April 3, 2024 • 34 mins
Previously on TANGOTI...
This is part two of our two-part look at Dr. Andrew Huberman.
If you haven’t listened to part 1, you will definitely need to dip into that episode to have the context.
To recap, Andrew Huberman is a very famous, popular podcaster and neuroscientist who has been giving guidance to millions on how to hack their lives.
New York Mag just published a piece with the stories of 6 women in his life who allege that he mistreated them, and also looking into some of his questionable science and ethical practices, like endorsing dubious supplements.
I’m joined by my producer Mike, who is also a scientist, to get into why we’re so quick to build flawed people up into gurus.
Andrew Huberman’s Mechanisms of Control The private and public seductions of the world’s biggest pop neuroscientist. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/andrew-huberman-podcast-stanford-joe-rogan.html
Andrew Huberman Has Supplements on the Brain: https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/critical-thinking-health-and-nutrition/andrew-huberman-has-bad-case-supplement-brain
So, Should You Trust Andrew Huberman? https://slate.com/technology/2024/03/andrew-huberman-huberman-lab-health-advice-podcast-debunk.html
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:04):
There Are No Girls on the Internet as a production
of iHeartRadio and Unbossed Creative. I'm Bridget Tad and this
is There Are No Girls on the Internet. So this
is part two of our episode on doctor Andrew Huberman.
If you have not listened to part one, you're probably
gonna want to listen to that before you listen to
(00:25):
this to have the context. But to recap, Andrew Huberman
is a very famous, very popular podcaster and neuroscientist who
has been giving guidance to millions of people on how
to hack their way to a better life. New York
mag just published a piece with the stories of six
women in doctor Huberman's life who alleged that he mistreated them,
(00:46):
and also looking at some of his questionable science and
ethical practices, like endorsing dubious supplements. I'm joined by a producer, Mike,
who is also a scientist, to get into why we're
all so quick to build up flawed people into gurus.
You and I were talking about this off Mike, Mike,
weird thing to say about what exactly you think is
(01:08):
going on here? Right? So, after doing all my research
for this episode, I have totally changed my mind. I
go back to this episode that we did early in
Tangote's history with a Foma Uzoma, who was formerly a
pinterest She developed the platform's first ever medical misinformation policy,
and in our conversation, she told me that it's really
(01:28):
not that deep. Like a lot of the people who
push medical misinformation are just scammers, right, They're just using
fear or whatever or like junk science to get people
to give them money for whatever scam supplement or scam
course they're selling or whatever. And I think I'm kind
of coming around the fact that maybe Huberman is like
a little bit of a scammer, like like maybe it's
(01:50):
not like, maybe it's not that deep. He is just
like a snake oil salesman who gets rich from selling
snake oil. So he is using his scientific credentials to
booth that snake oil.
Speaker 2 (02:01):
Yeah, I agree. I think that's a big piece of
it here, right, Like it's not in dispute that he
is aggressively promoting supplements that do not have evidence based
to demonstrate their effectiveness and he's getting rich off that, right.
That's like literally, you know, I guess it's not literally,
(02:22):
but it is a direct analogy to selling snake oil. Yeah,
good old fashioned scammer. I do think that he's a
little bit more interesting or different than a lot of
your garden variety scammers, just because he's so much more
educated and is like a bona fide scientist making scientific
contributions and seems to be a very introspective person. So like,
(02:49):
I'm just so fascinated the story he tells himself to
justify selling that snake oil.
Speaker 1 (02:56):
Well, Andrew Huberman's whole thing is like a storyteller exercise
about himself, like a myth making exercise about himself. Like
the sort of story that he tells about himself is
that he was a troubled kid. His parents handled his
divorce in a way that left him neglected and like unparented.
His parents kind of dispute that, but whatever, and that
(03:18):
he was sent to sort of a facility for troubled
youth and that talk therapy is what saved him, and
he wanted to dedicate his life to like helping others
because of that, and he got into Stanford despite the
fact that he was this like troubled youth who was
like essentially unparented. So he says, what does seem certain
is that an adolescence, Andrew became a regular consumer of
(03:40):
talk therapy. In therapy, one learns to tell stories about
one's experience. A story one could tell is I overcame
immense odds to be where I am. Another is the
son of a Stanford professor born at Stanford Hospital, grows
up to be a Stanford professor. Like I do think
that he maybe is somebody who, like we all certain effects,
(04:01):
but like gets down on the story that he tells
himself and that story sort of becomes the truth. And
so maybe the story that he tells himself, like the
story that I tell myself when I have to do
adreads is like, if I didn't do these ad reads,
the people who make my podcast would not be able
to be paid. I would not be able to be paid,
the show would not be able to go on, right,
(04:22):
And so that's the story I tell myself when I'm
doing adreads for our sponsors, all of whom I love
and respect very much. But I think, like that's the
story that I have to tell myself to feel okay
about doing these adreads, even though nobody likes ads. I
think it's different when you are a scientist telling yourself
a story that makes it okay to use your credentials
(04:43):
as a scientist to maybe lead people into things that
are risky.
Speaker 2 (04:47):
Yeah, especially when you are publicly preaching introspection and discipline
and accountability. Those all seem like virtues that maybe he
should take a deeper look at.
Speaker 1 (04:59):
Yeah, this is I'm kind of going off script here,
but like you were saying, how the popular guru who
doesn't take their own advice and is not living the
values that they preach in public. That is such a
well worn thing, that's almost a cliche at this point.
I wonder what it is that about Huberman that makes
(05:20):
it so hard to see this well worn trope playing
out in before our eyes, because I think that's in
part kind of what's going on here with Huberman. But
it's so interesting to me how people are like, but
he's a scientist, but he's introspective, but he's very thoughtful,
he's different. Maybe it's just the power of marketing, the
power how people really want to believe that what he's
(05:41):
doing is so much different than the doctor oz Is
of the world because of the way he packages it
so effectively as being different.
Speaker 2 (05:49):
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. I haven't listened
to his podcast. But you know, in the research for
doing this, you know, I read a couple of artists
that we're talking about it, and all of them mentioned
when he's interviewing guests or speaking in public. You know,
it's characterized by humility and kindness and compassion. And I
(06:13):
could imagine that all of those would be things that
would disarm a audience and make them feel like the
person could be trusted right and feel more connected to them,
Like humility is super powerful.
Speaker 1 (06:29):
But even that reminds me of the way these women
say that he used that same kind of language to
control them. You know. That's sort of like like at
one point, when one of the women realizes that he
cheated on her, he texts her like something along the
lines of, I hear you, and I'm willing to hear
(06:49):
you for as long as you need. Which, again, it's
almost like therapysts beak to get away with bad behavior,
And I wonder if that's part of it, like using
a certain kind of disarming lang waged and disarming presentation
and disarming you know, vibe to really effectively trick people
into trusting you and to trick them into not seeing
(07:12):
what is so obviously in front of their own eyes
or or happening in their own ears, like I don't
need It's like not some of this stuff is not
in dispute. It's not in dispute that he takes money
from supplement companies. It is not in dispute that supplement
companies are notoriously not transparent and rely on junk science,
if any science at all. Those things are not in dispute.
So the fact that people are like, no, he would
(07:33):
never it's like he would not dispute that is what's happening.
Speaker 2 (07:36):
Yeah, it's a good question. What is it about him
that makes people like him and want to follow his advice?
But clearly he's done very well at it, and I
think it is an important question for us all to consider.
Speaker 1 (07:51):
I think part of it's gotta be that he's hot.
