To me this is an interesting story. A well-regarded, well-credentialed, science-oriented life advice podcaster--Andrew Huberman--rises to new heights of fame and following, and is later "cancelled" for personal reasons, basically for having 5 or more exclusive relationship girlfriends at the same time.
Should that get him cancelled? What does it really mean in relation to that life advice? To me those aren't even the most interesting angles. The better questions that arise relate to why so many people accepted his ideas so completely, and why opinions are divided between seeing his personal life choices as not relevant and this calling into question his general credibility.
It all originated from this New York magazine story, Andrew Huberman’s Mechanisms of Control :The private and public seductions of the world’s biggest pop neuroscientist. I just noticed that they put "Joe Rogan" in the web page name, even though he played essentially no part in any of this, beyond helping Huberman rise to fame. That's SEO I guess.
Let's work backwards, and start with what he did, and then who he is, on to how to take this. He was in a relationship that was framed as monogamous with one woman, over a period of years, extending that as far as attempting to have children at one point (allegedly; it's hard to know how much of any one-source account is accurate). Then it turned out that he was in serious relationships with at least 4 other women at the same time, and maybe more. The coordination is admirable, on one level.
So what? The problem was that he communicated the relationships were exclusive to each, per the story, not only adjusting his partners' expectations but influencing their decision to have unprotected sex, which is lower risk in an exclusive relationship. Per the story spreading STDs did come up, which have been rebranded as STIs in recent times, broadened to include other conditions. It's all not such unusual behavior, but it is immoral.
I've seen Huberman on some podcasts but I wasn't really a follower. The ideas seemed fine, including some that I already subscribed to. He recommended that people shouldn't even consume moderate amounts of alcohol, not for moral reasons, but because it causes more health impact than is generally accepted. I essentially quit drinking alcohol some years ago, maybe 5 or 6, and drank very little for a decade before that, and it does seem like life might balance a little better without that input. He recommended getting sun early in the day, and moderating or adjusting the form of caffeine intake, and any number of other things (including ice baths, maybe?). Most of it is probably pretty good, well-grounded advice.
It's odd that all this isn't really directly derived from his scientific researcher background, or so it seems. Per that article he researched optical conditions and regeneration capabilities in mice, pretty far from the scope of all this life advice. He could sort through scientific materials in a different way than others, based on the general background, and what he pursued of his own interests might be directly relevant, based on sound research, and worthy of sharing.
Let's clear up a bit of extra context and tangents and then move on to the main themes, how this cancellation worked out, and what seems interesting about it to me. To frame where I stand on the general research based advice theme, I've been following another "science-guy" Youtube channel that perhaps overlaps in scope, Physionic, described as follows:
Detailed multi-study analyses, clear explanations of mechanisms underlying the results, and a sprinkling of cheeky humor. Learn your body, from the macro to the micro - welcome to Physionic.
So I can relate to the instinctive desire to learn from someone who is drawing on and summarizing research materials that it would be hard to interpret, related to diet, exercise, supplement use, new atypical practice topics like ice baths, and so on. I get how credentials, charisma, and well-grounded information could be more compelling in combination. The Leo and Longevity Youtube channel had been a similar resource, focused more on longevity and experimental drug use, or steroids and such, but Leo died under mysterious circumstances last year, leading to me searching out a replacement, Physionic.
I've recently ran across a Reddit Huberman sub (group), which is the main prompt to write this post. They're rejecting him there now; it's one sided, and even a bit ugly. The comments on that original article, describing his relationship issues, are divided; half say that his personal relationships aren't relevant to his role as a "pop neuroscientist," with the other half calling into question his personal credibility. The reason that resource made the subject more interesting is that I find the reactions interesting.
One odd input condition stands out in that article, tied to the latter theme: Huberman is endorsed by Athletic Greens. Per my understanding that product theme works off the older spirulina miracle food status by mixing lots of other natural inputs or supplements with that. Then that can be regarded as controversial, because they combine 75 ingredients into a supplement marketed as a way to replace vegetable input in the diet. This quote sums that up, from their website:
 |
that's Huberman saying that |
Could you get a basis of important vitamins, minerals, and probiotics from a scoop or two of that per day? Maybe, but it seems doubtful. If it was designed to be more like Soylent, a balanced input supplement designed to replace a meal then that kind of large-scope claim seems more likely, not as a green foods variation of a protein shake.
Why his relationship status doesn't matter, the argument
Seems obvious enough, but let's go there. It's Huberman's business who he dates, and if he misrepresents his relationship status with women that's a bit sketchy but it's still up to him. The life advice / pop neuroscientist theme is relatively completely separate.
This response and perspective is a critique of cancel culture, of the pattern of blaming individuals and and striking them down from public acceptance for personal shortcomings, even when these aren't even close to illegal activity, or even vaguely related to why they are popular, or tied to what they communicate. This resonates with me; I think if Huberman is giving useful, science-based life advice then how he manages dating and relationships isn't relevant to that theme.
