4 ms·

I’ve listened to a number of his podcasts, I’ve never gotten that impression at all. He comes across as a well versed, legit scientist. And there is lots of oth

I’ve listened to a number of his podcasts, I’ve never gotten that impression at all. He comes across as a well versed, legit scientist. And there is lots of other evidence to back that up, not just my impression from a few podcasts, publications, tenured professorship at Stanford, etc. But in this case, does it really need extensive scientific study? Just think about it and look around. The thing our entire biological systems are largely oriented around, reproduction, and human connection/contact. And then we have this super stimuli version of that always on tap at a moments notice, but it is a trap, a mirage. It might be best to minimize exposure to that since in the end it doesn’t/cannot produce the same results. I’ve not even listened to that link yet, I just caught glimpse of it the other day. I think it’s just starting to seem obvious to more and more people. The evidence seems to accrue daily as to the social detriment it causes. Are there any specific examples of cherry picking you have?

TaupeRanger 4y ago
Almost all of his diet/neuroscience/health claims (outside of commonly known things, like "exercise is good for you") are at best a gray area, and at worst just flat wrong. That is because we really don't know much about the brain and its relationship to human experience and behavior - and so anyone claiming to know how to improve your life with "neuroscience" is a con artist. Same with diet, which he also harps on constantly. For almost every non-obvious claim he makes about something, there exist studies that directly contradict him. And, being a good con artist, he conveniently ignores them. Here are some things he has claimed that are not at all settled science, although he talks as if they are and leaves out the contradictions: - Artificial sweeteners cause insulin resistance - Light alcohol consumption is detrimental - You can "hack your brain chemicals" with supplements to achieve some desired effect on your mind - We know what role neuromodulators play on really high level cognitive concepts like "creativity" - Increasing the diversity of your gut microbiome has positive health effects Frankly, no one's life will be any different from listening to Huberman or from doing anything he tells you to do, aside from those things everyone already knows about (like exercising, sleeping an appropriate amount, and not eating a bunch of refined sugar). If there IS some change outside of those, it is just as likely to be the result of random chance than from taking Huberman's advice, because there is no evidence that anything he says (outside of the obvious) is actually beneficial or worthwhile. To your question - yes...it absolutely DOES need a scientific study. Huberman's claim is porn literally DESTROYS YOUR BRAIN. But again, the studies are terrible and there are many contradicting studies that he would never point out - he's trying to make you think he knows what he's talking about and has something worthwhile to say (when he actually doesn't).
- canoebuilder 4y ago
  Is there something personal here as well? “Con artist” seems like a strong choice of words. It’s interesting that I don’t really see that at all. Maybe you’re a more frequent listener, I’ve just listened to a few where he is a guest and a few more than that of his solo episodes on his podcast which I particularly like because they just come across as a professor giving an extended lecture. I don’t get any hype man, wannabe guru, snake oil vibes at all. He does use some of the Tim Ferriss type verbiage of like, optimize, and what not. (Not saying Ferriss is snake oil, btw) But I’d say that’s just par for the course in that genre of podcasting, it never seems to impede on valid information. He speaks like a scientist. I’d imagine he’d be the first to say we know very little about the brain, but what do we mean by that? Things like qualia and consciousness, sure. But that doesn’t mean we can’t begin to parse out some things, like the things in his wheelhouse that he talks about, the effects of light exposure, positioning of the eyes, different types of breathing, etc. It’s often easier to tear down than put up. Do you or anybody else you know do better at avoiding the criticisms you have here about the communication of research? To some points- I’ve heard him talk about chemicals affecting the brain, which is a given right? Chemicals effect the brain in various ways. I’ve also heard him emphasize extreme caution and prudence in experimenting with chemicals at levels outside those one typically encounters day to day and often outright discourage it. Light alcohol consumption is detrimental I’m no expert here but it is easy to imagine wishful thinking leading to the pro column. I do notice marked difference in quality of sleep with even light consumption. Do the pros outweigh the cons? Best left to a personal calculus I suppose. You can "hack your brain chemicals" with supplements to achieve some desired effect on your mind Is this a controversial statement? Have you conversed with anyone who has had a cup of coffee smoked a joint, ingested psilocybin or LSD? The way he talks about the dopamine system and how too much redlining can throw the system out of whack seems well in line with what one observed in many other systems, biological and otherwise. My life has been changed as everything changes your life to some degree however big or small. I’ve gained knowledge condensed from someone else’s life’s work in the same that occurs in reading a book. This is a “force multiplier”(genre term) I should remind myself of more often. I should spend more time reading books.

