6 ms·

I don't understand this comment at all. Huberman, to me, has provided the most nuanced understanding of dopamine and dopaminergic effects accessible to the broa

I don't understand this comment at all. Huberman, to me, has provided the most nuanced understanding of dopamine and dopaminergic effects accessible to the broader public. There's a lot of clickbait around him, and no doubt many "influencer doctors" who make a bad name for themselves, but this is a very clear take on dopamine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmOF0crdyRU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmOF0crdyRU. I wouldn't call it babble. (Huberman is also not a physician, but a PhD, which is an important distinction.)

pydry 3y ago
I hear people talk shit about him much more than I hear reasoned criticism of what he says. The worst thing ive seen him do is cite studies with low p values while mentioning it. The horror.
- dandy23 3y ago
  Why cite a useless study? Because it serves his purpose maybe?
  - pydry 3y ago
    I don't know about anybody else but if $lowcostbehavior has a small chance of leading to $goodoutcome I still wouldn't mind hearing about it. I've tried multiple things he mentioned which haven't worked which also didn't cost me anything.
    - coldtea 3y ago
      >I don't know about anybody else but if $lowcostbehavior has a small chance of leading to $goodoutcome I still wouldn't mind hearing about it This has traditionally been the excuse of quacks >I've tried multiple things he mentioned which haven't worked which also didn't cost me anything. And this is "throw things on a wall and see what sticks". It's ok if you're doing research (even there though it should be tamed as an approach) but it's not OK when giving medical and health lifestyle advice.
      - pydry 3y ago
        >This has traditionally been the excuse of quacks Not really. Quacks usually try to sell you profitable remedies that have no chance of working and only cite scientific research in order to be misleading.
        coalteddy 3y ago
        This made me realize: What if you listening to his talks/podcasts/videos is the thing he's selling you? What if his product/remedie is just the "content" he produces. Not much different to a quack then.
        pydry 3y ago
        He seems to get paid for promoting stuff like blood tests and some supplement company. I tend to ignore that stuff as I ignore all adverts but I would be reluctant to assume that he's selling quack medicine this way. Some people do seem to assume that since he's getting paid to promote supplements, that those supplements are basically another herbalife. I haven't seen anybody give any evidence for this though.
        coldtea 3y ago
        That's exactly the thing he's selling.
        coldtea 3y ago
        That's their regular selling tactic. But their excuse when they're called for selling snakeoil and bullshit health regimens. Then it's: "it works for some", "doesn't hurt to try", "better that not taking anything", "at least it gives people hope". In this case he doesn't sell snakeoil directly: he sells talking about remedies and regimens for YT eyeballs and popularity (which can be turned into money indirectly).
        pydry 3y ago
        >That's their regular selling tactic. But their excuse when they're called for selling snakeoil and bullshit health regimens. Then it's: "it works for some", "doesn't hurt to try", "better that not taking anything", "at least it gives people hope". I seem to recall listening to a podcast where he cited a study that wasn't very conclusive and he said that it wasn't very conclusive. So no. No it is not. >In this case he doesn't sell snakeoil directly If I had a dollar for every person who told me that he's selling snake oil without giving a clear example I'd be able to set up my own version of herbalife. I really find it weird how many people despise him for really vague reasons. Like, why? He's pushing scientific studies. There is nuance. Not everything is expected to work. Not every study that shows something interesting has a high p value. He says all this. Quacks dont.
- JeffSnazz 3y ago
  Boy you fellas sure know how to talk a guy up!
zo1 3y ago
His long-form podcasts and interviews get hijacked into little snippets and "motivational" youtube videos. There is a huge industry of "recycling" channels that only do that, even more so now with shorts. So his 2h+ talk about morning routine studies or whatever gets turned into a video called "Neuro Expert's 21-step Morning Routine to live into your 90's". It becomes 4minutes, has peppy music in the background, can be distilled into a 30s short with effort. His channel gets points or money or whatever for you watching it, the recycling channel gets money for making it, and you as the viewer get stuck with the shit-end of the stick. That's not even mentioning the "rebuttal" industry that'll create content criticising or rebutting his content, which gets recycled the same way. It's elephants all the way down, and our attention is sucked up by it. I couldn't block and ignore these channels quickly enough, and no matter what I did YT kept recommending them. So glad I'm off YT.

