> The March 25 New York magazine cover story laid out a stunning tale about Huberman—that he was seeing six women simultaneously. Further, that story says, his lab at Stanford, “according to knowledgeable sources, barely exists.” Whether or not you care about infidelity and hosts’ personal lives, listeners to Huberman’s podcast should not sweep aside the contents of the New York mag story as mere gossip.
I've seen _so_ much chatter about this on X and it can't help but leave me a bit confused. Respectfully, why should one care about the personal life of someone who gives you diet advice? Would Andrea consider him a more reliable source if he was a better partner? If that's not the case, why include it at all?
I mean, I rather like Huberman as a podcast personality and for various reasons I'm not surprised that he's popular with the ladies, but I would wonder how much work he's actually able to accomplish while juggling six relationships; frankly I have trouble with one.
The first paragraph is about misinformation in the digital age. The second paragraph is about the promise of his podcast. The third paragraph sets up the premise that some of the information that is shared on the podcast is possibly incorrect or is based on faulty or inconclusive data. The fourth paragraph contains three sentences referring to the story about his relationships and is the only mention of that in the article at all. Then the article lists at least four examples of faulty information and explains exactly why that information was not credible. Where exactly do you see an "ad hominem" there?
Regardless of what Huberman did, it'd be a good thing for the world if the "your betters have decided that you should hate this person" articles died out. This article in particular is more of a "your betters have decided that you were right all along to hate this person".
It seems born out of a worldview of "the average person is a medieval peasant who isn't mentally equipped to deal with forming beliefs outside of their scope. So we need to have priests/writers/teachers who tell these people what to believe."
How about no, fuck you, get your greasy fingers off my brain.
I've seen _so_ much chatter about this on X and it can't help but leave me a bit confused. Respectfully, why should one care about the personal life of someone who gives you diet advice? Would Andrea consider him a more reliable source if he was a better partner? If that's not the case, why include it at all?
Lazy hit job; next.