TaupeRanger 4y ago

Almost all of his diet/neuroscience/health claims (outside of commonly known things, like "exercise is good for you") are at best a gray area, and at worst just flat wrong. That is because we really don't know much about the brain and its relationship to human experience and behavior - and so anyone claiming to know how to improve your life with "neuroscience" is a con artist. Same with diet, which he also harps on constantly. For almost every non-obvious claim he makes about something, there exist studies that directly contradict him. And, being a good con artist, he conveniently ignores them. Here are some things he has claimed that are not at all settled science, although he talks as if they are and leaves out the contradictions: - Artificial sweeteners cause insulin resistance - Light alcohol consumption is detrimental - You can "hack your brain chemicals" with supplements to achieve some desired effect on your mind - We know what role neuromodulators play on really high level cognitive concepts like "creativity" - Increasing the diversity of your gut microbiome has positive health effects Frankly, no one's life will be any different from listening to Huberman or from doing anything he tells you to do, aside from those things everyone already knows about (like exercising, sleeping an appropriate amount, and not eating a bunch of refined sugar). If there IS some change outside of those, it is just as likely to be the result of random chance than from taking Huberman's advice, because there is no evidence that anything he says (outside of the obvious) is actually beneficial or worthwhile. To your question - yes...it absolutely DOES need a scientific study. Huberman's claim is porn literally DESTROYS YOUR BRAIN. But again, the studies are terrible and there are many contradicting studies that he would never point out - he's trying to make you think he knows what he's talking about and has something worthwhile to say (when he actually doesn't).

canoebuilder 4y ago
Is there something personal here as well? “Con artist” seems like a strong choice of words. It’s interesting that I don’t really see that at all. Maybe you’re a more frequent listener, I’ve just listened to a few where he is a guest and a few more than that of his solo episodes on his podcast which I particularly like because they just come across as a professor giving an extended lecture. I don’t get any hype man, wannabe guru, snake oil vibes at all. He does use some of the Tim Ferriss type verbiage of like, optimize, and what not. (Not saying Ferriss is snake oil, btw) But I’d say that’s just par for the course in that genre of podcasting, it never seems to impede on valid information. He speaks like a scientist. I’d imagine he’d be the first to say we know very little about the brain, but what do we mean by that? Things like qualia and consciousness, sure. But that doesn’t mean we can’t begin to parse out some things, like the things in his wheelhouse that he talks about, the effects of light exposure, positioning of the eyes, different types of breathing, etc. It’s often easier to tear down than put up. Do you or anybody else you know do better at avoiding the criticisms you have here about the communication of research? To some points- I’ve heard him talk about chemicals affecting the brain, which is a given right? Chemicals effect the brain in various ways. I’ve also heard him emphasize extreme caution and prudence in experimenting with chemicals at levels outside those one typically encounters day to day and often outright discourage it. Light alcohol consumption is detrimental I’m no expert here but it is easy to imagine wishful thinking leading to the pro column. I do notice marked difference in quality of sleep with even light consumption. Do the pros outweigh the cons? Best left to a personal calculus I suppose. You can "hack your brain chemicals" with supplements to achieve some desired effect on your mind Is this a controversial statement? Have you conversed with anyone who has had a cup of coffee smoked a joint, ingested psilocybin or LSD? The way he talks about the dopamine system and how too much redlining can throw the system out of whack seems well in line with what one observed in many other systems, biological and otherwise. My life has been changed as everything changes your life to some degree however big or small. I’ve gained knowledge condensed from someone else’s life’s work in the same that occurs in reading a book. This is a “force multiplier”(genre term) I should remind myself of more often. I should spend more time reading books.