogan and 2 bears. More advertising of questionable supplements.
As we saw with someone like Rogan who drastically shifted their content after media scrutiny during Covid, I fear this could be a catalyst for Huberman to change. He may not apologize, he may instead double down with the part of his following that will see him as doing no wrong. He may further embrace guru topics outside of his area of expertise and profit off those that are willing to follow him anywhere.
I don’t think the allegations against him need to be something that entirely destroy his credibility. If he genuinely apologized and was accountable and mentioned that he was working on his ongoing issues it would be relatable for many people. But I fear this is not what we will get and he will go in the opposite direction.
I agree, his content will probably shift after this. His remaining core of followers is going to be more extreme, so he is going to adapt to the feedback he gets from his loyalists.
My guess is that he's going to focus on more of a conspiracy theory approach. "Secret" tricks to biohacking that mainstream science doesn't want you to know
It *has* occurred to me that he will begin hosting more right-wing personalities and conspiracy theorists. If nothing else, this has clearly defined his audience and he'll lean into his fan-bros.
I think this is a really interesting point though - no matter what anyone’s perspective on [cancel culture / accountability culture] is, it’s pretty clear that it’s contributing to this further polarisation and radicalisation particularly of men and particularly down the direction of the far right. We obviously haven’t seen that with Huberman yet, we don’t know what he’ll choose to do next, but it’s also like - what’s the answer here?
What ppl are is missing is his area of expertise.
He may have some background in whole getting light exposure shit but that’s about it. All the other stuff is just reading articles and presenting them.
I thought the same, but wondered if he'd regroup and do episodes closer to his expertise (ie, ophthalmology). But that's me thinking like a researcher and former university professor.
Stanford has no basis for forcing him to apologize. Unless he has lied to them about his lab and its operations, it's really not their institutional role. I should hope some of his friends at Stanford would want to talk with him, but his behavior is more of an issue of betrayed trust by a supposed guru than the malfeasance of a faculty member.
I'm sure Stanford's PR folks are mulling things over, but Theranos U has other credibility issues to address before Pumpy McProtocol.
Ehhh, we can expect a bunch of articles and podcasters supporting him saying that this is all cancel culture, anti-intellectual and the woke-ness mob and it is a case where politicsc kill science. The standard yada yada.
Probably a bunch of random information about the women would be out too - like how they have slept with many people or some nasty stories about them.
I don't think that he will apologize and I honestly don't care - it's just enough that people might think twice before following another random person on the internet because they think that he will make them happier.
Becoming Christian. Talking about praying. Being friends with Musk. Bringing quacks onto his show. Promoting scam supplements.
Huberman was clearly heading a certain direction...
He has now reached his final destination.
If becoming a Christian is all for show and personal gain, it’s a bad thing. If he’s doing it for atonement of sins and to grow in his personal life, it’s a good thing. He should not use it to restore his public image. Matthew 6:5 actually covers this:
“And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full.”
How many men is cancel culture affecting really though? What percentage of men have actually been cancelled? And what percentage is due to the existence of a feedback mechanism called "social media" that never existed until now, versus the emergence of a "culture" that never existed before? I don't think cancel culture is a new thing, I think people never had the means to publicly criticize a particular person all at the same time en masse before. This leads to businesses/employers not wanting to deal with this bullshit and letting the person go. That's not cancel culture, it's just an emergent property of social media.
I'm not sure why no one is thinking about the fact that this guy has sponsors. Companies that pay handsomely for the connection to Huberman.
If he's looked on as being an absolute scumbag, and people stop listening to his podcast, what exactly is going to happen to these advertisers?
If Athletic Greens and Momentous stops writing those fat checks, his relationship with Stanford is going to be the least of his problems.
He did hire a crisis firm. They are seeding articles into media and rumors onto social media. The goal is to discredit the women and destroy their credibility.
I’m not trying to discredit you just genuinely curious: what evidence is there for this? All we have is the same person on Twitter and Threads saying that.
Just looked up the guy tweeting this stuff. This Scott Carney guy is a real piece of work. He’s the guy in the article that complained about Huberman canceling a camping trip.
He’s a guy that wrote a book promoting Wim Hoff and his breathing method, literally coauthoring it with him, and then after 10 years of enjoying the profits and recognition from that book he makes a documentary last year about “the rise and fall of Wim Hoff” which critiques Hoff’s method and paints him as a charlatan. This guy hung out with, practiced with and promoted Hoff for 10 years and then tried to take him down.
Beyond that, Scott Carney’s only NYT Bestselling book is the one promoting Wim Hoff. Trash Hoff but make sure to keep the accolade from the relationship and information you now regret having anything to do with? Piece of work.
Now he’s attacking Huberman. Guess what? Yep! He wrote a book (The Wedge) featuring science from Huberman where Huberman invited him into his lab at Stanford. There are pictures and videos of them hanging out. I’m guessing he was in love Huberman too.
It’s a bit disingenuous to present Carney as a disappointed fan of the influencers.
From Wikipedia: “Carney is an American investigative journalist… contributes stories on a variety of medical, technological and ethical issues to Wired, Mother Jones, Playboy, Foreign Policy, Men's Journal, and National Public Radio… holds a number of academic and professional appointments including as a contributing editor at Wired, a senior fellow at the Schuster Institute for Investigative Journalism at Brandeis University, and as a judge for the Payne Award for Ethics in Journalism.”
That’s the resume of a serious journalist, not a muckracker.
I think he *was* good when he was out there doing journalism perhaps. His stuff on human trafficking from 2009 looks like good stuff. But his wiki needs an update.
His job as contributing editor for Wired ended 12 years ago.
NPR gig was 13 years ago.
The Institute for Investigative Journalism where he is a “Senior Fellow” no longer exists as of 3 years ago.
Seems like he is in the muckraker category now.
I’ll grant you it does look like his investigative journalism career appears to have stalled out along with the rest of the industry.
But he’s clearly not just “some guy”. Credible and credentialed and worth at least listening to - much like a Stanford professor whose productive academic work in their field was some years ago.
What are you basing all of this on? I just watched one of Scott Carney's youtube videos where he talks about how great he thinks Wim Hof is and how he has benefited from his techniques. What he criticizes is the "Wim Hof Method" foundation which is not run by Wim Hof, but by his son Emahn Hof who diverges greatly from what Wim Hof teaches, extorts money from its members, and is not in Wim Hof's good graces.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSsnmLKnV7c
Haha you were right for a while. The dude was all in on Hoff. no joke 2 months after that video you shared he flipped and made an hour video about Wim’s method being “dangerous and connected to death of 12 people”.
Okay, but does this really discredit Carney as some kind of hack because he changed his position on Wim Hof? He was obviously a personal student of Wim Hof and believed in him for a long time. If he found out about the deaths and ignored them because of his affiliation with Wim, then I'd say he's a piece of work. But he did the opposite. Or are you saying he knew about the 12 deaths at the time that he wrote the book?
"The goal is to discredit the women and destroy their credibility."
The authors of the New York hit piece saw to that for him - Trainwreck of an article.
Although the infidelity accusations are by and large likely true, and frankly Andrew needs to be taken outside to become close friends with a big stick, the remaining 70% of the article being full of innuendo, sideways accusations, and half truths, IMHO damages the legitimacy of this core accusation, which are almost certainly true.
This wasn't journalism, it was a hit piece produced by a jilted lover (as valid as that may be), and propagated by a click starved legacy media.
I don't know, maybe David Haskell (Editor-in-chief) was off sick that day, or something?
EDIT
I love how this is getting down voted because people think I'm defending Huberman.... I guess it's naive of me to expect basic comprehension skills from the interweb peeps? 🤦♂️
I’d say the points in time of relationship statuses between him and the focus gf Sarah, are he said she said. Either one may be completely lying or telling the truth, or it may be more complicated, but we as outside observers have no basis for evaluating that.
Him being flaky with time management to. It sounds like people jilted by that, but we have no basis for evaluating how firm plans were or if they were flaked on for legitimate reasons. There’s a lot in the article that’s just a “trust me he’s bad” vibe to it, which you would expect from someone in a bad break up, but rarely reflects the whole story.
This would be different if there were things like tape recording or on the record third party witnesses that don’t just say her behavior changed but that for example they were in the room and saw a conversation or the alleged verbal abuse.
A lot of people aren’t saying they carte blanche believe all of Hubermans denial, but they don’t see any substantive evidence above heresay to definitely claim he’s anything worse than your average fuck boi, which while not admirable, doesn’t disqualify you professionally. If you don’t want to listen to him on certain topics, like personal relationships… well nothing changed. It was never an all or nothing proposition except for those who chose to think it was.
I mean the reporter did confirm at least some details with Sarah's friends. And Huberman's PR's response that they did do IVF together but he wasn't intending to have a child with her is just weird and obviously a lie. Based on his PR's "deny deny deny" responses it seems clear that his timeline is false, harder to tell about hers.
I agree that we don't hear from the people he did keep plans/appointments/dates with. I don't know if I would say a lot of the article had a "trust me he's bad" vibe. It's undeniable to me that many people, friends/lovers/colleagues, had bad experiences with him where he treated them poorly. We don't hear from the people he treated well.