Probably helps, Like he's like jacked, he has glasses, Like
I don't know, Like, I think he's someone that maybe
a lot of the male listeners in his audience want
to see themselves in, Like who would not want to
be like, oh, yeah, I'm this like jacked, ripped guy
who has glasses, But it's also a scientist and like
(08:11):
can maybe juggle women in an unethical way, Like I
think that men are identifying with him in a certain way,
and that is maybe making it hard for them to
see what is happening so plainly, right out and open. Yeah,
it's a good point.
Speaker 2 (08:26):
Yeah, there's a lot of ways in which the life
he's leading feels aspirational.
Speaker 1 (08:30):
Mm hmmm, I completely agree. So Doctor Andrea Love, her
piece just makes him sound like a good old fashioned scammer. Again,
I will link to it in the show notes, so
should definitely read it. So she points out that he
is somebody who uses dubious science to put people off
of accepted medical interventions like fluoride or vaccines, even when
there is broad medical consensus about it, in service of
(08:54):
suggesting all alternative that he has a financial stake in.
So doctor Love says that Huberman uses false balance, the
fallacy that equal and opposite sides always exists. Take his
thoughts on fluoride. While fluoride has been used for decades
to prevent dental disease, Huberman gives the impression that there
is an ongoing debate among experts about its use, and
reasons for his listeners to be careful about how much
(09:15):
fluoride containing tap water they consume. During his Oral Health
podcast episode, Huberman undermines consensus data on fluoride, endorses fluoride
free toothpastes as well as a Yerba mate tea company
that uses fluoride free water and which he is a
business partner of, and cites a dentist who spreads fear
about fluoride as his expert reference. Huberman positions this for
(09:36):
his listeners as information to make the best decision, as
though we all need to be carefully thinking about our
fluoride levels.
Speaker 2 (09:43):
Yeah, again, cherry picking here. It sounds like he cherry
picked particular expert who has an axed the grind about
fluoride while ignoring the vast majority of dentists who are
in consensus that fluoride is positive thing to promote oral health.
Speaker 1 (09:59):
And when we were talking about his cold and flu
episode where he was talking about how he doesn't always
get the flu shot because it is not effective unless
the shot protects from that exact strain of flu going
around that year, which is not totally accurate, you were like, well,
why would he do that? You know, what does he
have to gain in discrediting vaccines? And again if you
believe doctor Andrea Love, it comes down to those supplements
(10:20):
that he sells. Having a paid sponsor is not a
disqualifier in and of itself, she writes, But when your
financial conflicts of interest seem to dictate your content, it
should be After dismissing legitimate data. In the flu episode,
his lengthy quote science backed discussion to prevent colds and
flu boiled down to an extended commercial for taking supplements.
(10:41):
So all of me has me wondering, which I think
is the point of the New York mag piece. Why
do we look to anybody for their life advice? Like,
why do we make people into gurus in the first place.
It does not surprise me that Huberman really got famous
famous in the twenty twenty one era of COVID. You know,
we were all sort of alone and connected and looking
(11:01):
for some solution or some antidote to that where you
weren't sleeping well, you weren't eating well, maybe like the
vibes were terrible. So in a lot of way, I
think the public we were just like easy marks during
that time.
Speaker 2 (11:13):
Yep, just a bunch of dupes with money, yeah, looking
for a quick fix. Yep, rubes looking for a solution
and you You and I kind of.
Speaker 1 (11:23):
Talked about this off mic, but it's one of the
reasons why like life advice content. Like I'm not somebody
who really unless I'm really having a dark time of desperation, Like,
I'm not someone who listens to lifestyle or life advice podcasts.
I don't like career advice podcasts. I just don't like
(11:44):
this idea that one person has a one size fits
all solution. This is my opinion. I don't think life
works that way. I think people are really complex. People
have very complex motivations and desires and needs and hang ups.
I don't see how a stranger could speak to that
in any way. That is I'm not saying. I don't
not saying that anybody should like but you're a bad
person if you listen to that. I just feel like
(12:06):
anybody who is like wearing a blazer and crossing their
arms and being like I have the answer, something in
me automatically is like suspect of that.
Speaker 2 (12:13):
I one hundred percent agree. Yeah, anybody who says that
they have the answer huge red flag. And I'm somebody
who loves learning from people. There are so many smart
people in the world, who have insight, who have wisdom,
who talk about interesting philosophical and ethical questions that you know,
(12:34):
help me understand the world and help me decide how
to live my life. But I feel like there's a
very fine line where that crosses over into solutions. And
therefore you should do xyz, you should buy this supplement,
you should adopt my patented life routine. Once they start
(12:56):
hawking a specific solution, that red flag gets a little
bit higher. And then when that solution is something that
you can buy, it's time for me to walk away.
Speaker 1 (13:09):
You've lost me. You've lost me.
Speaker 3 (13:13):
Let's take a quick break at our back.
Speaker 1 (13:28):
I think we're kind of in a golden age of
the snake oil salesman who can use digital mediums like
podcasts or social media to demonstrate that they have it
all figured out, that they had the kind of life
that is aspirational that you would want to live. It's
basically how MLMs might operate of like, my life looks
dope as hell on Instagram? Don't you want to live
(13:50):
like I do? If you buy this thing, you can.
And so I think that we're kind of in a
golden era of coaches and lifestyle gurus and wellness people
and people selling courses just like and I'm not saying
all of those are are are bunk, because I certainly
don't know, but like, I think that we're in an
(14:12):
era where people are looking for a solution to the
way that things feel right now, and there's always going
to be somebody willing to take their money offering that solution,
and we got to be extra careful about who and
why we elevate to that platform.
Speaker 2 (14:31):
I think you're absolutely right, And I think that really
intersects with the fact that he is a scientist and that,
you know, speaking from science is part of his brand
on the podcast. You know, he's somebody who looks really
good on videos, looks good on Instagram, is good at
managing social media, can build this following leads this like aspirational,
(14:54):
cool looking life, which makes people want to emulate him.
And if he's give advice, it's reasonable to think that, oh,
if I take that advice, my life could look like his.
So the things that he's saying must be true, because
his life looks pretty good. He's healthy, he's wealthy, he's
sleeping with a bunch of women. But that's so different
from how evidence gets evaluated in science. You look at evidence,
(15:16):
you look at multiple studies. Do they agree, do they disagree,
Look across the balance of all of the evidence to
reach conclusions based on the evidence that's there, in a
transparent evaluation of the methods that we're used to create
those conclusions. It's much more boring than an Instagram real
or a YouTube video. But that's how scientific conclusions get reached.
(15:37):
And I think that's maybe why it's so easy and
feel so dangerous for people who have scientific authority due
to their institutional positions and just take that over to
Instagram and popular culture to start dispensing advice that is
not within their area of experts.
Speaker 1 (16:00):
Tea, Yes, And I think that, like that's the real
scandal that I think the piece is trying to highlight.
The scandal is not to me, like how he treated
women badly in his personal life. It is that he
enjoys this pedestal of like men of science and knowledge
and enjoys all of the respect that comes with that,
while also behaving in ways that are like really small
(16:23):
and like maybe unethical and maybe like anti science, Like
he wasn't trying to unlock the science of all of
us living our best lives. Like maybe he was a
little bit, but it sounds like it was also an
enterprise to personally enrich himself, get and control women and
have fame. Like I said, small, that's not a super
respectable you know man of science behavior that is like
(16:46):
small man driven by desire and vice behavior.
