Andrew Huberman

Vision being his primary area of research is also interesting to me because perception in Ecological Psychology is suggested to be direct not indirect which is often discussed through the visual system. [8]

Although I take a fundamentally different approach to psychology to Andrew, the topics he speaks about are thought provoking and great for conversation.

However recent conversations have been about his personal life.

0:05 Andrew hit piece 0:23

Andrew has spoken in various podcasts before about his challenging childhood. [2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7]

Getting into trouble, into fights, doing drugs until a significant moment on July 4th 1994.

2 years before I was born.

Long story short he turned his life around and wanted to become a professor, which he did.

But then in 2019 Pat asked Andrew what is next.

That lead to Instagram posts on social media in 2020, which sparked the interest of larger podcast hosts [1]

Later in 2020 Andrew went on various podcasts discussing his research.

with the successful interviews and Andrew wanting to help more, he started sharing health related advice on his own podcast in 2021.

This was of course through lockdown, which I think had a significant role in Andrews growth at that time.

Various causes playing a role, not linear causality but non-linear multi causality.

not a line a to b to c to d but more like a table with legs supporting the behaviour

However like with any public figure that attracts attention, people will want to share their opinions.

From what I have seen, many people that critique Andrew's work are those from, or in academia.

The people familiar with reading academic articles and the associated limitations.

But I think this is another cause that helped him grow

He doesn't dumb down explanations as much as many other people had done before.

But maybe because of the complexity of the explanations, critique comes from those with deeper levels of understanding or expertise.

And this to me is where the conversation becomes interesting.

New York Article

on the 25th March 2024 a New York Magazine article was released sharing some private stories about Andrew.

some said he seemed to have a great memory but forgot what people were talking about

this seemed as though he didn't pay attention to them

he also seemed flakey, not contacting people or putting off meetups and events.

there were example excuses shared, which a spokesperson for Andrew often denied

but this could be him being nervous, busy, uninterested, forgetful, there are loads of possible causes, multi-causality.

something else that was emphasized in the article was Andrews anger or temper.

but we all get frustrated, the article doesn't really go into specifics on situations so it is very much she said he said no useful evidence from what I could see. [11]

However as much of his online profile is about health and science related tools, you would think memory, attention, communication, relationships, thinking, learning would be areas he is good at.

or at least show expertise in.

his area of study is vision.

Yes the biological mechanisms, but that has to include philosophical theories of perception at some level.

so when I hear these stories about Andrews behaviour, I wonder if and how he couples his perception with action.

he often talks a lot about rules and protocols.

using buzzword terms like peer-reviewed, science backed or evidence based.

but for me this is where a couple of concept from ecological psychology are really useful.

knowledge of or knowledge about.

perceived affordances

constraints in the organism environment relationship

and scale of measurement

4:25

Scale of measurement

most of the time when we measure something we look for the result.

did it get better or worse.

but if we adjust the timescale the answers might change.

short term effects and long term effects.

However like when measuring a rock surface, a coastline or something similar it depends on the size of your ruler.

There is no reliable fixed length for the coastline of Britain that is independent of the measuring device [15]

so when Andrew talks about improved results, it depends on the measurements.

I remember hearing him give examples of times where he found real improvements using x thing, but rarely any specifics.

variability is inevitable, it is everywhere.

so nuance is everywhere.

peer-reviewed by who

science backed for what

evidence based since when

It is about the specifics in the evidence to help us understand the significance and relevance of the measured results.

without the specifics his science backed advice is little more than his personal experience.

which according to the new york article is questionable

Perceived affordances

I think this is important because protocols constrain opportunities.

if the protocols are built by measurements not scaled appropriately for a different person, organism, then the constraint might not be appropriate.

This is where I like that Andrew says to talk to medical professionals,

but him giving his protocols saying they are evidence based sounds like instruction, maybe even prescription.

but the quality of evidence is worth questioning

What people do is up to them,

but as a professor, educator and teacher I don't grasp why he gives protocols over sharing practices to explore.

practice design over giving explicit instruction

especially as he doesn't know who he is given the instruction to

It seems from the outside that Andrew is trying to promote an optimal solution or best solution to problems.

but he only knows information from the studies he has read and his own experience.

Just like everyone else. With their own experiences of course.

Andrew doesn't know his audiences experiences

cognitive psychology talks about a central executive, a mind that gives the body commands.

once you have the blueprint and instructions you can execute.

the thing Andrew seems to be giving.

but lots of data doesn't support that explanation of how we perceive and act in the world.

That is why I take an ecological approach from Ecological Psychology.

we perceive whether when and how to act differently in each situation.

So the rules, protocols, and guidelines are hard if not impossible to apply because the organism-environment relationship is dynamic.

this is where practice and practice design has shown to be more effective for learning over following explicit instruction in various situations.