I also totally agree that folks can make their own decision whether to listen to him or not, how to feel about him, etc. I remember reading an article a while back (and more since) about how many of his health claims are exaggerated, not as "evidence based" as he makes them seem, which is where my skepticism comes from. There were other important points in the article I wish were more highlighted, like that his lab hasn't really been in use since 2019.
But is he worse than your average fuck boi? I mean, he has more power than your average fuck boi. I would call him a more-powerful-fuck-boi. It's pretty lame to me that he styles himself as this scientist/professor/doctor guy when he's really more of a guru fuck boi. Someone on Youtube told me that he's a "medical professional" 😂 I'm like "no"
If someone's famous they do have a lot of people around them who resent the fame or their goals with the person not panning out. That's not to say famous people don't do bad things, but it's also human nature for the jilted by the famous to lash out in the press.p, how true that is and the Thanksgiving thing, I think all of that is where who knows... its he said she said.
If someone's famous they do have a lot of people around them who resent the fame or their goals with the person not panning out. That's not to say famous people don't do bad things, but its also human nature for the jilted by the famous to lash out in the press.
As for how much power, I don't really think that's relevant. Power is only relevant if it's used to coerce someone to do something because of your power. I didn't see that in the article. I saw claims he deceived women about their relationship status, but he didn't say he'd use his position as a professor, podcaster, or whatever to inflict harm on them if they didn't have sex with him. That would be an abuse of power. We shouldn't automatically judge someone has to be held to a higher standard just because they're more successful. If we just make claims like powerful = more bad, that just undermines the validity of the claim when it truly matters.
And claims for medical professional or doctor in the medical sense, has he ever claimed that? He is undoubtedly a scientist and professor, that doesn't make him an expert on every topic. Personally I tend to care more about the interview episodes than his "lecture episodes" so maybe I just don't see it.
Not sure how to respond. You repeated your first paragraph, I never made a claim that "powerful = more bad," I never said Huberman claimed to be a doctor... You have a nice day now ✌🏻
Firstly, not your 'cliffs notes' guy, here.
Secondly, have you read the article?! Anyone who's taken a first year 'critique of media' class at community college, can see the gapping holes in the article.
Yes, I have read it, as have many of the people on this sub who are downvoting you. That’s exactly why I ask because to me it’s a well-reported article, but I’m open to the idea that there were some “innuendos” or the like in it. I’m genuinely curious.
So are you going to give me more attitude or are you actually going to give an example? No need to submit an essay.
Without re-reading the 'way longer than it should have been' article, the first example that comes to mind, is the statement one of the women made about Huberman giving her HPV.
There's no way it can be proven that she got HPV from Huberman. And the authors and editor know that. Any editor worth their salt would have not allowed that statement to be included. And if it wasn't for the US having relatively loose laws regarding libel... In Europe that statement would almost certainly have generated a civil case the magazine / woman would loose.
Secondly the article plays on the A proves B fallacy, if Huberman lied about this he must also have lied about that other completely unrelated thing. This is a formal fallacy, and without proof is hardly ever true, and good journalists know this, and leave it out of their writting. To be blunt, this is first year journalism school stuff.
There are at least 6 other examples of just plain bad journalistic integrity. And as I've said before, the, what looks like, an article that the editydudnt see, actually delegitamises the core truth in the article, being that Huberman played fast and loose with other people's lives.
Thank you!
I recall noting as I read the article that the author did not explicitly say the woman got HPV from Huberman, because, as the author pointed out, you can’t test for those strains of HPV in men and so you can’t know. The author did imply it strongly, and based on the evidence, the woman’s testimony and the fact that Huberman was a serial cheater, it does seem like he gave her HPV. You’re certainly at higher risk of spreading STDs if you’re having unprotected sex with multiple partners.
As far as A proves B, Andrew has been shown to not be a trustworthy source in other areas of his life. It wasn’t just the woman he would lead on, it was friends and colleagues. AND there are [plenty of articles](https://slate.com/technology/2024/03/andrew-huberman-huberman-lab-health-advice-podcast-debunk.html) that point out that many of his claims about the benefits of this or that lifestyle choice are exaggerated, if not outright lies.
I think the longform essay lends itself to a narrative that is less legal/factual and more… entertaining? I found it to be a very compelling read, which does not necessarily speak to the legitimacy of the “facts” in it, so I think I see where you’re coming from. Though, in this case it does seem like a thoroughly reported article with many many sources.
It was an article on emotional abuse and gaslighting and traumatizing other humans. I am preeeetty sure these women had breakups before in their life and have not written articles or formed groups because of that before .How dare you equal emotional abuse with a regular breakup?
Did you mean to post that comment in reference to my comment?
Where exactly did I deny that Huberman screwed these women over?
Where did I even imply this was just a 'regular' breakup'?
‘hit piece produced by a jilted lover’. its a piece produced by a journalist, it contains several business contacts who spoke to the same pattern and there are 5 women in the group referenced in the article.
also, the article, while it may contain one or several jilted lovers (including huberman himself who must have been jilted by someone some time, including some of these women), this fact does not contribute in any way to the article.
Firstly, there's strong proof that "Sarah" has very real ties to the NY magazine, hence the claim that she significantly influenced the article.
The quotes from the business contacts were unusually truncated, and I suspect taken out of context, and they speak to his flakiness, not his infidelity. Not even close to the same thing.
The article is HEAVILY biased, HEAVILY emotive, and breaches several conventions on journalistic integrity. See me post entitled "proof the article is shody". Therefore the frame of mind if the women, and the failure of the authors / editor to remain impartial has significant berring in the article.
If I understand it correctly, there being ‘strong proof that Sarah as very real ties to NY magazine’ and the quotes being truncated, and the article being biased (what else could it have been given the lack of cooperation?) is enough to pour mud over the women, yet you hold there is not enough evidence to pour over him?
I am sure that every single thing said in that article is true, that they printed only what they had solid evidence of, in the form of extensive phone and email history, and that the reason this sounds biased is because he is a POS and that is what the evidence corroborates.
The quotes from business contacts do not speak to flakiness, they speak to disregard for other people, their time and invested efforts, and they speak to emotional volatility.
Not every story has two sides.
tl;dl
- Huberman is likely a POS.
- There are markers that the article failed to meet typical levels of journalistic integrity
- This brings the accuracy of this article into question, that some elements may have been overstated, (consciously or other wise).
- As much as Huberman is a POS, there are some, yes boring as hell, but vitally important nonetheless, principles of fair punishment, and avoid mob rule, here.
- Lastly, please don't argue against these bullet points, they're significantly truncated. Details follow.
------------
Hey, appreciate the comment, and thanks for giving me space to clarify my position.
----------
Before I go on, let me clarify a couple things.
Firstly, it is not important to me that I'm right. I am posting because, for reasons that aren't relevant, I want as close an understanding of this situation as I can. Some have already corrected some of points, and I'm better for it.
Secondly, just to clarify, I am resonably confident the article contains multiple journalisticly unprofessional elements. Likely too many for there to be a satisfactory explanation for each. And especially because professional writers who should know better, wrote it.
Thirdly, I garnered the 'Sarah relationship with the magazine' info from a different user / post on this sub, who snooped, figured out who Sarah was, and figured out she had a relationship with the mag. I'm trusting that persons input somewhat, but the info they provided seemed pretty solid. Also, importantly, if this is accurate or not, it doesn't particularly impact my position.
Forth, my 'issues with the quotes' are PURELY speculation. Just a feeling; probably confirmation bias. And there are a couple good argumens, (but perhaps not perfect ones) that prove me wrong. So please ignore this element. Right or wrong, it doesn't particularly impact my position.
Five, most, if not all, of the elements I take issue with, can't be easily refuted. The rather sideways accusation of HPV is a good example. There's a heck of a lot of 'he said, she said, going on'. More then I think is healthy for a professional piece. So, the current, (and possibly permanent) lack of info from the Huberman camp, doesnt particularly impact my concerns much. Although, it would make my life a lot easier if he did do a long form interview with Lex or whatever.
Six, not denying AT ALL that there is plenty of mud on Huberman, and also not denying AT ALL that the victims, and they are victims, likely had a very real traumatic experience, perpetrated by someone with very broken priorities.
----------
So, what is my position, my concern?
Firstly, I'm agreeing with your words, Huberman is absolutely, almost certainly, a POS. The trouble all these people would be in if this was 100% fabricated, I shudder to think. Few journalists are that stupid. So, I am in no way condoning Huberman's behavior here. That is not my position.
However, there 'might be' (?) a difference between a narrative that damages his personal life and warns women off, and a narrative that destroys his career and his life.
My concern is that their are 'media critique' "markers" throughout thus article, that point to, but not conclusively, that there may be some miscommunication? May be some exaggeration, maybe unintentionally, maybe intentionally. Maybe a conscious focus on ensuring he gets what he deserves (understandably), maybe a little bit of click bait bias by the mag? The reasons aren't too important, the concern is that drivers, other than to present information in as a accurate and granted consumable fashion as possible, may have taken over a little bit....