Speaker 2 (16:52):
Yeah, I mean if you were to, you know, take
a stoic approach to it. One should be leading a
virtuous life, and none of those sound very virtuous.
Speaker 1 (17:01):
Ultimately, nobody likes to pursue vice and hedonism and you know,
desire more than your girl right here, So I'm not judging,
but to create an entire platform around the importance of
discipline and avoiding this and avoiding that while you are
privately courting your version of those things yourself. Like I
(17:22):
don't think he's somebody who is like preaching not drinking
and then drinking alcohol, But he is somebody who preaches
like avoid dopamine and then like clearly has these like
dopamine driven relationships with women that are very chaotic based
on lies. Like I think that's the scandal. The writer
Justin Murphy put it really beautifully on Twitter. He writes
their Huberman story is not altogether trivial. The smartest men
(17:43):
in every generation of Western history have generally converged on
the idea that knowledge and cultivation involve a certain conquest
of the appetites. Obviously, men who are successful economically and
socially are free to indulge their appetites, and often do.
The story is not surprising or informative if you are
had Huberman pegged as playing primarily an economic and social game,
(18:04):
The story is surprising and damning if you saw him
as playing a game of knowledge and cultivation. It is
not therefore a totally vacuous story, as many seem to
be saying. In the eyes of any classically educated observer,
it is a precipitous fall in the stock price of rationalist,
materialist utilitarian frameworks for living. For many people, Huberman was
(18:24):
not just a purveyor of useful information, but an image
of wisdom, an image of a cultivated man no longer obviously,
except for the most naive, you could know everything there
is to know about the body, and have all the
followers in the world and not exceed the wisdom of
the average twenty five year old man. The scandal of
the story is not Huberman's immorality, which is common and generic.
(18:45):
The scandal is ethical, someone who is famous for having
tremendous knowledge of how to live does not himself live
in a.
Speaker 2 (18:51):
Beautiful way common and generic. That's got a sting.
Speaker 1 (18:56):
Yeah, I mean, I guess that's the disconnect that like
people want to see who as this learned man of
science and knowledge and cultivation which is so high minded
and elevated. In reality, he's trying to get a check
and get his dick wet. Like that is like generic
and small minded. I can tell you a thousand other
men I know who are the same way, trying to
get the same shit. It's not like I'm not trying
(19:17):
to demonize him for it, but let's call it what
it is. And like I think from the article that
is like plainly what it is. And I guess ultimately
the question is, like does this matter? Here's where the
Naric magpiece leaves it. There is an argument to be
made that it does not matter how a helpful podcast
or conducts himself outside of the studio. A man unable
to constrain his urges may still preach dopominergic control to others.
(19:40):
Morning Sun still remains salutary. The physiological side employed by
this writer many times in the writing of this essay,
continues to affect calm. That's one of his trademark tactics,
is a specific side that's supposed to calm you down.
The large and growing distance between Andrew Huberman and the
man he continues to be may not even matter to
those who buy questionable products he has recommended and from
(20:03):
which he will materially benefit, or listeners who imagined a
man in a white coat at work in Palo Alto.
The people who definitively find the space between fantasy and
reality to be a problem are women who fell for
a podcaster who professed deep, sustained concern for their personal growth,
and who, in his skyrocketing influence, continue to project an
(20:24):
image of earnest self discovery. It is here in the
false belief of two minds and synchronicity and exploration that
deception leads to harm. They fear it will lead to more. So, Yeah,
what a piece, beautifully written, And I think that's kind
of the so what these women are just raising the
alarm that this guy who is trafficking off as his
(20:45):
scientific credentials is maybe actually not who he says he is,
and the public should know if he's going to be
a guru, there should be some transparency around that.
Speaker 2 (20:56):
Yeah, you know, anybody who's stands up and says I
have the answer, it is reasonable to inspect how they
live their life.
Speaker 3 (21:07):
More. After a quick break, let's get right back into it.
Speaker 1 (21:23):
So a lot of Huberman supporters are really digging in
and defending him. Maybe those are just the loudest ones.
Maybe people who were like casual listeners of his podcast
are like, I don't know, like that article seems fair.
Who cares? It is so interesting really, because you know,
I wonder if a lot of the people who listen
to Huberman really identified with him, or maybe his lifestyle
(21:46):
was like really aspirational to them, and so when he
is being called out in this way, maybe they feel
personally threatened and that is why they are coming to
his defense so specifically, like Lex Friedman was like, he
is a personal friend of mine and this is a
hit job. Again, I was not able to read Lex
Friedman's entire statement because he has me blocked. But this
(22:07):
idea that because you are a listener of his podcast
or even like, let's like, you know, him personally that
you would know the intimacies of his romantic life and
how he shows up sexually and romantically, Like I have
plenty of close friends and I don't know the ins
and outs of how they get down sexually and romantically,
and I I would never pretend that I did, right, Like,
I find it really interesting how many people are so
(22:28):
loudly coming to his defense, Like I follow and enjoy
plenty of podcasters that I don't personally know. There is
not one of them that I can think of that
I would read like a long, critical, deep dive into
their work and their history and their values that I
wouldn't come away thinking like, oh, maybe they had a
few points to see people summarily dismissing this as a
(22:49):
hit job to defend Huberman like he is someone they know.
And it's interesting how this has become this kind of
culture wars thing where it's like, Oh, they're just attacking
him for no reason, and I'm not even gonna lie,
like it's all bunk, right, and so like they're not
even engaging with the pieces of the article that are
not about his romantic life, right, Like the way that
(23:11):
he talked about that colleague of his that was a woman.
That's not about his romantic life. His relationship with ag
One and supplements, that's not about his romantic life. Like
the questions about his own myth making and his background,
that's not about his romantic life. Though. Are those not
questions that need answers and deserve scrutiny for somebody who
is bolstering themselves as a public guru.
Speaker 2 (23:32):
Yeah, it's not surprising that it has sort of been
framed and is being talked about as yet another culture
war of us versus them. I think another lens that
we can look at it is earlier we made an
analogy to conspiracy theories, where his scientific rationale behind this
or that solution is often like cherry picked. It'll be
(23:53):
like a germ of truth in there, but then build
this elaborate, just so story around it that it sounds
like a lot of cases leads to the conclusion that
you should buy some product that he's selling. And similarly,
here his followers, I suspect a lot of them are
true believers. When confronted with a critical piece like this
New York mag article, just reject it right the same
(24:15):
way that when you present somebody who believes in the
conspiracy theory. With evidence that refuse that conspiracy, they will
in most cases just double down, and the conflicting evidence
is somehow reinterpreted in a way that makes them believe
in the conspiracy even more strongly. It feels like there's
something similar going on here as well.
Speaker 1 (24:33):
Well, I can tell you who a lot of his
defenders are saying is behind this hit piece, Big Pharma.
Big Pharma doesn't like that Andrew Kuberman is preaching the
powers of meditation and sunlight and ice baths and supplements.
They want us all hooked on the Big Pharma machine.
(24:54):
And that's why New York mag is like writing this
like well researched while written take out of his life.
Speaker 2 (25:00):
Yeah, they're just a front for Big Pharma. I'm no
big fan of the pharmaceutical industry. They do lots of
like pretty shady, harmful stuff, no question, But in this case, yes,
dismissing this piece as a hit piece by Big Pharma,
I feel like George Soros is just like one step
away in that causal chain of dismissive logic.
Speaker 1 (25:25):
Oh totally And side note like I feel like whenever
like this is a hit piece, an attack job, by
Big Pharma whenever that is the go to line of defense.