Why connecting relationship issues and giving practical life advice makes sense
There is something to this theme of critiquing general reliability and authenticity. Within the scope of longevity study, for example, research into extending human life-span, cases of researchers recommending supplements that they have a commercial interest in comes up. It seems possible that the science based, practical guidance could be adjusted when it relates to the person offering it making money off it.
This isn't that case though. It moves the concern all the way back to far more general reliability; is this a trustworthy individual? I don't have a great read on Huberman, for not having seen much of his content, but my initial impression was positive. Just not positive enough to seek out more content, I guess, but then I'm pretty inconsistent about what I watch on Youtube. It ends up being filtered more for varying and random subject interest than practical impact, so that I might be watching content on cave diving one week and about streamed content reviews for shows that I don't watch the next.
To me the Athletic Greens / AG1 sponsorship really is a bit more troubling. That's fine for content producers like Joe Rogan; if any viewers are making life choices or supplement purchases based on his input that's up to them, and they have to already know that it's not grounded by the latest scientific research. Huberman should be more careful. Is it that Athletic Greens might really be a fantastic product? Instead of being unconvinced I'm more actively skeptical, and doubt it, but in fairness I don't know.
Just because Huberman continually lied to some of the people he was closest to in personal life that doesn't mean that he would be dishonest about findings he communicates in his podcast. If the right conditions came up he probably would, but it's not clear that they ever do, beyond that one sponsor endorsement issue.
Extremist reactions from Huberman followers
This might be the most interesting part. People in that Reddit sub are already talking about cancelling Athletic Greens subscriptions, and potentially disregarding the other life advice that they had accepted. I'm not really going to address that here, that some people are taking this so seriously, as if it changes everything. Maybe it should, but not everyone would follow that logic.
It's interesting to me that people were seeking out this kind of reference and personal authority to follow to begin with. As a personable, interesting, and potentially valuable information source why not; Huberman's podcast was probably novel and helpful. Positioning him as a thought leader or life coach I don't get.
And this is also why people feel so personally betrayed, related to him not being the person they thought he was. But then they had no idea how he managed his personal life, so all that was projection from an online persona image anyway.
If he was just sharing some ideas, drawing on research and his own developed perspective, then none of that matters. If he had been taken up and placed in a role model / life coach role it all shifts.
Then source-image branding factors in. He was built up as the next great resource, as I took the framing. That guy that creates Physionic content isn't like that; he frames himself as an advanced grad student researcher sorting out some modern themes, like whether turmeric works or not, or whether doing more or less reps when weightlifting is better (just more on the drug / supplement theme side).
Leo of Leo and Longevity was always framed as kind of an unconventional, strange guy; he started his Youtube career as a penis extension specialist, then moved on to longevity and biohacking themes, talking a lot about steroids. He openly said that others shouldn't experiment as much and as freely as he did, with lots of things. Part of his personal exploration involved taking significant risks, not following well-established and grounded practices. Huberman framed it all as solid life-practice advice, both explicitly and implicitly.
When it came up that Leo had abusive tendencies in his marriage relationship--as I remember those circumstances--his popularity dipped, and he became inactive for a time, but there wasn't an established idealistic image that he wasn't living up to. He was always out there. Huberman was supposed to be some sort of ultra-modern, research oriented, renaissance man.
Maybe he still is that; he was never supposed to be perfect. Maybe this will be the rare case where all of this blows over. More likely the drop in popularity that was going to cycle through eventually will be triggered now, and he will retain influence and popularity with some proportion of his earlier audience. A podcaster like Joe Rogan might have him on again just to talk through cancel culture experience, to highlight how he and his platform are immune to the whims of people who want to initiate that pattern. It will be interesting to see, but I won't be following it closely, since I never really was a fan anyway. I'm more a student of these kinds of patterns; to me they are interesting.
One last take
This was an interesting summary, a post in that Huberman Reddit sub titled I'm disgusted by how much I relish this:
On the whole, I enjoyed Huberman's podcast. Setting aside the exhausting tedium and BS ads for supplements and salt, I took away a lot of useful information. In the wake of the NY Mag article, though, I'm getting a kind of sick enjoyment from watching the dumpster fire.
Maybe it's alleviating an insecurity in me, seeing someone I subconsciously compared myself to get exposed as being so egregiously flawed. Maybe it's satisfying to watch deplorable behavior being met with justice. Maybe it's cathartic to imagine a vaguely smug demeanor getting wiped off someone's face.
Whatever the case, in the last couple days, I've been on this subreddit more than in all the time leading up, and I get the sense that it's not very healthy or productive for me to keep indulging in someone else's demise, at least not at this rate. Just thought I'd put that out there in case it resonates with anyone.
It might not be that people are so upset over their hero being torn down, or that people who were always skeptical are happy to be validated. It may just be that people love to watch things burn.
No comments:
Post a Comment