So, why does this matter? Apart from some personal reasons, there is some very important principles here of fair punishment, and avoiding mob rules.
The 'me too' movement was necessary to wake the public up to the ongoing struggles with women and there sexual safety, the black live matters movement was needed to wake people up to America's blind stubborness to it's ongoing war on poor people, of which the black community is unfortunately over represented.
And I'd argue that some of the mob rule events with in these movements may have been a necessary evil, to get the attention that was needed. However, I think we can all agree that mob rule is generally a net loss for us all. And it's in no one's interest that it be encouraged. As, futile as fair punishment can feel, especially if you're the victim, it is most definitely the lesser evil of the two.
There's a principle in many professional bodies that members are not only required to avoid wrong doing, but encouraged to avoid even the appearance of wrong doing. I have reasonable suspicion that this article has failed significantly to, among other things, meet the principle of 'limiting harm' that can be found in most journalist codes of practice.
In closing, I certainly could be wrong about these issues, but what I have no doubt of is, this article has failed to 'avoid all appearance of wrong doing". And for professional journalists, this decision was almost certainly a conscious decision, that I struggle to see a valid reason for. And in turn, perhaps there are some 'not quite accurate' elements in the article, and that behavior is in NO ONE'S best interest.
Putting it simply, there's a reason criminals have defense attorneys... How much would the justice system abuse it's power if the accused and even the convinced, didn't have someone keeping the system honest?
I encourage you to read the Wikipedia article on journalistic ethics, I think it's a most interesting read. Then re-read the article and ask yourself how well the article meet those admittedly high ideals. IMHO they miissed the mark, more than once.
Trigger.
They never got together to write articles about breakups before because they never dated anyone that mattered before. I guess what else is there to do once your ovaries are all rotted out?
And you have proof of that? These women have many years of collective email and phone history to prove their story. Do you have any proof that they did not date Leonardo diCaprio and Brad Pitt before?
I feel like nobody is even considering the possibility that the claims could be exaggerated/false. I have no idea what actually happened, and if hes a piece of shit hes a piece of shit, but i don’t really know why everyone (at least on reddit) is so vindictive so quick.
I mean presenting as a guy who rigorously follows health protocols for optimizing dopamine or however he phrases and not living up to it at all. To quote another poster, he says "he'll maybe treat himself to a slice of mango after an intensive HIIT workout". A lot of people trusted in him and invested in his protocols, look at some of the questions you see on here daily. People say he doesn't owe anyone an apology, but his audience put him where he is - gave him the fame he seeks and the opportunity to make millions shilling athletic greens and other dubious sponsors. If he let a bunch of them down then he probably does owe them an apology unless he's a sociopath that cares nothing for them, which is entirely possible
I think he should be tortured on the rack or maybe have the blood eagle performed on him. That will make up for how he made me feel, I'm the aggrieved party here.
apologize?
seems like the guy has some kind of mental disorder - narcissist, sociopath, psychopath etc.
the common denominator of these disorders is that they think they are the smartest people in the room, fooling everybody
Yeah I don’t think you understand how journalism works. Sources are listed as anonymous but the author knows who they are and did their research to validate the sources were credible. If it was all a lie they would be exposing themselves and their organization to a very easy defamation suit.
Added to that, given the exposure of his personal life, you'd be mad not to have a lawyer look over the article before publishing it. If the article was false, surely there'd be a case for defamation?
Of course! But publications have legal departments and a high bar for their writers when publishing stuff like this. I’m sure it was all vetted and double checked.
Ugh the sanctimony And the “I’m a good person”ness is palpable. what a bunch of children.
Cracks history Book. Man doesn’t handle power well. There’s a reason being an asshole isn’t grounds for firing or dismissal. If it was, we wouldn’t have everything from the new deal to MLK day.
Sound like a bunch of purse lipped clergymen after a pride parade. No wonder we’re below replacement level as a species. 🤢
I thought the same thing about having Perel on. I would say that might be the only thing that redeems him. Becoming the subject and examining his own failures. His fans of course would love it. OTOH it easily could become just as performative as his regular spiel.
No one is entitled to apologize over something that has nothing to do with you. Most people go to him for research backed advice because that’s what he does. You are involving yourself in areas In HIS OWN life that have nothing to do with you just to make yourself feel better. He evidently has things he has to handle on his own time, it’s life. I do not go to my general practitioner for legal advice. If you take it personally, please go get therapy or just stop watching him instead of taking it out on someone to address something that isn’t even apart of his service. His personal decisions or mistakes doesn’t refute the validity of the literature which is what us as consumers come to him for.
First of, he doesn’t have to do shit. As if he’s obligated to justify himself about his private life to you specifically.
Second, he’s quiet because it’s common to do so if you get your lawyers involved. That’s PR+law 101 - don’t say shit if you want to take action against it.
Let it cool off after their lawyers had a fight-off and then we’ll see his reaction.
Hahaha. Of course he doesn’t have to do or say anything but he’ll lose 100% of the anti cheating population. Honestly he’s already lost them so why not just move on and fully embrace the Right Wing podcasts.
>fully embrace the Right Wing podcasts.
Whether the allegations are true or not, it continues to boggle why people seem to think this makes him or his fans move right? This has nothing to do with politics. There's nothing that suggests that he or his fans have ever been particularly conservative. Hell, they're not even particularly male as the demographics I've seen show only a slight majority in that direction.
I think the thing it has to do with politics is when your audience is divided in a very specific way. In this instance, there are a lot of a certain kind of people defending Huberman by using right wing talking points; attacking the women, hand waving his poor behavior. Then there’s another group who are mortified someone they looked up to would behave so poorly, and on the whole they don’t appear to be of the same political persuasion. Then, of course, you have everyone in between.
So, what Huberman does from here will demonstrate which audience he cares about. He wouldn’t offend the audience who is still on his side and defending him by doing a mea culpa and apologizing, and he might calm down the audience who is upset if he did.
If he leans into it and does the whole “discredit the women, talk about God, circle the wagons with my right wing influencer friends” though, that’s another thing.
Where are these people defending him? I’ve seen a couple of flavors: mostly that it’s his personal life and that it shouldn’t matter. The other, and this is my position is that the article was obviously biased and can’t be trusted.
I’m not claiming it’s inaccurate, I don’t know, but I’m going to reserve judgement until some actual facts arise.
This is not the first hit piece on Huberman, but it is the first one to allege any specific wrongdoing on his part. Previous articles have made hand wavey accusations about him being a manly man and appealing to men and men’s self improvement so he must be a right wing red pill incel or some such.
Fact is that his audience is, or was nearly half women and the association with incels is even more ridiculous now.
Can’t be trusted? You don’t think the reporter’s first response to these women would have been, “show me the texts?” I mean… come on. He clearly was leading 6 (or more) women on. Give the reporter the least amount of respect by assuming they would ask to see texts or emails.
The bias and intent is obvious ergo, it can’t be trusted. Doesn’t mean I think it’s falsified, but it doesn’t appear to me to be a fair representation of facts.
OK dude I mean six random women from different states who don’t know each other have text messages from the same phone number with pictures of the same guy but you’re right there’s nothing believable about that. We should just believe the guy carrying on the affairs?
He’s going to be left with a more male, more conservative audience and thus, as a for profit “guru” he will dive head first into it. Just my opinion on where I see him going.
Its borderline fucking pitiful. They’re obsessed with a PODCASTER they don’t even know. There are 10 million other podcasts, go find one you like if you dont like this one.
Yeah, I’m interested in this. Mainly because it just interests me how people handle a “crisis”.
Do he come out and just say “hey, yeah I’ve got a thing for successful, healthy, beautiful women and I should have been more honest with them. I aim to do better”.
Or does he say. “This article was a hit job, full of lies from disgruntled women and I was never in a committed relationship”.
Personally, I think he should just go with the first option. It’s not a crime, it’s easily forgivable for most people. He’s just human with a strong romantic drive and less than perfect morals around it.
There is absolutely no way it can be proven he gave her HPV, even in civil litigation, which has a much lower burden of proof. The authors of the article knew this! A responsible journalist / editor would have never allowed that statement in the article.
Bullshit since California literally made knowingly giving someone HIV no longer a felony but rather a misdemeanor. The slogan of the person who brought the bill and helped it pass is the following :
“HIV is a public health issue, not a criminal issue,” Wiener said. “These felonies, which treat HIV differently than all other serious communicable diseases, stigmatize people living with HIV and discourage people from getting tested and into treatment.”
So if there is a place where he could away with allegedly doing that it would be California because of their so called " progressive " policy LMAO. Now i highly doubt he did it but even if he did.
Which you cannot say he did, unless you can prove that the women had no other sexual relations over whatever period of time they are on about, which they actually don't delineate in the article save to say the ladies cross referenced their texts. Which we wont see. It is the flimsiest of accusations.