It really tells me a lot about the audience that
the person has cultivated, because that was the same thing
that they used to defend Joe Rogan when people like
me were pointing out his use of misinformation in the
(25:46):
podcast space. They were like, Oh, like, he isn't down
with the COVID vaccine, He's interested in alternatives to curb COVID,
so Big Pharma had to take him down. I feel
like that tells me so much about the audience that
you have cultivated and what they are about and what
they value what they don't value.
Speaker 2 (26:03):
Yeah, cause it's not just listen to me, I have
the answer. It's also don't listen to anybody else. They're
trying to deceive you.
Speaker 1 (26:10):
And anybody who says anything critical about what the person
is saying, they're not just wrong, they are like in
the pocket a Big Pharma. Again. It's that total conspiratorial
thinking that it's like they don't just have a difference
of opinion, it's like on the farious plot. So in
the fallout of all of this, people are really trying
to come for the person who wrote the article, who
(26:32):
is new York mag writer Carrie Howley, who I love.
Carrie is writing like if you ever see a deep
dive written by Carry, go ahead and click it immediately.
One of those writers that if anybody ever calls me
and is like, I'm fact checking a piece by Carry Howley,
I'd like to ask you a few questions, I will
be very concerned.
Speaker 2 (26:50):
Yeah, but can confirm it is so well written. It
was like a joy to read, even like setting the
content aside, just the pro the writing. It was refreshing,
It was really nice.
Speaker 1 (27:03):
Yeah, totally agreed. So I hate to see Kerrie being
attacked in this way. Huberman retained the crisis PR firm
called Scale Strategy. Fun fact, Scale Strategy is brought to
us by one of the guys who handled the disastrous
We Work IPO and was fired soon after. So one
of the folks who might be on Huberman's crisis PR
(27:24):
campaign to navigate the fallout of this article. Something else
I have seen is that a lot of his loudest
defenders are saying, well, if Huberman has been juggling hot
women this effectively, it means that the methods that he
preaches on the podcast must be effective. Like he's really
like a masculine guy. That they're applauding what he has
(27:46):
been accused of doing, and that makes him more likable
in their eyes. And that is what I mean. Like,
that's the thing that I think that we're not coming
right out and saying directly. I think that casual misogyny
and sexism and gaslighting women and demanding submission of women.
I think all of this stuff isn't something that the
(28:07):
audience that he has cultivated is it all bothered by.
In fact, quite the opposite. I think to them, this
is a feature, not a bug. I think that they
like this. I think that like the way he is
accused of treating these women is not removed from the
content that he makes on the podcast. I think it's
all one big, intricate, quilled and I think it's all related.
Speaker 2 (28:30):
Yeah, And the fact that they aren't more bothered by
the deception that is at the very root of it
is worrisome and unfortunate. You know, people can have different
ideas about what dating and relationships and life should look like.
But I feel like most people that I know in
my personal life, even people who like have different political
(28:52):
and social views than me, most people agree that deception
is bad and you shouldn't use it. And it feels
like there's something going on where public figures get a
pass on that that people would not allow peers or
acquaintances in their everyday life.
Speaker 1 (29:10):
Oh my gosh. I mean, I would argue that we
are kind of in a golden era of scammers, where
people are willing to close their eyes to the way
that the people that they follow, the people that they
have upheld as aspirational, they are very willing to close
their eyes to the way that those people are moving
right in front of their faces in a way that
(29:32):
is deceptive. Like this is a weird analogy, but there's
this young black Mormon treadwife influencer who is really famous
for making videos of her like baking in ball gowns
to show off how much money she has, like shopping
and blah blah blah. And I got into an argument
on Threads with somebody, another black woman about this, and
(29:52):
she was like, people are hating on her because they
hate to see a black woman live a life of luxury,
and like that's what she's doing and she's like being
a good mom and people just hate to see that.
When it's a black woman, and I was like, well,
I'm a black woman, and I don't hate to see that,
but this woman is a contact creator. The whole thing
is like artifice to make her money. This is just
how she lives her life. It's by nature performative. So like,
(30:14):
I wasn't like getting down on this woman, but I
was just saying, like, let's be honest. If this woman
is a contact creator, she is setting up a tripod
and lighting and wearing a specific outfit to do something
performative to make money. That's just what it is. And
you would have thought that I called this woman a
bad name. She was like, how dare you say that?
And I was like, it's obviously performative. I don't even
(30:35):
think that the woman in the videos would be like, oh,
this is a realistic depiction of my life as someone
who makes food for my kids. Like I just couldn't
believe that an adult would be so willing to play
into the scam that is so obviously unfolding in front
of her. Not to say this woman is scamming, but
I was surprised to see an adult unwilling or unable
(30:57):
to call this what it was, a money making inner.
Do you know what I'm saying, I do. Yeah, Like,
why was it so important to her that this woman
be deemed authentic and not performative? What is lost if
you acknowledge the obvious truth that this is a performance
to make money.
Speaker 2 (31:14):
Yeah, it's a good question and maybe one for another episode. So, Bridget,
I know that you like, this story really got you.
You read a bunch of stuff. You kept writing and
writing and writing and writing, and thank you for doing
(31:37):
all that. Let's land this plane and bring it home.
What is it about this story that really speaks to you?
Speaker 1 (31:42):
I think the story speaks to me for a lot
of reasons. I think the response it demonstrates how siloed
and how charged everything is that you can't even you know,
deal with this story on its merits or like out
the pieces that you might think, like, well, well that's
(32:02):
to be something that the only way that people who
are detractors of it can engage with it is as
a hitchub.
Speaker 3 (32:07):
Two.
Speaker 1 (32:08):
This is so maybe so petty, but like it bumms
me out that this is what the podcast space looks
like sometimes that it's like it's such a space where,
through marketing and a certain kind of language and appeal,
people can really build huge, powerful platforms that maybe when
you look a little closer or are not so great,
(32:30):
and maybe you look even closer, maybe they're a little
bit dangerous. And so I think that's my main takeaway
is that I think that we all deserve good content,
like if you care about what you put in your body.
Part of that, I think is that we deserve like
good information, and we deserve good information from people who
are not liars. And it sounds like from reading this
(32:53):
piece that Hubanman might be somebody who is so invested
in personal myth making and brand building and enrichment that
he might be someone who is at risk for their
platform causing some harm. And I think we got to
look out for that.
Speaker 2 (33:11):
Yeah, totally agree.
Speaker 1 (33:13):
Well, Mike, you were in the document, my research document.
When you saw it, it was five pages long, and
then when you clicked in this morning you were like, oh,
it's eleven pages. No, I could have kept going. Thank
you for diving into all of this with me and listeners.
I want to hear your thoughts. Are you a Huberman
husband or someone a follower of Daddy Huberman that's what
they call him on TikTok. I want to know. We
(33:35):
can hit us up at Hello at tango dot com.
Speaker 2 (33:37):
Yeah, I'm also so curious if you listen to our
show and you also listen to Huberman's show, we would
love to hear your take. I know that there's a
lot of good people who get a lot of value
out of his content, and so would just love to
hear your take about this. Please let us know.
Speaker 1 (33:53):
Agreed, hit us up.
Speaker 2 (33:55):
Thanks for having me, Bridget.
Speaker 3 (33:56):
Thanks Mike.
Speaker 1 (34:01):
Got a story about an interesting thing in tech or
just want to say hi? You can reach us at
hello at tangody dot com. You can also find transcripts
for today's episode at tengody dot com. There Are No
Girls on the Internet was created by me Bridget Todd.
