4 ms·

A bit of background on these people might be important here. Andrew is a neuroscientist, but a bit of a controversial one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew

by mnk47 3y ago

A bit of background on these people might be important here. Andrew is a neuroscientist, but a bit of a controversial one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_D._Huberman#Reception_and_criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_D._Huberman#Reception_a... >In Time magazine, Huberman received praise for promoting interest in science.[5] However, he has been criticized by other scientists for prematurely applying the preliminary results of animal studies as having potential applications for humans.[5] >Jonathan Jarry at the McGill Office for Science and Society has questioned Huberman's promotion of controversial supplements. According to Jarry, Huberman Lab has been sponsored by "companies offering questionable products from the perspective of science-based medicine".[14] Cal Newport is a computer scientist. Zero background in neuroscience. Lastly, I think it should be noted that while heavy social media use is associated with depression, there's absolutely no scientific weight behind this "overstimulation" rhetoric.

ericmay 3y ago
I don’t find Huberman to be doing anything worse than any given scientist or book author from his podcast. He got popular so he gets criticized. Even Stephen Hawking has been criticized! For all we know Jonathan Jarry is deserving of criticism. Who is he again? Should I trust Stanford or McGill? Both? Neither? Myself? Don’t over think things here. Decide for yourself. Consult resources. Consult your physician.
- tomcam 3y ago
  I cane at it from a less interesting and less well expressed angle. You’ve nailed it.
tomcam 3y ago
I do not know enough about Andrew Huberman to be a fan, although I have listened to excerpts from his podcasts and enjoyed them. I can say that everyone of the “questionable“ assertions you’ve listed are similar to ones that could be dredged up about any public figure, no matter how clean that person is. Everything listed is incredibly mild.
xwowsersx 3y ago
I find it strange that you introduced this as a "bit of background," but then quoted only the sections from Wikipedia that note criticisms, albeit mild, of Huberman, and depicted this as amounting to him being "controversial." My "bit of background" on Huberman would be something like: "Andrew Huberman is a professor of neurobiology at Stanford. He's made numerous significant contributions to the fields of brain development, brain function, and neural plasticity. Huberman is a McKnight Foundation and Pew Foundation Fellow. In 2017, he was honored with the Cogan Award, which is given to the scientist making the most significant discoveries in the study of vision." I say this not because I'm some huge fan of Huberman, although I have found several of his podcast episodes enjoyable. Rather, I find the approach of searching for "controversies" about someone on Wikipedia to be exceptionally lazy and insincere. In any event, I don't believe the excerpts from Wikipedia you cited portray Huberman as "controversial", but even if Wikipedia had attempted to present him as a controversial figure, I wouldn't give it much weight, unfortunately. I have concerns about Wikipedia's objectivity and my skepticism towards it has increased in recent years (its co-founder, Larry Sanger, has described it as the "most biased encyclopedia" in history).
thunkshift1 3y ago
Huberman is one of the few reliable names among influencers.. the ‘criticism’ you quote from wiki here is extremely trivial and a non issue in todays time imo. Others with less knowledge/authenticity and more followers have done a lot worse.

by mnk47 3y ago

ericmay 3y ago

I don’t find Huberman to be doing anything worse than any given scientist or book author from his podcast. He got popular so he gets criticized. Even Stephen Hawking has been criticized! For all we know Jonathan Jarry is deserving of criticism. Who is he again? Should I trust Stanford or McGill? Both? Neither? Myself? Don’t over think things here. Decide for yourself. Consult resources. Consult your physician.

tomcam 3y ago
I cane at it from a less interesting and less well expressed angle. You’ve nailed it.

tomcam 3y ago

I do not know enough about Andrew Huberman to be a fan, although I have listened to excerpts from his podcasts and enjoyed them. I can say that everyone of the “questionable“ assertions you’ve listed are similar to ones that could be dredged up about any public figure, no matter how clean that person is. Everything listed is incredibly mild.

xwowsersx 3y ago

I find it strange that you introduced this as a "bit of background," but then quoted only the sections from Wikipedia that note criticisms, albeit mild, of Huberman, and depicted this as amounting to him being "controversial." My "bit of background" on Huberman would be something like: "Andrew Huberman is a professor of neurobiology at Stanford. He's made numerous significant contributions to the fields of brain development, brain function, and neural plasticity. Huberman is a McKnight Foundation and Pew Foundation Fellow. In 2017, he was honored with the Cogan Award, which is given to the scientist making the most significant discoveries in the study of vision." I say this not because I'm some huge fan of Huberman, although I have found several of his podcast episodes enjoyable. Rather, I find the approach of searching for "controversies" about someone on Wikipedia to be exceptionally lazy and insincere. In any event, I don't believe the excerpts from Wikipedia you cited portray Huberman as "controversial", but even if Wikipedia had attempted to present him as a controversial figure, I wouldn't give it much weight, unfortunately. I have concerns about Wikipedia's objectivity and my skepticism towards it has increased in recent years (its co-founder, Larry Sanger, has described it as the "most biased encyclopedia" in history).

thunkshift1 3y ago

Huberman is one of the few reliable names among influencers.. the ‘criticism’ you quote from wiki here is extremely trivial and a non issue in todays time imo. Others with less knowledge/authenticity and more followers have done a lot worse.