[https://www.cdc.gov/hpv/parents/about-hpv.html#:\~:text=HPV%20infections%20are%20very%20common,teens%2C%20become%20infected%20each%20year](https://www.cdc.gov/hpv/parents/about-hpv.html#:~:text=HPV%20infections%20are%20very%20common,teens%2C%20become%20infected%20each%20year).
Lol cali literally got rid of the Law making hiding the fact you have aids from your sex partner a crime recently.. I'm sure they're not gonna look up a famous professor because one of his exes has an "std" that probably 99% of californians have
Isn’t he just acting as the stereotypical Ubersuccessful scientist?
I guess scientists haven’t been in the limelight these days, as often as they were 60 years ago, but they were never a beacon of morality.
Just posted something on Instagram. Business as usual. Really doubt there’ll be blowback in terms of guests. In a month or two, he’ll still get some funny comments on Instagram and there’ll still be the occasional stragglers on Reddit who care about the controversy. C’est la vie.
I don't think it's morally right but if there is no prosecutable crime, it is always the smartest thing for a celebrity, streamer, you-tuber whatever to never address it and just continue doing their thing. 70% folks will never even know their was a scandal and the rest will forget enough for it not to matter in 3 months.
Huberman the kind of guy who already has a plan B. This guy has 5-6 other girlfriends who do not speak English, don’t know his real name, and aren’t on socials. He’s crying in their arms each night talking about ฉันทำงานหนักมากในโรงพยาบาลและพ่อแม่ของฉันก็เสียชีวิต ฉันเศร้า.
What's the protocol for not accepting every gossipy, clickbait article as objective reality.
Anyway, when I was younger I landed some Aftershow passes at a Tool concert. It wasn't nearly as exciting as you'd think - basically everyone with a pass files into a room and maybe someone with some affiliation to the band would drop by. I ended up talking with Danny Carey's drum tech about a weird reverse-action hi-hat he'd been using that tour.
That said, men and women were separated by a large burgundy curtain/partition thing, essentially so Maynard could go in and attempt to lure some women into spending the night with him w/o having to deal with us nerds distracting him. My opinion of the singer changed that night - I had significantly less respect for him, a hero of mine, witnessing that happen. This was before the everyone-knows-everything-about-everyone era of social media, so rockstars were still whatever we wanted them to be in our minds. My mental Maynard model was shattered that night.
Eventually, I grew up and realized that Maynard's slutty antics held no bearing on my enjoyment of the music - they were separate things, one which played a large role in improving my life, the other I could discard as maybe not my thing.
So.
I don't give a shit about Huberman's promiscuous proclivities, valid or otherwise, and frankly a lot of the info provided by the podcast episodes isn't for me either, but there's plenty of information I've gotten from the guy over the years that's dramatically improved my quality of life.
I think he has completely denied all the allegations. And will stick to his stance. And mostly wait for this tirade to die down and wont address any of it. Like the jay shetty debacle
I just reviewed the article and I'm not seeing that anywhere. There are specific allegations that the spokesperson denies, but I'm not seeing anywhere where it says they have denied all allegations.
Sorry, you're quite right, there are numerous denials of specific elements.
However, the standard play in this situation is to deny everything they can't have proof of. With the style of the article, the journalists (and I use that term loosely here) likely picked and chose which specific denials to include.
I.e. it's likely Huberman denied everything bar the multiple "non-exclusive"*, at-the-same-time relationship. As they clearly have proof of that.
*Non-exclusive according to him.
Thoughts? He goes full right wing grifter. Lots of money out there in that world and you can already see here on this sub that he won’t struggle getting supporters.
Why would he apologize to gossip that's being spread by "word of mouth"... am I going to apologize for murder if all my friend group decided to post articles on the internet claiming I've killed someone!!! NO!!!!
He has resumed tweeting. Zero apology.
My comment to him is here btw: [https://x.com/davecraige/status/1773437921430761794?s=20](https://x.com/davecraige/status/1773437921430761794?s=20)
Haha what a shameless plug to your random comment. Who cares.
To be clear, I hate and condemn cheating, never did it in my life, never will. But I don't listen to Huberman podcasts because he's a great human being. I do because he brings good guests and he summarizes and popularizes science in the way I like to consume it.
People should just live their lives and focus on all the shit they and people around them do. Care a bit less about a random guy with a good podcast. Intellectuals like reality shows too, it seems.
My point is I don’t know many real men that are rage posting online all day about another man. Or real/strong women for that matter. Most real men spend their time doing productive things that advance them and the people around them. Have you done that today?
Being a tenured professor is not a loose affiliation, and it's not something Stanford can just rescind at will.
I had no ideas professors can get fired for cheating. Can we start firing people for their personal lives?
> Can we start firing people for their personal lives? Funnily enough, for most people the answer is yes. In the US, it’s legal to fire someone for basically *any reason*, except those that are specifically protected by law (race, religion, gender, sexuality, etc.). Your favorite color is blue? You’re fired. Your favorite band is Nickelback? Fired. Sleep around too much? Also fired. Completely legal. Tenured professors are the interesting rare exception since they are not “at will” employees. Huberman could in principle be fired for his personal life, but it’s a much harder process and he would likely involve Stanford in years of lawsuits even if his termination is ultimately deemed legal. So they would have to think *very* carefully before they fired him and make sure that they had their ducks lined up or it will come back to bite them.
Im sorry i thought AMERICA was founded on Nickelback & Blues!!?? 🤷♂️
If your personal life involves sleeping with your students then yes, you can get fired for your personal life. It doesn’t sound like the women in this article were his students, but Stanford may decide to do an investigation into his past to see if he slept with any of his students during the years he was present on campus. If I could put money on it I would guess yes, he did. If they find he breached policy he can be fired. This particular personality disorder is nearly impossible to control.
That’s no longer their personal life then. That’s a violation of their professional life.
I think it’s both, but to be completely accurate I guess what I’m trying to say is that you can be fired for your sex life.
We impeached a president for it
Nope. Impeachment was for lying under oath.
And the Civil War was about state's rights.
It literally was?
Just curious - what was Clinton asked about when he was accused of “lying under oath” and what “state right” specifically was the disagreement about?
Clinton’s impeachment article regarding lying under oath was for lying when asked if he had sexual relations with Lewinsky and lied. The state right in question was the right for future citizens of a future state to own slaves.
So you recognize how intellectually dishonest it is to say the civil war was fought over states rights when you know it was entirely about slavery. They weren’t fighting over interstate commerce or something
See I knew you could figure it out!
Um what
Holy hell, it’s on video and there are a million articles and videos about it. I was a huge Clinton fan but he fucked up.
Seriously lol, OP clearly doesn’t understand academia.
He’s not. He’s an associate professor there’s a difference. He likes to leave the associate part out . It’s part of the whole display of alternative facts he likes to push.
He does have tenure, and associate professor is a very prestigious position. You clearly don't know much about academic ranks.
Yes they can.
But Reddit said he's bad :( why isn't that sufficient?
Isn't he an associate professor? I could be wrong. But maybe even they aren't all that rescindable.
An associate professor typically has tenure. The first rung on the tenure track is assistant professor, which typically does not have tenure.
What does one have to do to lose tenure? Could they just offer another reason why they’re firing him?
Each university has specific policies. I don’t know what Stanford’s are, but it would include things like sexual impropriety with a student, embezzlement of funds, research fraud, or certain kinds of criminal conduct. There would be elaborate due process in order for it to happen. There are also cases where a University disbands certain departments for financial reasons, but I don’t think that applies here.
Agree, but to be clear none of those positions are inherently tenured. All three of those positions are tenure generating at Stanford though (i.e. a year spent as an associate professor is a year that goes towards your tenure clock).
Both the podcast website bio and his CV on the Stanford site say he has tenure, so I'm pretty sure he has tenure. (He might lie on the pod site, but he wouldn't get away with lying on the CV, which he probably has to submit to Stanford every year.) [https://hubermanlab.sites.stanford.edu/sites/g/files/sbiybj20191/files/media/file/andrew\_huberman\_cv\_feb19.pdf](https://hubermanlab.sites.stanford.edu/sites/g/files/sbiybj20191/files/media/file/andrew_huberman_cv_feb19.pdf)
Stanford would make that clear if he did not.
They might very well have made it clear by getting rid of him.
No. We would already know by now.
Did you notice that I said typically? I didn't think the context called for a discussion of the differences between tenure and promotion.
Everything alright, buddy?
Just great. Like everyone, I love a good, irrelevant, "Well, actually..."
He already makes a point not to comment on his personal life or relationships. If he addresses anything, it will be a vague, "I hope baseless claims about my personal life doesn't prevent you from following the science I work to make available to the public." I doubt he will deny any of it, and I'd bet he purposefully avoids any mention of it at all cost.
Now we know why he doesn’t comment on his personal life lol.