It's a production of iHeartRadio and Unbossed Creative Jonathan Strickland
is our executive producer. Tari Harrison is our producer and
sound engineer. Michael Amado is our contributing producer. I'm your host,
(34:23):
Bridget Todd. If you want to help us grow, rate
and review us on Apple Podcasts. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio,
check out the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you
get your podcasts.
There Are No Girls on the Internet as a production
of iHeartRadio and Unbossed Creative. I'm Bridget Tad and this
is There Are No Girls on the Internet. So this
is part two of our episode on doctor Andrew Huberman.
If you have not listened to part one, you're probably
gonna want to listen to that before you listen to
(00:25):
this to have the context. But to recap, Andrew Huberman
is a very famous, very popular podcaster and neuroscientist who
has been giving guidance to millions of people on how
to hack their way to a better life. New York
mag just published a piece with the stories of six
women in doctor Huberman's life who alleged that he mistreated them,
(00:46):
and also looking at some of his questionable science and
ethical practices, like endorsing dubious supplements. I'm joined by a producer, Mike,
who is also a scientist, to get into why we're
all so quick to build up flawed people into gurus.
You and I were talking about this off Mike, Mike,
weird thing to say about what exactly you think is
(01:08):
going on here? Right? So, after doing all my research
for this episode, I have totally changed my mind. I
go back to this episode that we did early in
Tangote's history with a Foma Uzoma, who was formerly a
pinterest She developed the platform's first ever medical misinformation policy,
and in our conversation, she told me that it's really
(01:28):
not that deep. Like a lot of the people who
push medical misinformation are just scammers, right, They're just using
fear or whatever or like junk science to get people
to give them money for whatever scam supplement or scam
course they're selling or whatever. And I think I'm kind
of coming around the fact that maybe Huberman is like
a little bit of a scammer, like like maybe it's
(01:50):
not like, maybe it's not that deep. He is just
like a snake oil salesman who gets rich from selling
snake oil. So he is using his scientific credentials to
booth that snake oil.
Speaker 2 (02:01):
Yeah, I agree. I think that's a big piece of
it here, right, Like it's not in dispute that he
is aggressively promoting supplements that do not have evidence based
to demonstrate their effectiveness and he's getting rich off that, right.
That's like literally, you know, I guess it's not literally,
(02:22):
but it is a direct analogy to selling snake oil. Yeah,
good old fashioned scammer. I do think that he's a
little bit more interesting or different than a lot of
your garden variety scammers, just because he's so much more
educated and is like a bona fide scientist making scientific
contributions and seems to be a very introspective person. So like,
(02:49):
I'm just so fascinated the story he tells himself to
justify selling that snake oil.
Speaker 1 (02:56):
Well, Andrew Huberman's whole thing is like a storyteller exercise
about himself, like a myth making exercise about himself. Like
the sort of story that he tells about himself is
that he was a troubled kid. His parents handled his
divorce in a way that left him neglected and like unparented.
His parents kind of dispute that, but whatever, and that
(03:18):
he was sent to sort of a facility for troubled
youth and that talk therapy is what saved him, and
he wanted to dedicate his life to like helping others
because of that, and he got into Stanford despite the
fact that he was this like troubled youth who was
like essentially unparented. So he says, what does seem certain
is that an adolescence, Andrew became a regular consumer of
(03:40):
talk therapy. In therapy, one learns to tell stories about
one's experience. A story one could tell is I overcame
immense odds to be where I am. Another is the
son of a Stanford professor born at Stanford Hospital, grows
up to be a Stanford professor. Like I do think
that he maybe is somebody who, like we all certain effects,
(04:01):
but like gets down on the story that he tells
himself and that story sort of becomes the truth. And
so maybe the story that he tells himself, like the
story that I tell myself when I have to do
adreads is like, if I didn't do these ad reads,
the people who make my podcast would not be able
to be paid. I would not be able to be paid,
the show would not be able to go on, right,
(04:22):
And so that's the story I tell myself when I'm
doing adreads for our sponsors, all of whom I love
and respect very much. But I think, like that's the
story that I have to tell myself to feel okay
about doing these adreads, even though nobody likes ads. I
think it's different when you are a scientist telling yourself
a story that makes it okay to use your credentials
(04:43):
as a scientist to maybe lead people into things that
are risky.
Speaker 2 (04:47):
Yeah, especially when you are publicly preaching introspection and discipline
and accountability. Those all seem like virtues that maybe he
should take a deeper look at.
Speaker 1 (04:59):
Yeah, this is I'm kind of going off script here,
but like you were saying, how the popular guru who
doesn't take their own advice and is not living the
values that they preach in public. That is such a
well worn thing, that's almost a cliche at this point.
I wonder what it is that about Huberman that makes
(05:20):
it so hard to see this well worn trope playing
out in before our eyes, because I think that's in
part kind of what's going on here with Huberman. But
it's so interesting to me how people are like, but
he's a scientist, but he's introspective, but he's very thoughtful,
he's different. Maybe it's just the power of marketing, the
power how people really want to believe that what he's
(05:41):
doing is so much different than the doctor oz Is
of the world because of the way he packages it
so effectively as being different.
Speaker 2 (05:49):
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. I haven't listened
to his podcast. But you know, in the research for
doing this, you know, I read a couple of artists
that we're talking about it, and all of them mentioned
when he's interviewing guests or speaking in public. You know,
it's characterized by humility and kindness and compassion. And I
(06:13):
could imagine that all of those would be things that
would disarm a audience and make them feel like the
person could be trusted right and feel more connected to them,
Like humility is super powerful.
Speaker 1 (06:29):
But even that reminds me of the way these women
say that he used that same kind of language to
control them. You know. That's sort of like like at
one point, when one of the women realizes that he
cheated on her, he texts her like something along the
lines of, I hear you, and I'm willing to hear
(06:49):
you for as long as you need. Which, again, it's
almost like therapysts beak to get away with bad behavior,
And I wonder if that's part of it, like using
a certain kind of disarming lang waged and disarming presentation
and disarming you know, vibe to really effectively trick people
into trusting you and to trick them into not seeing
(07:12):
what is so obviously in front of their own eyes
or or happening in their own ears, like I don't
need It's like not some of this stuff is not
in dispute. It's not in dispute that he takes money
from supplement companies. It is not in dispute that supplement
companies are notoriously not transparent and rely on junk science,
if any science at all. Those things are not in dispute.
So the fact that people are like, no, he would
(07:33):
never it's like he would not dispute that is what's happening.
Speaker 2 (07:36):
Yeah, it's a good question. What is it about him
that makes people like him and want to follow his advice?
But clearly he's done very well at it, and I
think it is an important question for us all to consider.
Speaker 1 (07:51):
I think part of it's gotta be that he's hot.
Probably helps, Like he's like jacked, he has glasses, Like
I don't know, Like, I think he's someone that maybe
a lot of the male listeners in his audience want
to see themselves in, Like who would not want to
be like, oh, yeah, I'm this like jacked, ripped guy
who has glasses, But it's also a scientist and like
(08:11):
can maybe juggle women in an unethical way, Like I
think that men are identifying with him in a certain way,
and that is maybe making it hard for them to
see what is happening so plainly, right out and open. Yeah,
it's a good point.
Speaker 2 (08:26):
Yeah, there's a lot of ways in which the life
he's leading feels aspirational.