pydry 3y ago

I hear people talk shit about him much more than I hear reasoned criticism of what he says. The worst thing ive seen him do is cite studies with low p values while mentioning it. The horror.

dandy23 3y ago
Why cite a useless study? Because it serves his purpose maybe?
- pydry 3y ago
  I don't know about anybody else but if $lowcostbehavior has a small chance of leading to $goodoutcome I still wouldn't mind hearing about it. I've tried multiple things he mentioned which haven't worked which also didn't cost me anything.
  - coldtea 3y ago
    >I don't know about anybody else but if $lowcostbehavior has a small chance of leading to $goodoutcome I still wouldn't mind hearing about it This has traditionally been the excuse of quacks >I've tried multiple things he mentioned which haven't worked which also didn't cost me anything. And this is "throw things on a wall and see what sticks". It's ok if you're doing research (even there though it should be tamed as an approach) but it's not OK when giving medical and health lifestyle advice.
    - pydry 3y ago
      >This has traditionally been the excuse of quacks Not really. Quacks usually try to sell you profitable remedies that have no chance of working and only cite scientific research in order to be misleading.
      - coalteddy 3y ago
        This made me realize: What if you listening to his talks/podcasts/videos is the thing he's selling you? What if his product/remedie is just the "content" he produces. Not much different to a quack then.
        pydry 3y ago
        He seems to get paid for promoting stuff like blood tests and some supplement company. I tend to ignore that stuff as I ignore all adverts but I would be reluctant to assume that he's selling quack medicine this way. Some people do seem to assume that since he's getting paid to promote supplements, that those supplements are basically another herbalife. I haven't seen anybody give any evidence for this though.
        coldtea 3y ago
        That's exactly the thing he's selling.
      - coldtea 3y ago
        That's their regular selling tactic. But their excuse when they're called for selling snakeoil and bullshit health regimens. Then it's: "it works for some", "doesn't hurt to try", "better that not taking anything", "at least it gives people hope". In this case he doesn't sell snakeoil directly: he sells talking about remedies and regimens for YT eyeballs and popularity (which can be turned into money indirectly).
        pydry 3y ago
        >That's their regular selling tactic. But their excuse when they're called for selling snakeoil and bullshit health regimens. Then it's: "it works for some", "doesn't hurt to try", "better that not taking anything", "at least it gives people hope". I seem to recall listening to a podcast where he cited a study that wasn't very conclusive and he said that it wasn't very conclusive. So no. No it is not. >In this case he doesn't sell snakeoil directly If I had a dollar for every person who told me that he's selling snake oil without giving a clear example I'd be able to set up my own version of herbalife. I really find it weird how many people despise him for really vague reasons. Like, why? He's pushing scientific studies. There is nuance. Not everything is expected to work. Not every study that shows something interesting has a high p value. He says all this. Quacks dont.
JeffSnazz 3y ago
Boy you fellas sure know how to talk a guy up!

zo1 3y ago

His long-form podcasts and interviews get hijacked into little snippets and "motivational" youtube videos. There is a huge industry of "recycling" channels that only do that, even more so now with shorts. So his 2h+ talk about morning routine studies or whatever gets turned into a video called "Neuro Expert's 21-step Morning Routine to live into your 90's". It becomes 4minutes, has peppy music in the background, can be distilled into a 30s short with effort. His channel gets points or money or whatever for you watching it, the recycling channel gets money for making it, and you as the viewer get stuck with the shit-end of the stick. That's not even mentioning the "rebuttal" industry that'll create content criticising or rebutting his content, which gets recycled the same way. It's elephants all the way down, and our attention is sucked up by it. I couldn't block and ignore these channels quickly enough, and no matter what I did YT kept recommending them. So glad I'm off YT.