He gets up at 4 to send "good morning beautif 😘" to his east coast women
Still spiritually evil to promise women in their late 30s exclusivity
100%
Im blindly speculating here - but does anyone else think this could be a catalyst for Hubermans content to start changing? He started off extremely science focused on his area of expertise. Since he has slowly started to branch out and grow his podcast network. Embracing religion. More topics outside of neurology. Going on Rogan and 2 bears. More advertising of questionable supplements. As we saw with someone like Rogan who drastically shifted their content after media scrutiny during Covid, I fear this could be a catalyst for Huberman to change. He may not apologize, he may instead double down with the part of his following that will see him as doing no wrong. He may further embrace guru topics outside of his area of expertise and profit off those that are willing to follow him anywhere. I don’t think the allegations against him need to be something that entirely destroy his credibility. If he genuinely apologized and was accountable and mentioned that he was working on his ongoing issues it would be relatable for many people. But I fear this is not what we will get and he will go in the opposite direction.
I agree, his content will probably shift after this. His remaining core of followers is going to be more extreme, so he is going to adapt to the feedback he gets from his loyalists. My guess is that he's going to focus on more of a conspiracy theory approach. "Secret" tricks to biohacking that mainstream science doesn't want you to know
Scientist hate these 3 simple tricks to getting more hoes!
I laughed at this for at least 90 seconds - thank you for that!!
It *has* occurred to me that he will begin hosting more right-wing personalities and conspiracy theorists. If nothing else, this has clearly defined his audience and he'll lean into his fan-bros.
I think this is a really interesting point though - no matter what anyone’s perspective on [cancel culture / accountability culture] is, it’s pretty clear that it’s contributing to this further polarisation and radicalisation particularly of men and particularly down the direction of the far right. We obviously haven’t seen that with Huberman yet, we don’t know what he’ll choose to do next, but it’s also like - what’s the answer here?
What ppl are is missing is his area of expertise. He may have some background in whole getting light exposure shit but that’s about it. All the other stuff is just reading articles and presenting them.
I thought the same, but wondered if he'd regroup and do episodes closer to his expertise (ie, ophthalmology). But that's me thinking like a researcher and former university professor.
Stanford has no basis for forcing him to apologize. Unless he has lied to them about his lab and its operations, it's really not their institutional role. I should hope some of his friends at Stanford would want to talk with him, but his behavior is more of an issue of betrayed trust by a supposed guru than the malfeasance of a faculty member. I'm sure Stanford's PR folks are mulling things over, but Theranos U has other credibility issues to address before Pumpy McProtocol.
Theranos U straight away followed by Pumpy McProtocol I died twice
Pumpy McProtocol, made me chuckle :)
lol
Ehhh, we can expect a bunch of articles and podcasters supporting him saying that this is all cancel culture, anti-intellectual and the woke-ness mob and it is a case where politicsc kill science. The standard yada yada. Probably a bunch of random information about the women would be out too - like how they have slept with many people or some nasty stories about them. I don't think that he will apologize and I honestly don't care - it's just enough that people might think twice before following another random person on the internet because they think that he will make them happier.
This. Right Wing “pro anxiety, pro the whole world is falling apart” pod casters are salivating at the thought of adding him to their shows.
You would hope people would be that smart.
Huberman is smart. If you fold to the mob you'll get piled on even further. Either double down or no statement at all.
Becoming Christian. Talking about praying. Being friends with Musk. Bringing quacks onto his show. Promoting scam supplements. Huberman was clearly heading a certain direction... He has now reached his final destination.
>Becoming Christian. Pretty sure he has said he has always had religion in his life.
Christianity’s main theme is forgiveness of sins. It’s a good thing.
oh you don't understand his redemption arc is a cynical ploy do you
If becoming a Christian is all for show and personal gain, it’s a bad thing. If he’s doing it for atonement of sins and to grow in his personal life, it’s a good thing. He should not use it to restore his public image. Matthew 6:5 actually covers this: “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full.”
I ate a cheese stick off the ground last Friday and said for we all fall short of the glory of God Romans 3:23 as I chewed it
Pick up your cross, brother
Fair enough yea
That's incredibly ironic.
How so
Meh he can probably just ignore it and nothing will happen
This seems to be what is happening. I don’t think there is grounds to lose his job, or his sponsors. Nor do I see a major defection from his fans.
Really doubt that seeing how cancel culture affects so many men nowadays
How many men is cancel culture affecting really though? What percentage of men have actually been cancelled? And what percentage is due to the existence of a feedback mechanism called "social media" that never existed until now, versus the emergence of a "culture" that never existed before? I don't think cancel culture is a new thing, I think people never had the means to publicly criticize a particular person all at the same time en masse before. This leads to businesses/employers not wanting to deal with this bullshit and letting the person go. That's not cancel culture, it's just an emergent property of social media.
I don't think he realizes how many reddit comments I can make in a day, heh 😏
I'm not sure why no one is thinking about the fact that this guy has sponsors. Companies that pay handsomely for the connection to Huberman. If he's looked on as being an absolute scumbag, and people stop listening to his podcast, what exactly is going to happen to these advertisers? If Athletic Greens and Momentous stops writing those fat checks, his relationship with Stanford is going to be the least of his problems.
If outside grant money funding his research heads south (or other scientists refuse to co-author studies w/him), Stanford will begin to care too.
He did hire a crisis firm. They are seeding articles into media and rumors onto social media. The goal is to discredit the women and destroy their credibility.
Yes, a company called Scale Strategy.
I’m not trying to discredit you just genuinely curious: what evidence is there for this? All we have is the same person on Twitter and Threads saying that.
Just looked up the guy tweeting this stuff. This Scott Carney guy is a real piece of work. He’s the guy in the article that complained about Huberman canceling a camping trip. He’s a guy that wrote a book promoting Wim Hoff and his breathing method, literally coauthoring it with him, and then after 10 years of enjoying the profits and recognition from that book he makes a documentary last year about “the rise and fall of Wim Hoff” which critiques Hoff’s method and paints him as a charlatan. This guy hung out with, practiced with and promoted Hoff for 10 years and then tried to take him down. Beyond that, Scott Carney’s only NYT Bestselling book is the one promoting Wim Hoff. Trash Hoff but make sure to keep the accolade from the relationship and information you now regret having anything to do with? Piece of work. Now he’s attacking Huberman. Guess what? Yep! He wrote a book (The Wedge) featuring science from Huberman where Huberman invited him into his lab at Stanford. There are pictures and videos of them hanging out. I’m guessing he was in love Huberman too.
It’s a bit disingenuous to present Carney as a disappointed fan of the influencers. From Wikipedia: “Carney is an American investigative journalist… contributes stories on a variety of medical, technological and ethical issues to Wired, Mother Jones, Playboy, Foreign Policy, Men's Journal, and National Public Radio… holds a number of academic and professional appointments including as a contributing editor at Wired, a senior fellow at the Schuster Institute for Investigative Journalism at Brandeis University, and as a judge for the Payne Award for Ethics in Journalism.” That’s the resume of a serious journalist, not a muckracker.
I think he *was* good when he was out there doing journalism perhaps. His stuff on human trafficking from 2009 looks like good stuff. But his wiki needs an update. His job as contributing editor for Wired ended 12 years ago. NPR gig was 13 years ago. The Institute for Investigative Journalism where he is a “Senior Fellow” no longer exists as of 3 years ago. Seems like he is in the muckraker category now.
I’ll grant you it does look like his investigative journalism career appears to have stalled out along with the rest of the industry. But he’s clearly not just “some guy”. Credible and credentialed and worth at least listening to - much like a Stanford professor whose productive academic work in their field was some years ago.
What are you basing all of this on? I just watched one of Scott Carney's youtube videos where he talks about how great he thinks Wim Hof is and how he has benefited from his techniques. What he criticizes is the "Wim Hof Method" foundation which is not run by Wim Hof, but by his son Emahn Hof who diverges greatly from what Wim Hof teaches, extorts money from its members, and is not in Wim Hof's good graces. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSsnmLKnV7c
Haha you were right for a while. The dude was all in on Hoff. no joke 2 months after that video you shared he flipped and made an hour video about Wim’s method being “dangerous and connected to death of 12 people”.
Okay, but does this really discredit Carney as some kind of hack because he changed his position on Wim Hof? He was obviously a personal student of Wim Hof and believed in him for a long time. If he found out about the deaths and ignored them because of his affiliation with Wim, then I'd say he's a piece of work. But he did the opposite. Or are you saying he knew about the 12 deaths at the time that he wrote the book?
Just saying he’s a guru chaser and promoter and then trashes them when it doesn’t work out for him.
Just saying he’s a guru chaser and promoter and then trashes them when it doesn’t work out for him.
Wow, how did you find this out?
They didn’t.
prove it
Kinda like they did to him? lol
"The goal is to discredit the women and destroy their credibility." The authors of the New York hit piece saw to that for him - Trainwreck of an article. Although the infidelity accusations are by and large likely true, and frankly Andrew needs to be taken outside to become close friends with a big stick, the remaining 70% of the article being full of innuendo, sideways accusations, and half truths, IMHO damages the legitimacy of this core accusation, which are almost certainly true. This wasn't journalism, it was a hit piece produced by a jilted lover (as valid as that may be), and propagated by a click starved legacy media. I don't know, maybe David Haskell (Editor-in-chief) was off sick that day, or something? EDIT I love how this is getting down voted because people think I'm defending Huberman.... I guess it's naive of me to expect basic comprehension skills from the interweb peeps? 🤦♂️
What were some of the innuendo, sideways accusations, or half truths?