Speaker 1 (08:30):
Mm hmmm, I completely agree. So Doctor Andrea Love, her
piece just makes him sound like a good old fashioned scammer. Again,
I will link to it in the show notes, so
should definitely read it. So she points out that he
is somebody who uses dubious science to put people off
of accepted medical interventions like fluoride or vaccines, even when
there is broad medical consensus about it, in service of
(08:54):
suggesting all alternative that he has a financial stake in.
So doctor Love says that Huberman uses false balance, the
fallacy that equal and opposite sides always exists. Take his
thoughts on fluoride. While fluoride has been used for decades
to prevent dental disease, Huberman gives the impression that there
is an ongoing debate among experts about its use, and
reasons for his listeners to be careful about how much
(09:15):
fluoride containing tap water they consume. During his Oral Health
podcast episode, Huberman undermines consensus data on fluoride, endorses fluoride
free toothpastes as well as a Yerba mate tea company
that uses fluoride free water and which he is a
business partner of, and cites a dentist who spreads fear
about fluoride as his expert reference. Huberman positions this for
(09:36):
his listeners as information to make the best decision, as
though we all need to be carefully thinking about our
fluoride levels.
Speaker 2 (09:43):
Yeah, again, cherry picking here. It sounds like he cherry
picked particular expert who has an axed the grind about
fluoride while ignoring the vast majority of dentists who are
in consensus that fluoride is positive thing to promote oral health.
Speaker 1 (09:59):
And when we were talking about his cold and flu
episode where he was talking about how he doesn't always
get the flu shot because it is not effective unless
the shot protects from that exact strain of flu going
around that year, which is not totally accurate, you were like, well,
why would he do that? You know, what does he
have to gain in discrediting vaccines? And again if you
believe doctor Andrea Love, it comes down to those supplements
(10:20):
that he sells. Having a paid sponsor is not a
disqualifier in and of itself, she writes, But when your
financial conflicts of interest seem to dictate your content, it
should be After dismissing legitimate data. In the flu episode,
his lengthy quote science backed discussion to prevent colds and
flu boiled down to an extended commercial for taking supplements.
(10:41):
So all of me has me wondering, which I think
is the point of the New York mag piece. Why
do we look to anybody for their life advice? Like,
why do we make people into gurus in the first place.
It does not surprise me that Huberman really got famous
famous in the twenty twenty one era of COVID. You know,
we were all sort of alone and connected and looking
(11:01):
for some solution or some antidote to that where you
weren't sleeping well, you weren't eating well, maybe like the
vibes were terrible. So in a lot of way, I
think the public we were just like easy marks during
that time.
Speaker 2 (11:13):
Yep, just a bunch of dupes with money, yeah, looking
for a quick fix. Yep, rubes looking for a solution
and you You and I kind of.
Speaker 1 (11:23):
Talked about this off mic, but it's one of the
reasons why like life advice content. Like I'm not somebody
who really unless I'm really having a dark time of desperation, Like,
I'm not someone who listens to lifestyle or life advice podcasts.
I don't like career advice podcasts. I just don't like
(11:44):
this idea that one person has a one size fits
all solution. This is my opinion. I don't think life
works that way. I think people are really complex. People
have very complex motivations and desires and needs and hang ups.
I don't see how a stranger could speak to that
in any way. That is I'm not saying. I don't
not saying that anybody should like but you're a bad
person if you listen to that. I just feel like
(12:06):
anybody who is like wearing a blazer and crossing their
arms and being like I have the answer, something in
me automatically is like suspect of that.
Speaker 2 (12:13):
I one hundred percent agree. Yeah, anybody who says that
they have the answer huge red flag. And I'm somebody
who loves learning from people. There are so many smart
people in the world, who have insight, who have wisdom,
who talk about interesting philosophical and ethical questions that you know,
(12:34):
help me understand the world and help me decide how
to live my life. But I feel like there's a
very fine line where that crosses over into solutions. And
therefore you should do xyz, you should buy this supplement,
you should adopt my patented life routine. Once they start
(12:56):
hawking a specific solution, that red flag gets a little
bit higher. And then when that solution is something that
you can buy, it's time for me to walk away.
Speaker 1 (13:09):
You've lost me. You've lost me.
Speaker 3 (13:13):
Let's take a quick break at our back.
Speaker 1 (13:28):
I think we're kind of in a golden age of
the snake oil salesman who can use digital mediums like
podcasts or social media to demonstrate that they have it
all figured out, that they had the kind of life
that is aspirational that you would want to live. It's
basically how MLMs might operate of like, my life looks
dope as hell on Instagram? Don't you want to live
(13:50):
like I do? If you buy this thing, you can.
And so I think that we're kind of in a
golden era of coaches and lifestyle gurus and wellness people
and people selling courses just like and I'm not saying
all of those are are are bunk, because I certainly
don't know, but like, I think that we're in an
(14:12):
era where people are looking for a solution to the
way that things feel right now, and there's always going
to be somebody willing to take their money offering that solution,
and we got to be extra careful about who and
why we elevate to that platform.
Speaker 2 (14:31):
I think you're absolutely right, And I think that really
intersects with the fact that he is a scientist and that,
you know, speaking from science is part of his brand
on the podcast. You know, he's somebody who looks really
good on videos, looks good on Instagram, is good at
managing social media, can build this following leads this like aspirational,
(14:54):
cool looking life, which makes people want to emulate him.
And if he's give advice, it's reasonable to think that, oh,
if I take that advice, my life could look like his.
So the things that he's saying must be true, because
his life looks pretty good. He's healthy, he's wealthy, he's
sleeping with a bunch of women. But that's so different
from how evidence gets evaluated in science. You look at evidence,
(15:16):
you look at multiple studies. Do they agree, do they disagree,
Look across the balance of all of the evidence to
reach conclusions based on the evidence that's there, in a
transparent evaluation of the methods that we're used to create
those conclusions. It's much more boring than an Instagram real
or a YouTube video. But that's how scientific conclusions get reached.
(15:37):
And I think that's maybe why it's so easy and
feel so dangerous for people who have scientific authority due
to their institutional positions and just take that over to
Instagram and popular culture to start dispensing advice that is
not within their area of experts.
Speaker 1 (16:00):
Tea, Yes, And I think that, like that's the real
scandal that I think the piece is trying to highlight.
The scandal is not to me, like how he treated
women badly in his personal life. It is that he
enjoys this pedestal of like men of science and knowledge
and enjoys all of the respect that comes with that,
while also behaving in ways that are like really small
(16:23):
and like maybe unethical and maybe like anti science, Like
he wasn't trying to unlock the science of all of
us living our best lives. Like maybe he was a
little bit, but it sounds like it was also an
enterprise to personally enrich himself, get and control women and
have fame. Like I said, small, that's not a super
respectable you know man of science behavior that is like
(16:46):
small man driven by desire and vice behavior.
Speaker 2 (16:52):
Yeah, I mean if you were to, you know, take
a stoic approach to it. One should be leading a
virtuous life, and none of those sound very virtuous.
Speaker 1 (17:01):
Ultimately, nobody likes to pursue vice and hedonism and you know,
desire more than your girl right here, So I'm not judging,
but to create an entire platform around the importance of
discipline and avoiding this and avoiding that while you are
privately courting your version of those things yourself. Like I
(17:22):
don't think he's somebody who is like preaching not drinking
and then drinking alcohol, But he is somebody who preaches
like avoid dopamine and then like clearly has these like
dopamine driven relationships with women that are very chaotic based
on lies. Like I think that's the scandal. The writer
Justin Murphy put it really beautifully on Twitter. He writes
their Huberman story is not altogether trivial. The smartest men
(17:43):
in every generation of Western history have generally converged on
the idea that knowledge and cultivation involve a certain conquest
of the appetites. Obviously, men who are successful economically and
socially are free to indulge their appetites, and often do.