Knowledge of V knowledge about

Then in the New York article Andrew is accused of cheating with multiple partners.

The evidence seems quite good, so I am going to assume it happened.

But this suggests he could shift his focus and pay attention to a different person.

He could remember lots of things to keep all the lives somewhat separate.

Communication was enough to maintain a relationship.

If his goal and intentions were to sleep around with different people, then his behaviour was pretty successful.

Until he got caught of course.

Ethical and or moral, that's another question.

but this is where I think much of the hurt might come from.

the protocols, rules, guidelines he talks about are for him, for being like him.

if you don't want to be like him, sleeping around with others, you might not want to follow his protocols.

after listening to hours of a person talk about health and science based tools to find out they don't follow your ethical values, can hurt.

to have been helped by a persons advice, and then learn they might be doing emotional harm to others doesn't feel nice.

but Andrew sharing knowledge about what he was doing, is different from knowledge of.

just like someone talking about how to play a sport, or how do a math problem, it is different from doing it.

and that difference is why I don't think Andrew's personal life impacts the way I interact with the information he shares online.

knowledge about is different from knowledge of

but if you take a closer look at the studies, he, like everyone else is biased with those he reads and shares.

where this becomes an issue for me, and where most academics find issue, is that the science he references often has lots of limitations.

he arguably is sharing misinformation online.

those with higher levels of expertise in a topic are better suited to share practice designs for people to explore.

Andrew has expertise in vision and respiration on brain states like fear.

from his approach at least.

but when it comes to other topics, his expertise relative to others changes.

which brings us back to the critiques of Andrews online work.

Science communication

During a previous video about misinformation I brought up bullshit.

Here we focus on pseudo-profound bullshit, which consists of seemingly impressive assertions that are presented as true and meaningful but are actually vacuous.” [16]

having or showing a lack of thought or intelligence

but bullshit is common, everyone does it to some degree.

and that degree of bullshit will change depending on your scale of measurement

someone with greater expertise in a topic may say Andrews claim is complete bullshit.

they have likely had more time exploring the topic than a regular listener of the podcast for example

but a regular listener of the podcast, might still call a claim bullshit, because the evidence seems questionable.

others of course taking the claim as true, however you want to define true.

but as Andrea and others have pointed out, his bullshit is vacuous [13]

Lacking thought, meaning or depth.

I think Dr. Todd does a good job explaining this here

7:01 not sceptical 7:40 [10]

That example potentially showing a lack of thought, bullshit.

As Andrea writes

In reality, his podcast is focused on pseudoscience: He often makes claims that appear scientific but lack evidence, plausibility, and validity. [13]

like the animal study.

Other topics with highly questionable evidence for his claims include ice baths, sugar as poison, dental care, flu vaccines, sun screen, and sleep.

He uses Matthew Walker as a person with expertise, as it isn't his field.

Matthew walkers book "Why We Sleep" was extremely successful in public consumption

but it was challenged by Alexey Guzey in 2019, 2 years after publication [17 ]

There is bullshit all the way through in the book.

Just as one really obvious example,

in the book Matthew shows this graph as support for more sleep

but the original graph has a 5 hour sleep column which is edited out.

That edited out column conveniently goes against Matts claims

Take a look at the article if you are interested but Andrew spoke with him in 2021 has been speaking with Matt on his podcast recently.

I haven't heard any challenge, or changes to the various bullshit that is mentioned in Matt's book.

Maybe Andrew isn't aware, maybe he doesn't think it matters, I would argue that is poor science.

Maybe he doesn't want to be negative or critical of a friend.

but as a scientist, a professor, a teacher, and popular online educator, I would expect critique, at least a bit more from what I have seen, heard.

then when it comes to the presentation style Andrea writes this about his episodes

He fills them with scientific-sounding jargon, stringing together names of genes or proteins that a listener might hear and think, “Hey, he is using complex lingo, he must really know his stuff.” But jargon gives the illusion that Huberman intimately understands topics he doesn’t. [13]

An example from someone else is Brian.

0:00 Andrew nonsense 0:25 [29]

Andrew uses popular scientific buzzwords which are inaccurate in his explanation.

6:36 tools to get attention - use buzzwords 7:18 [29]

Brian does a great job explaining where Andrew was lacking expertise and adding nuance to what was being said.

I want to emphasize at this point, critique isn't bad.

Pointing out mistakes isn't bad.

Saying someone is wrong isn't bad.

It is how we learn.

Andrew making mistakes is expected, we all make mistakes, but

when giving advice in an area we have limited expertise in, I would exp ect explanations to come with caveats.

especially if you are a public figure like Andrew.