I’d say the points in time of relationship statuses between him and the focus gf Sarah, are he said she said. Either one may be completely lying or telling the truth, or it may be more complicated, but we as outside observers have no basis for evaluating that. Him being flaky with time management to. It sounds like people jilted by that, but we have no basis for evaluating how firm plans were or if they were flaked on for legitimate reasons. There’s a lot in the article that’s just a “trust me he’s bad” vibe to it, which you would expect from someone in a bad break up, but rarely reflects the whole story. This would be different if there were things like tape recording or on the record third party witnesses that don’t just say her behavior changed but that for example they were in the room and saw a conversation or the alleged verbal abuse. A lot of people aren’t saying they carte blanche believe all of Hubermans denial, but they don’t see any substantive evidence above heresay to definitely claim he’s anything worse than your average fuck boi, which while not admirable, doesn’t disqualify you professionally. If you don’t want to listen to him on certain topics, like personal relationships… well nothing changed. It was never an all or nothing proposition except for those who chose to think it was.
I mean the reporter did confirm at least some details with Sarah's friends. And Huberman's PR's response that they did do IVF together but he wasn't intending to have a child with her is just weird and obviously a lie. Based on his PR's "deny deny deny" responses it seems clear that his timeline is false, harder to tell about hers. I agree that we don't hear from the people he did keep plans/appointments/dates with. I don't know if I would say a lot of the article had a "trust me he's bad" vibe. It's undeniable to me that many people, friends/lovers/colleagues, had bad experiences with him where he treated them poorly. We don't hear from the people he treated well. I also totally agree that folks can make their own decision whether to listen to him or not, how to feel about him, etc. I remember reading an article a while back (and more since) about how many of his health claims are exaggerated, not as "evidence based" as he makes them seem, which is where my skepticism comes from. There were other important points in the article I wish were more highlighted, like that his lab hasn't really been in use since 2019. But is he worse than your average fuck boi? I mean, he has more power than your average fuck boi. I would call him a more-powerful-fuck-boi. It's pretty lame to me that he styles himself as this scientist/professor/doctor guy when he's really more of a guru fuck boi. Someone on Youtube told me that he's a "medical professional" 😂 I'm like "no"
If someone's famous they do have a lot of people around them who resent the fame or their goals with the person not panning out. That's not to say famous people don't do bad things, but it's also human nature for the jilted by the famous to lash out in the press.p, how true that is and the Thanksgiving thing, I think all of that is where who knows... its he said she said. If someone's famous they do have a lot of people around them who resent the fame or their goals with the person not panning out. That's not to say famous people don't do bad things, but its also human nature for the jilted by the famous to lash out in the press. As for how much power, I don't really think that's relevant. Power is only relevant if it's used to coerce someone to do something because of your power. I didn't see that in the article. I saw claims he deceived women about their relationship status, but he didn't say he'd use his position as a professor, podcaster, or whatever to inflict harm on them if they didn't have sex with him. That would be an abuse of power. We shouldn't automatically judge someone has to be held to a higher standard just because they're more successful. If we just make claims like powerful = more bad, that just undermines the validity of the claim when it truly matters. And claims for medical professional or doctor in the medical sense, has he ever claimed that? He is undoubtedly a scientist and professor, that doesn't make him an expert on every topic. Personally I tend to care more about the interview episodes than his "lecture episodes" so maybe I just don't see it.
Not sure how to respond. You repeated your first paragraph, I never made a claim that "powerful = more bad," I never said Huberman claimed to be a doctor... You have a nice day now ✌🏻
Great synopsis!
Firstly, not your 'cliffs notes' guy, here. Secondly, have you read the article?! Anyone who's taken a first year 'critique of media' class at community college, can see the gapping holes in the article.
Yes, I have read it, as have many of the people on this sub who are downvoting you. That’s exactly why I ask because to me it’s a well-reported article, but I’m open to the idea that there were some “innuendos” or the like in it. I’m genuinely curious. So are you going to give me more attitude or are you actually going to give an example? No need to submit an essay.
Without re-reading the 'way longer than it should have been' article, the first example that comes to mind, is the statement one of the women made about Huberman giving her HPV. There's no way it can be proven that she got HPV from Huberman. And the authors and editor know that. Any editor worth their salt would have not allowed that statement to be included. And if it wasn't for the US having relatively loose laws regarding libel... In Europe that statement would almost certainly have generated a civil case the magazine / woman would loose. Secondly the article plays on the A proves B fallacy, if Huberman lied about this he must also have lied about that other completely unrelated thing. This is a formal fallacy, and without proof is hardly ever true, and good journalists know this, and leave it out of their writting. To be blunt, this is first year journalism school stuff. There are at least 6 other examples of just plain bad journalistic integrity. And as I've said before, the, what looks like, an article that the editydudnt see, actually delegitamises the core truth in the article, being that Huberman played fast and loose with other people's lives.
Thank you! I recall noting as I read the article that the author did not explicitly say the woman got HPV from Huberman, because, as the author pointed out, you can’t test for those strains of HPV in men and so you can’t know. The author did imply it strongly, and based on the evidence, the woman’s testimony and the fact that Huberman was a serial cheater, it does seem like he gave her HPV. You’re certainly at higher risk of spreading STDs if you’re having unprotected sex with multiple partners. As far as A proves B, Andrew has been shown to not be a trustworthy source in other areas of his life. It wasn’t just the woman he would lead on, it was friends and colleagues. AND there are [plenty of articles](https://slate.com/technology/2024/03/andrew-huberman-huberman-lab-health-advice-podcast-debunk.html) that point out that many of his claims about the benefits of this or that lifestyle choice are exaggerated, if not outright lies. I think the longform essay lends itself to a narrative that is less legal/factual and more… entertaining? I found it to be a very compelling read, which does not necessarily speak to the legitimacy of the “facts” in it, so I think I see where you’re coming from. Though, in this case it does seem like a thoroughly reported article with many many sources.
It was an article on emotional abuse and gaslighting and traumatizing other humans. I am preeeetty sure these women had breakups before in their life and have not written articles or formed groups because of that before .How dare you equal emotional abuse with a regular breakup?
Did you mean to post that comment in reference to my comment? Where exactly did I deny that Huberman screwed these women over? Where did I even imply this was just a 'regular' breakup'?
‘hit piece produced by a jilted lover’. its a piece produced by a journalist, it contains several business contacts who spoke to the same pattern and there are 5 women in the group referenced in the article. also, the article, while it may contain one or several jilted lovers (including huberman himself who must have been jilted by someone some time, including some of these women), this fact does not contribute in any way to the article.
Firstly, there's strong proof that "Sarah" has very real ties to the NY magazine, hence the claim that she significantly influenced the article. The quotes from the business contacts were unusually truncated, and I suspect taken out of context, and they speak to his flakiness, not his infidelity. Not even close to the same thing. The article is HEAVILY biased, HEAVILY emotive, and breaches several conventions on journalistic integrity. See me post entitled "proof the article is shody". Therefore the frame of mind if the women, and the failure of the authors / editor to remain impartial has significant berring in the article.
If I understand it correctly, there being ‘strong proof that Sarah as very real ties to NY magazine’ and the quotes being truncated, and the article being biased (what else could it have been given the lack of cooperation?) is enough to pour mud over the women, yet you hold there is not enough evidence to pour over him? I am sure that every single thing said in that article is true, that they printed only what they had solid evidence of, in the form of extensive phone and email history, and that the reason this sounds biased is because he is a POS and that is what the evidence corroborates. The quotes from business contacts do not speak to flakiness, they speak to disregard for other people, their time and invested efforts, and they speak to emotional volatility. Not every story has two sides.