The story is not surprising or informative if you are
had Huberman pegged as playing primarily an economic and social game,
(18:04):
The story is surprising and damning if you saw him
as playing a game of knowledge and cultivation. It is
not therefore a totally vacuous story, as many seem to
be saying. In the eyes of any classically educated observer,
it is a precipitous fall in the stock price of rationalist,
materialist utilitarian frameworks for living. For many people, Huberman was
(18:24):
not just a purveyor of useful information, but an image
of wisdom, an image of a cultivated man no longer obviously,
except for the most naive, you could know everything there
is to know about the body, and have all the
followers in the world and not exceed the wisdom of
the average twenty five year old man. The scandal of
the story is not Huberman's immorality, which is common and generic.
(18:45):
The scandal is ethical, someone who is famous for having
tremendous knowledge of how to live does not himself live
in a.
Speaker 2 (18:51):
Beautiful way common and generic. That's got a sting.
Speaker 1 (18:56):
Yeah, I mean, I guess that's the disconnect that like
people want to see who as this learned man of
science and knowledge and cultivation which is so high minded
and elevated. In reality, he's trying to get a check
and get his dick wet. Like that is like generic
and small minded. I can tell you a thousand other
men I know who are the same way, trying to
get the same shit. It's not like I'm not trying
(19:17):
to demonize him for it, but let's call it what
it is. And like I think from the article that
is like plainly what it is. And I guess ultimately
the question is, like does this matter? Here's where the
Naric magpiece leaves it. There is an argument to be
made that it does not matter how a helpful podcast
or conducts himself outside of the studio. A man unable
to constrain his urges may still preach dopominergic control to others.
(19:40):
Morning Sun still remains salutary. The physiological side employed by
this writer many times in the writing of this essay,
continues to affect calm. That's one of his trademark tactics,
is a specific side that's supposed to calm you down.
The large and growing distance between Andrew Huberman and the
man he continues to be may not even matter to
those who buy questionable products he has recommended and from
(20:03):
which he will materially benefit, or listeners who imagined a
man in a white coat at work in Palo Alto.
The people who definitively find the space between fantasy and
reality to be a problem are women who fell for
a podcaster who professed deep, sustained concern for their personal growth,
and who, in his skyrocketing influence, continue to project an
(20:24):
image of earnest self discovery. It is here in the
false belief of two minds and synchronicity and exploration that
deception leads to harm. They fear it will lead to more. So, Yeah,
what a piece, beautifully written, And I think that's kind
of the so what these women are just raising the
alarm that this guy who is trafficking off as his
(20:45):
scientific credentials is maybe actually not who he says he is,
and the public should know if he's going to be
a guru, there should be some transparency around that.
Speaker 2 (20:56):
Yeah, you know, anybody who's stands up and says I
have the answer, it is reasonable to inspect how they
live their life.
Speaker 3 (21:07):
More. After a quick break, let's get right back into it.
Speaker 1 (21:23):
So a lot of Huberman supporters are really digging in
and defending him. Maybe those are just the loudest ones.
Maybe people who were like casual listeners of his podcast
are like, I don't know, like that article seems fair.
Who cares? It is so interesting really, because you know,
I wonder if a lot of the people who listen
to Huberman really identified with him, or maybe his lifestyle
(21:46):
was like really aspirational to them, and so when he
is being called out in this way, maybe they feel
personally threatened and that is why they are coming to
his defense so specifically, like Lex Friedman was like, he
is a personal friend of mine and this is a
hit job. Again, I was not able to read Lex
Friedman's entire statement because he has me blocked. But this
(22:07):
idea that because you are a listener of his podcast
or even like, let's like, you know, him personally that
you would know the intimacies of his romantic life and
how he shows up sexually and romantically, Like I have
plenty of close friends and I don't know the ins
and outs of how they get down sexually and romantically,
and I I would never pretend that I did, right, Like,
I find it really interesting how many people are so
(22:28):
loudly coming to his defense, Like I follow and enjoy
plenty of podcasters that I don't personally know. There is
not one of them that I can think of that
I would read like a long, critical, deep dive into
their work and their history and their values that I
wouldn't come away thinking like, oh, maybe they had a
few points to see people summarily dismissing this as a
(22:49):
hit job to defend Huberman like he is someone they know.
And it's interesting how this has become this kind of
culture wars thing where it's like, Oh, they're just attacking
him for no reason, and I'm not even gonna lie,
like it's all bunk, right, and so like they're not
even engaging with the pieces of the article that are
not about his romantic life, right, Like the way that
(23:11):
he talked about that colleague of his that was a woman.
That's not about his romantic life. His relationship with ag
One and supplements, that's not about his romantic life. Like
the questions about his own myth making and his background,
that's not about his romantic life. Though. Are those not
questions that need answers and deserve scrutiny for somebody who
is bolstering themselves as a public guru.
Speaker 2 (23:32):
Yeah, it's not surprising that it has sort of been
framed and is being talked about as yet another culture
war of us versus them. I think another lens that
we can look at it is earlier we made an
analogy to conspiracy theories, where his scientific rationale behind this
or that solution is often like cherry picked. It'll be
(23:53):
like a germ of truth in there, but then build
this elaborate, just so story around it that it sounds
like a lot of cases leads to the conclusion that
you should buy some product that he's selling. And similarly,
here his followers, I suspect a lot of them are
true believers. When confronted with a critical piece like this
New York mag article, just reject it right the same
(24:15):
way that when you present somebody who believes in the
conspiracy theory. With evidence that refuse that conspiracy, they will
in most cases just double down, and the conflicting evidence
is somehow reinterpreted in a way that makes them believe
in the conspiracy even more strongly. It feels like there's
something similar going on here as well.
Speaker 1 (24:33):
Well, I can tell you who a lot of his
defenders are saying is behind this hit piece, Big Pharma.
Big Pharma doesn't like that Andrew Kuberman is preaching the
powers of meditation and sunlight and ice baths and supplements.
They want us all hooked on the Big Pharma machine.
(24:54):
And that's why New York mag is like writing this
like well researched while written take out of his life.
Speaker 2 (25:00):
Yeah, they're just a front for Big Pharma. I'm no
big fan of the pharmaceutical industry. They do lots of
like pretty shady, harmful stuff, no question, But in this case, yes,
dismissing this piece as a hit piece by Big Pharma,
I feel like George Soros is just like one step
away in that causal chain of dismissive logic.
Speaker 1 (25:25):
Oh totally And side note like I feel like whenever
like this is a hit piece, an attack job, by
Big Pharma whenever that is the go to line of defense.
It really tells me a lot about the audience that
the person has cultivated, because that was the same thing
that they used to defend Joe Rogan when people like
me were pointing out his use of misinformation in the
(25:46):
podcast space. They were like, Oh, like, he isn't down
with the COVID vaccine, He's interested in alternatives to curb COVID,
so Big Pharma had to take him down. I feel
like that tells me so much about the audience that
you have cultivated and what they are about and what
they value what they don't value.
Speaker 2 (26:03):
Yeah, cause it's not just listen to me, I have
the answer. It's also don't listen to anybody else. They're
trying to deceive you.