I quoted Johnny in a video about faulty journalism

24:10 the idea of trusting viewers to fact check is nieve 24:25

This says a lot about consumers of online content, but also emphasizes the responsibility of creators of the content.

Presentation styles of content impact how it is received

8:47 confident and long winded 11:08

and there it is, oversimplification.

When you look at the breadth of topics discussed, yes with others, there is a lot that aren't about vision.
Topics - Huberman Lab

Andrew with reduced expertise oversimplifies what he discusses, just like anyone with shallow understanding.

But oversimplification can lead to misinformation and the cold and flu podcast is full of misinformation [14]

then there is financial side

13:00 biggest concern 13:21

he promotes products through oversimplified and pseudoscientific explanations.

Why? From the outside it looks like for financial reasons.

Maybe he has seen a benefit, but that is a personal recommendation from experience, not high quality evidence which he seems to promote.

And there is an obvious conflict of interest with him promoting the supplements and talking about supporting evidence. [13]

From my experience and understanding supplements are useful for those lacking nutrients from their nutrition, or have a deficit for some reason.

or they could be useful for those in higher demand like professional athletes, but most people don't need supplements.

supplements were a big topic during my Master in Strength and Conditioning, so I am somewhat familiar with the research

I personally don't take any, and I would personally include caffeine as a supplement as well but that is a topic for another conversation.

What Andrew is potentially doing, is educating his listeners attention to an issue they may not have

9:10 huberman believe him but there is no science to back it up 10:54

and James, thank you for sharing Bens short, I can't seem to find the original but this an example of Andrew discussing a topic outside of his area relying on another's expertise.

4:57 this is important 7:09

which brings us to online education

14:40

Online Education

The New York article states:

“How comfortable one feels with the science propagated on Huberman Lab depends entirely on how much leeway one is willing to give a man who expounds for multiple hours a week on subjects well outside his area of expertise” [9]

But this is true for most people sharing information online.

Discussing experiences, their own research, or guessing from read around knowledge they assume is related.

We are all developing dynamic levels of expertise in multiple topics.

If we couldn't talk about them, we wouldn't learn.

If can't make mistakes, we can't learn from them.

That is a popular online critique of formal education, not being allowed to make mistakes, and always needing good grades or to know the right answer.

but as Derek from Veritasium wrote about in his PhD thesis on designing effective multimedia for physics education [19]

challenging misconceptions is effective for learning.

look across educational science literature and you will likely find similar comments.

it is how we learn to move, adapting to variability [20]

so I am not sure listening to misinformation, pseudoscience, bullshit is the problem.

multi non-linear causality would suggest other things are involved like, our levels of expertise.

the skill development of consumers with the information we are exposed to.

as Dustin said

9:28 you must verify the truth 9:54

and if we look at what people have said about Andrews podcast

35:50 fame has nothing to do with the science 36:30 [24]

which brings us to the business models in science.

I have discussed the scammy nature of academic publishing before [23]

the struggles with upholding academic integrity.

and in online media maybe scientific integrity is a related struggle.

industries are built on pseudoscience earning billions [22]

potentially praying on those with less expertise in the field,

or those with less expertise in self-directed learning skills.

fact checking, critical thinking, and reflective practices

you could argue those that do that are bad at business as they are making themselves redundant.

During my degree I remember my head of course saying, an effective coach is one looking to make themselves redundant

helping individuals self-organize and adapt to dynamic situations.

instead of relying on instructions.

this is obviously less significant for the educational videos less related to health advice, but the idea still stands.

share understanding so we can cooperate to find the most effective practice

However as voidzilla discussed nicely

0:00 stay in your lane 0:17

The video is a reaction to James video I referenced earlier but the main point is a supply and demand problem [18]

Podcast hosts, like Andrew, running out of topics to talk about so bring on guests to help with the supply

guests that might not be as scientifically rigorous as you may expect

or maybe they are but

2:28 there is so much content 2:55

which sounds like those with expertise shouldn't be able to talk about their opinion.

but as I just mentioned, I don't think that is useful either.

healthy debate about opinions is useful

6:18 can be confusing 6:51

and I think using some terms from ecological psychology, education of attention

what provides information about given affordances, where should we pay attention?

and education intention

what behaviours do we want perform to uncover other possible information, what is our intention afterwards?

they can be useful here

I agree with this statement

6:00 put on a pedastool to quickly 7:17

But Andrew has done, and is doing real good.

I feel some conversations and the New York article in particular build this narrative painting Andrew as the bad guy.

He is a human like the rest of us sharing his research and opinions online for discussion.

If I was to use a label I would say Andrew is a victim of the societal pressures to be perfect.

Were not.

Now I mentioned I take a different to psychology which I discussed recently in this video