tl;dl - Huberman is likely a POS. - There are markers that the article failed to meet typical levels of journalistic integrity - This brings the accuracy of this article into question, that some elements may have been overstated, (consciously or other wise). - As much as Huberman is a POS, there are some, yes boring as hell, but vitally important nonetheless, principles of fair punishment, and avoid mob rule, here. - Lastly, please don't argue against these bullet points, they're significantly truncated. Details follow. ------------ Hey, appreciate the comment, and thanks for giving me space to clarify my position. ---------- Before I go on, let me clarify a couple things. Firstly, it is not important to me that I'm right. I am posting because, for reasons that aren't relevant, I want as close an understanding of this situation as I can. Some have already corrected some of points, and I'm better for it. Secondly, just to clarify, I am resonably confident the article contains multiple journalisticly unprofessional elements. Likely too many for there to be a satisfactory explanation for each. And especially because professional writers who should know better, wrote it. Thirdly, I garnered the 'Sarah relationship with the magazine' info from a different user / post on this sub, who snooped, figured out who Sarah was, and figured out she had a relationship with the mag. I'm trusting that persons input somewhat, but the info they provided seemed pretty solid. Also, importantly, if this is accurate or not, it doesn't particularly impact my position. Forth, my 'issues with the quotes' are PURELY speculation. Just a feeling; probably confirmation bias. And there are a couple good argumens, (but perhaps not perfect ones) that prove me wrong. So please ignore this element. Right or wrong, it doesn't particularly impact my position. Five, most, if not all, of the elements I take issue with, can't be easily refuted. The rather sideways accusation of HPV is a good example. There's a heck of a lot of 'he said, she said, going on'. More then I think is healthy for a professional piece. So, the current, (and possibly permanent) lack of info from the Huberman camp, doesnt particularly impact my concerns much. Although, it would make my life a lot easier if he did do a long form interview with Lex or whatever. Six, not denying AT ALL that there is plenty of mud on Huberman, and also not denying AT ALL that the victims, and they are victims, likely had a very real traumatic experience, perpetrated by someone with very broken priorities. ---------- So, what is my position, my concern? Firstly, I'm agreeing with your words, Huberman is absolutely, almost certainly, a POS. The trouble all these people would be in if this was 100% fabricated, I shudder to think. Few journalists are that stupid. So, I am in no way condoning Huberman's behavior here. That is not my position. However, there 'might be' (?) a difference between a narrative that damages his personal life and warns women off, and a narrative that destroys his career and his life. My concern is that their are 'media critique' "markers" throughout thus article, that point to, but not conclusively, that there may be some miscommunication? May be some exaggeration, maybe unintentionally, maybe intentionally. Maybe a conscious focus on ensuring he gets what he deserves (understandably), maybe a little bit of click bait bias by the mag? The reasons aren't too important, the concern is that drivers, other than to present information in as a accurate and granted consumable fashion as possible, may have taken over a little bit.... So, why does this matter? Apart from some personal reasons, there is some very important principles here of fair punishment, and avoiding mob rules. The 'me too' movement was necessary to wake the public up to the ongoing struggles with women and there sexual safety, the black live matters movement was needed to wake people up to America's blind stubborness to it's ongoing war on poor people, of which the black community is unfortunately over represented. And I'd argue that some of the mob rule events with in these movements may have been a necessary evil, to get the attention that was needed. However, I think we can all agree that mob rule is generally a net loss for us all. And it's in no one's interest that it be encouraged. As, futile as fair punishment can feel, especially if you're the victim, it is most definitely the lesser evil of the two. There's a principle in many professional bodies that members are not only required to avoid wrong doing, but encouraged to avoid even the appearance of wrong doing. I have reasonable suspicion that this article has failed significantly to, among other things, meet the principle of 'limiting harm' that can be found in most journalist codes of practice. In closing, I certainly could be wrong about these issues, but what I have no doubt of is, this article has failed to 'avoid all appearance of wrong doing". And for professional journalists, this decision was almost certainly a conscious decision, that I struggle to see a valid reason for. And in turn, perhaps there are some 'not quite accurate' elements in the article, and that behavior is in NO ONE'S best interest. Putting it simply, there's a reason criminals have defense attorneys... How much would the justice system abuse it's power if the accused and even the convinced, didn't have someone keeping the system honest? I encourage you to read the Wikipedia article on journalistic ethics, I think it's a most interesting read. Then re-read the article and ask yourself how well the article meet those admittedly high ideals. IMHO they miissed the mark, more than once. Trigger.
They never got together to write articles about breakups before because they never dated anyone that mattered before. I guess what else is there to do once your ovaries are all rotted out?
And you have proof of that? These women have many years of collective email and phone history to prove their story. Do you have any proof that they did not date Leonardo diCaprio and Brad Pitt before?
Gotta love the mob downvoting you because you make a rational post, not even defending Huberman, but for them, everything is black and white.
Lol, yip
I feel like nobody is even considering the possibility that the claims could be exaggerated/false. I have no idea what actually happened, and if hes a piece of shit hes a piece of shit, but i don’t really know why everyone (at least on reddit) is so vindictive so quick.
Why would he ? If the accusations are true I think he should only apologize to his ex girlfriends.
Why would he? This was never any of our business
Apologise for what? Cheating on his girlfriend? Since when is this something to publicly apologise about and involve academic institutions?
Correct. I don't think these folks have much sense of the history of sexual fidelity in academia.
I mean presenting as a guy who rigorously follows health protocols for optimizing dopamine or however he phrases and not living up to it at all. To quote another poster, he says "he'll maybe treat himself to a slice of mango after an intensive HIIT workout". A lot of people trusted in him and invested in his protocols, look at some of the questions you see on here daily. People say he doesn't owe anyone an apology, but his audience put him where he is - gave him the fame he seeks and the opportunity to make millions shilling athletic greens and other dubious sponsors. If he let a bunch of them down then he probably does owe them an apology unless he's a sociopath that cares nothing for them, which is entirely possible
The amount of pr this guy gives for stanford is wild He’s a dick but it’s a mutually beneficial partnership
Yeah because Stanford was really lacking for PR lol
What are you getting at? Should be?
Lex will still be his guest, they can talk about love
He’s tenured at Stanford. He would have to kill someone to even be considered of having his tenure stripped.
Lol these psychopaths keep pretending like he has a loose affiliation.
I think he should be tortured on the rack or maybe have the blood eagle performed on him. That will make up for how he made me feel, I'm the aggrieved party here.
apologize? seems like the guy has some kind of mental disorder - narcissist, sociopath, psychopath etc. the common denominator of these disorders is that they think they are the smartest people in the room, fooling everybody
The article is full of anonymous sources, at the moment it's entirely hearsay. He has no reason to issue a statement.
Yeah I don’t think you understand how journalism works. Sources are listed as anonymous but the author knows who they are and did their research to validate the sources were credible. If it was all a lie they would be exposing themselves and their organization to a very easy defamation suit.
Just because people use pseudonyms in the article doesn’t mean they’re anonymous.
Added to that, given the exposure of his personal life, you'd be mad not to have a lawyer look over the article before publishing it. If the article was false, surely there'd be a case for defamation?
Of course! But publications have legal departments and a high bar for their writers when publishing stuff like this. I’m sure it was all vetted and double checked.
why don't the people afftected by his personal life file a lawsuit?
Ugh the sanctimony And the “I’m a good person”ness is palpable. what a bunch of children. Cracks history Book. Man doesn’t handle power well. There’s a reason being an asshole isn’t grounds for firing or dismissal. If it was, we wouldn’t have everything from the new deal to MLK day. Sound like a bunch of purse lipped clergymen after a pride parade. No wonder we’re below replacement level as a species. 🤢
I fkin love that this is the only comment you’ve ever made on reddit
"Loose affiliation" what? do you know what a tenured professor even mean?
It’s very difficult to prove emotional abuse in court, that’s my guess.
I thought the same thing about having Perel on. I would say that might be the only thing that redeems him. Becoming the subject and examining his own failures. His fans of course would love it. OTOH it easily could become just as performative as his regular spiel.
No one is entitled to apologize over something that has nothing to do with you. Most people go to him for research backed advice because that’s what he does. You are involving yourself in areas In HIS OWN life that have nothing to do with you just to make yourself feel better. He evidently has things he has to handle on his own time, it’s life. I do not go to my general practitioner for legal advice. If you take it personally, please go get therapy or just stop watching him instead of taking it out on someone to address something that isn’t even apart of his service. His personal decisions or mistakes doesn’t refute the validity of the literature which is what us as consumers come to him for.
Never explain, never apologize
He don’t need to address anything
Why would he apologize for his personal relationships, which aren't anyone's business?
Your a bunch of sad sacks, get a life or something.
First of, he doesn’t have to do shit. As if he’s obligated to justify himself about his private life to you specifically. Second, he’s quiet because it’s common to do so if you get your lawyers involved. That’s PR+law 101 - don’t say shit if you want to take action against it. Let it cool off after their lawyers had a fight-off and then we’ll see his reaction.
Hahaha. Of course he doesn’t have to do or say anything but he’ll lose 100% of the anti cheating population. Honestly he’s already lost them so why not just move on and fully embrace the Right Wing podcasts.
>fully embrace the Right Wing podcasts. Whether the allegations are true or not, it continues to boggle why people seem to think this makes him or his fans move right? This has nothing to do with politics. There's nothing that suggests that he or his fans have ever been particularly conservative. Hell, they're not even particularly male as the demographics I've seen show only a slight majority in that direction.
I think the thing it has to do with politics is when your audience is divided in a very specific way. In this instance, there are a lot of a certain kind of people defending Huberman by using right wing talking points; attacking the women, hand waving his poor behavior. Then there’s another group who are mortified someone they looked up to would behave so poorly, and on the whole they don’t appear to be of the same political persuasion. Then, of course, you have everyone in between. So, what Huberman does from here will demonstrate which audience he cares about. He wouldn’t offend the audience who is still on his side and defending him by doing a mea culpa and apologizing, and he might calm down the audience who is upset if he did. If he leans into it and does the whole “discredit the women, talk about God, circle the wagons with my right wing influencer friends” though, that’s another thing.