Speaker 1 (26:10):
And anybody who says anything critical about what the person
is saying, they're not just wrong, they are like in
the pocket a Big Pharma. Again. It's that total conspiratorial
thinking that it's like they don't just have a difference
of opinion, it's like on the farious plot. So in
the fallout of all of this, people are really trying
to come for the person who wrote the article, who
(26:32):
is new York mag writer Carrie Howley, who I love.
Carrie is writing like if you ever see a deep
dive written by Carry, go ahead and click it immediately.
One of those writers that if anybody ever calls me
and is like, I'm fact checking a piece by Carry Howley,
I'd like to ask you a few questions, I will
be very concerned.
Speaker 2 (26:50):
Yeah, but can confirm it is so well written. It
was like a joy to read, even like setting the
content aside, just the pro the writing. It was refreshing,
It was really nice.
Speaker 1 (27:03):
Yeah, totally agreed. So I hate to see Kerrie being
attacked in this way. Huberman retained the crisis PR firm
called Scale Strategy. Fun fact, Scale Strategy is brought to
us by one of the guys who handled the disastrous
We Work IPO and was fired soon after. So one
of the folks who might be on Huberman's crisis PR
(27:24):
campaign to navigate the fallout of this article. Something else
I have seen is that a lot of his loudest
defenders are saying, well, if Huberman has been juggling hot
women this effectively, it means that the methods that he
preaches on the podcast must be effective. Like he's really
like a masculine guy. That they're applauding what he has
(27:46):
been accused of doing, and that makes him more likable
in their eyes. And that is what I mean. Like,
that's the thing that I think that we're not coming
right out and saying directly. I think that casual misogyny
and sexism and gaslighting women and demanding submission of women.
I think all of this stuff isn't something that the
(28:07):
audience that he has cultivated is it all bothered by.
In fact, quite the opposite. I think to them, this
is a feature, not a bug. I think that they
like this. I think that like the way he is
accused of treating these women is not removed from the
content that he makes on the podcast. I think it's
all one big, intricate, quilled and I think it's all related.
Speaker 2 (28:30):
Yeah, And the fact that they aren't more bothered by
the deception that is at the very root of it
is worrisome and unfortunate. You know, people can have different
ideas about what dating and relationships and life should look like.
But I feel like most people that I know in
my personal life, even people who like have different political
(28:52):
and social views than me, most people agree that deception
is bad and you shouldn't use it. And it feels
like there's something going on where public figures get a
pass on that that people would not allow peers or
acquaintances in their everyday life.
Speaker 1 (29:10):
Oh my gosh. I mean, I would argue that we
are kind of in a golden era of scammers, where
people are willing to close their eyes to the way
that the people that they follow, the people that they
have upheld as aspirational, they are very willing to close
their eyes to the way that those people are moving
right in front of their faces in a way that
(29:32):
is deceptive. Like this is a weird analogy, but there's
this young black Mormon treadwife influencer who is really famous
for making videos of her like baking in ball gowns
to show off how much money she has, like shopping
and blah blah blah. And I got into an argument
on Threads with somebody, another black woman about this, and
(29:52):
she was like, people are hating on her because they
hate to see a black woman live a life of luxury,
and like that's what she's doing and she's like being
a good mom and people just hate to see that.
When it's a black woman, and I was like, well,
I'm a black woman, and I don't hate to see that,
but this woman is a contact creator. The whole thing
is like artifice to make her money. This is just
how she lives her life. It's by nature performative. So like,
(30:14):
I wasn't like getting down on this woman, but I
was just saying, like, let's be honest. If this woman
is a contact creator, she is setting up a tripod
and lighting and wearing a specific outfit to do something
performative to make money. That's just what it is. And
you would have thought that I called this woman a
bad name. She was like, how dare you say that?
And I was like, it's obviously performative. I don't even
(30:35):
think that the woman in the videos would be like, oh,
this is a realistic depiction of my life as someone
who makes food for my kids. Like I just couldn't
believe that an adult would be so willing to play
into the scam that is so obviously unfolding in front
of her. Not to say this woman is scamming, but
I was surprised to see an adult unwilling or unable
(30:57):
to call this what it was, a money making inner.
Do you know what I'm saying, I do. Yeah, Like,
why was it so important to her that this woman
be deemed authentic and not performative? What is lost if
you acknowledge the obvious truth that this is a performance
to make money.
Speaker 2 (31:14):
Yeah, it's a good question and maybe one for another episode. So, Bridget,
I know that you like, this story really got you.
You read a bunch of stuff. You kept writing and
writing and writing and writing, and thank you for doing
(31:37):
all that. Let's land this plane and bring it home.
What is it about this story that really speaks to you?
Speaker 1 (31:42):
I think the story speaks to me for a lot
of reasons. I think the response it demonstrates how siloed
and how charged everything is that you can't even you know,
deal with this story on its merits or like out
the pieces that you might think, like, well, well that's
(32:02):
to be something that the only way that people who
are detractors of it can engage with it is as
a hitchub.
Speaker 3 (32:07):
Two.
Speaker 1 (32:08):
This is so maybe so petty, but like it bumms
me out that this is what the podcast space looks
like sometimes that it's like it's such a space where,
through marketing and a certain kind of language and appeal,
people can really build huge, powerful platforms that maybe when
you look a little closer or are not so great,
(32:30):
and maybe you look even closer, maybe they're a little
bit dangerous. And so I think that's my main takeaway
is that I think that we all deserve good content,
like if you care about what you put in your body.
Part of that, I think is that we deserve like
good information, and we deserve good information from people who
are not liars. And it sounds like from reading this
(32:53):
piece that Hubanman might be somebody who is so invested
in personal myth making and brand building and enrichment that
he might be someone who is at risk for their
platform causing some harm. And I think we got to
look out for that.
Speaker 2 (33:11):
Yeah, totally agree.
Speaker 1 (33:13):
Well, Mike, you were in the document, my research document.
When you saw it, it was five pages long, and
then when you clicked in this morning you were like, oh,
it's eleven pages. No, I could have kept going. Thank
you for diving into all of this with me and listeners.
I want to hear your thoughts. Are you a Huberman
husband or someone a follower of Daddy Huberman that's what
they call him on TikTok. I want to know. We
(33:35):
can hit us up at Hello at tango dot com.
Speaker 2 (33:37):
Yeah, I'm also so curious if you listen to our
show and you also listen to Huberman's show, we would
love to hear your take. I know that there's a
lot of good people who get a lot of value
out of his content, and so would just love to
hear your take about this. Please let us know.
Speaker 1 (33:53):
Agreed, hit us up.
Speaker 2 (33:55):
Thanks for having me, Bridget.
Speaker 3 (33:56):
Thanks Mike.
Speaker 1 (34:01):
Got a story about an interesting thing in tech or
just want to say hi? You can reach us at
hello at tangody dot com. You can also find transcripts
for today's episode at tengody dot com. There Are No
Girls on the Internet was created by me Bridget Todd.
It's a production of iHeartRadio and Unbossed Creative Jonathan Strickland
is our executive producer. Tari Harrison is our producer and
sound engineer. Michael Amado is our contributing producer. I'm your host,
(34:23):
Bridget Todd. If you want to help us grow, rate
and review us on Apple Podcasts. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio,
check out the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you
get your podcasts.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations.
The Nikki Glaser Podcast
Every week comedian and infamous roaster Nikki Glaser provides a fun, fast-paced, and brutally honest look into current pop-culture and her own personal life.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.