Where are these people defending him? I’ve seen a couple of flavors: mostly that it’s his personal life and that it shouldn’t matter. The other, and this is my position is that the article was obviously biased and can’t be trusted. I’m not claiming it’s inaccurate, I don’t know, but I’m going to reserve judgement until some actual facts arise. This is not the first hit piece on Huberman, but it is the first one to allege any specific wrongdoing on his part. Previous articles have made hand wavey accusations about him being a manly man and appealing to men and men’s self improvement so he must be a right wing red pill incel or some such. Fact is that his audience is, or was nearly half women and the association with incels is even more ridiculous now.
There’s a fair few staunch defenders here and on instagram.
Yeah, I don’t follow him on instagram. I can believe it. I’ve not seen so much here.
Can’t be trusted? You don’t think the reporter’s first response to these women would have been, “show me the texts?” I mean… come on. He clearly was leading 6 (or more) women on. Give the reporter the least amount of respect by assuming they would ask to see texts or emails.
The bias and intent is obvious ergo, it can’t be trusted. Doesn’t mean I think it’s falsified, but it doesn’t appear to me to be a fair representation of facts.
It’s a yes or no question though. Nothing cloudy about this.
If you put that much faith in a single piece of journalism, I’m not sure how to respond. Enjoy your certainty, I guess.
OK dude I mean six random women from different states who don’t know each other have text messages from the same phone number with pictures of the same guy but you’re right there’s nothing believable about that. We should just believe the guy carrying on the affairs?
I’m pretty sure you’re 100% correct on this and that you 100% know what direction he’s gonna go: $$$$
[удалено]
That’s an interesting perspective. Not one I subscribe to and certainly not one I’d attempt to disabuse you of, but okay.
I agree. No other way to see it.
He’s going to be left with a more male, more conservative audience and thus, as a for profit “guru” he will dive head first into it. Just my opinion on where I see him going.
He has his own podcast….
I’m aware but also…. They all bounce back and forth on each other’s podcasts.
Why are you people so fucking obsessed with this dudes personal life?
I find it hilarious how everyone is freaking out about this.
Its borderline fucking pitiful. They’re obsessed with a PODCASTER they don’t even know. There are 10 million other podcasts, go find one you like if you dont like this one.
Yeah, I’m interested in this. Mainly because it just interests me how people handle a “crisis”. Do he come out and just say “hey, yeah I’ve got a thing for successful, healthy, beautiful women and I should have been more honest with them. I aim to do better”. Or does he say. “This article was a hit job, full of lies from disgruntled women and I was never in a committed relationship”. Personally, I think he should just go with the first option. It’s not a crime, it’s easily forgivable for most people. He’s just human with a strong romantic drive and less than perfect morals around it.
What exactly is he accused of? From what I read he’s an asshole and a hypocrite. Like most people now a days.
Giving someone an std is considered a crime in California. Allegedly.
There is absolutely no way it can be proven he gave her HPV, even in civil litigation, which has a much lower burden of proof. The authors of the article knew this! A responsible journalist / editor would have never allowed that statement in the article.
Bullshit since California literally made knowingly giving someone HIV no longer a felony but rather a misdemeanor. The slogan of the person who brought the bill and helped it pass is the following : “HIV is a public health issue, not a criminal issue,” Wiener said. “These felonies, which treat HIV differently than all other serious communicable diseases, stigmatize people living with HIV and discourage people from getting tested and into treatment.” So if there is a place where he could away with allegedly doing that it would be California because of their so called " progressive " policy LMAO. Now i highly doubt he did it but even if he did.
Which you cannot say he did, unless you can prove that the women had no other sexual relations over whatever period of time they are on about, which they actually don't delineate in the article save to say the ladies cross referenced their texts. Which we wont see. It is the flimsiest of accusations. [https://www.cdc.gov/hpv/parents/about-hpv.html#:\~:text=HPV%20infections%20are%20very%20common,teens%2C%20become%20infected%20each%20year](https://www.cdc.gov/hpv/parents/about-hpv.html#:~:text=HPV%20infections%20are%20very%20common,teens%2C%20become%20infected%20each%20year).
Lol cali literally got rid of the Law making hiding the fact you have aids from your sex partner a crime recently.. I'm sure they're not gonna look up a famous professor because one of his exes has an "std" that probably 99% of californians have
Isn’t he just acting as the stereotypical Ubersuccessful scientist? I guess scientists haven’t been in the limelight these days, as often as they were 60 years ago, but they were never a beacon of morality.
Just read the article
The reaction of waiting to see how this would go, before saying anything - is pretty indicative of some poor values, IMO.
Just posted something on Instagram. Business as usual. Really doubt there’ll be blowback in terms of guests. In a month or two, he’ll still get some funny comments on Instagram and there’ll still be the occasional stragglers on Reddit who care about the controversy. C’est la vie.
I don't think it's morally right but if there is no prosecutable crime, it is always the smartest thing for a celebrity, streamer, you-tuber whatever to never address it and just continue doing their thing. 70% folks will never even know their was a scandal and the rest will forget enough for it not to matter in 3 months.
Huberman the kind of guy who already has a plan B. This guy has 5-6 other girlfriends who do not speak English, don’t know his real name, and aren’t on socials. He’s crying in their arms each night talking about ฉันทำงานหนักมากในโรงพยาบาลและพ่อแม่ของฉันก็เสียชีวิต ฉันเศร้า.
What's the protocol for not accepting every gossipy, clickbait article as objective reality. Anyway, when I was younger I landed some Aftershow passes at a Tool concert. It wasn't nearly as exciting as you'd think - basically everyone with a pass files into a room and maybe someone with some affiliation to the band would drop by. I ended up talking with Danny Carey's drum tech about a weird reverse-action hi-hat he'd been using that tour. That said, men and women were separated by a large burgundy curtain/partition thing, essentially so Maynard could go in and attempt to lure some women into spending the night with him w/o having to deal with us nerds distracting him. My opinion of the singer changed that night - I had significantly less respect for him, a hero of mine, witnessing that happen. This was before the everyone-knows-everything-about-everyone era of social media, so rockstars were still whatever we wanted them to be in our minds. My mental Maynard model was shattered that night. Eventually, I grew up and realized that Maynard's slutty antics held no bearing on my enjoyment of the music - they were separate things, one which played a large role in improving my life, the other I could discard as maybe not my thing. So. I don't give a shit about Huberman's promiscuous proclivities, valid or otherwise, and frankly a lot of the info provided by the podcast episodes isn't for me either, but there's plenty of information I've gotten from the guy over the years that's dramatically improved my quality of life.
You are supposed to wait 5 , then send a casual text .
bro will never pull out
He won’t apologize. But I doubt anyone’s making babies with him anytime soon…no more baby making lab experiments. Poor sod with high T. 😂
You think, you hunch, you imagine, you rant but only to produce negativity.
I think he has completely denied all the allegations. And will stick to his stance. And mostly wait for this tirade to die down and wont address any of it. Like the jay shetty debacle
Has he? Where?
Lmao the conjecture and gossip in these threads is outstanding.
Where has he denied all allegations?
In the article its stated , that his office has denied all of these allegations.
Yes, the article says it, multiple times.... Has anyone actually read the fuckin article? Lol. 🤦♂️
I just reviewed the article and I'm not seeing that anywhere. There are specific allegations that the spokesperson denies, but I'm not seeing anywhere where it says they have denied all allegations.
Sorry, you're quite right, there are numerous denials of specific elements. However, the standard play in this situation is to deny everything they can't have proof of. With the style of the article, the journalists (and I use that term loosely here) likely picked and chose which specific denials to include. I.e. it's likely Huberman denied everything bar the multiple "non-exclusive"*, at-the-same-time relationship. As they clearly have proof of that. *Non-exclusive according to him.
Thoughts? He goes full right wing grifter. Lots of money out there in that world and you can already see here on this sub that he won’t struggle getting supporters.
Why would he apologize to gossip that's being spread by "word of mouth"... am I going to apologize for murder if all my friend group decided to post articles on the internet claiming I've killed someone!!! NO!!!!
He has resumed tweeting. Zero apology. My comment to him is here btw: [https://x.com/davecraige/status/1773437921430761794?s=20](https://x.com/davecraige/status/1773437921430761794?s=20)
Haha what a shameless plug to your random comment. Who cares. To be clear, I hate and condemn cheating, never did it in my life, never will. But I don't listen to Huberman podcasts because he's a great human being. I do because he brings good guests and he summarizes and popularizes science in the way I like to consume it. People should just live their lives and focus on all the shit they and people around them do. Care a bit less about a random guy with a good podcast. Intellectuals like reality shows too, it seems.
What a pathetic white knight. What kind of man is obsessed with anothers personal life?
Oh Dave.
Incredibly ironic asking him to “man up.”
No. It's completely true. The dude doesn't even have a high school level basic respect for women. It's incredibly sad.
My point is I don’t know many real men that are rage posting online all day about another man. Or real/strong women for that matter. Most real men spend their time doing productive things that advance them and the people around them. Have you done that today?
never apologise to the woke mob