74
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 May 2024
74 points (100.0% liked)
Asklemmy
43855 readers
1272 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Good journalism would be an article going through all the papers from the Huberman podcasts and his analysis of them (which he always cites if it's been peer-reviewed, etc) and debunking all the misinformation. But nope. It's all about talking to enough people hoping they say some crap about the personal life about a private person, cherry picking information and building up a story from that.
The sunscreen thing, I just passed the first link that came to me, showing that in fact there is proof of bad agents in sunscreen.
If you go check the video of Huberman and sunscreen, very easy to find, you'll see how he literally says that sunscreen is important because you don't want to get cancer, it's just that SOME SUNSCREEN has been found to have toxic components that may cross the blood-brain barrier, and he simply advices to BUY A GOOD SUNSCREEN.
See how this "journalism" works? They pick those little things and extrapolate into madness instead of doing actual work. Because why would you do the actual journalism if there is an easier way to get clicks?
And I am sure one could find some contradicting science to Huberman's podcasts and I would LOVE to see that. In fact, I think Huberman would love that too. That's science!!
Science is not about "finding contradicting science." It's not about spouting off on subjects that are not within your research expertise and waiting to be proven wrong. It's not a 'debate me bro' your facts vs mine endeavour.
The worst thing this guy has done is convince a bunch of people, primarily young men, that they too can spout off about scientific matters they barely understand. See also: Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson and all the other PhD-turned-grifter figures
First of all: yes, science is about constantly trying to disprove hypotheses. That is what the guys at CERN are doing, that is what people at Stanford are doing. What else could it be?
If you think Huberman is giving these people a right to spout off scientific matters and that's horrible, then we should cancel Veritasium, we should cancel Sabine Hossenfelder, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Brian Cox, MinutePhysics, VSauce, all TED speeches, damn, BURN every science book and magazine, cause it is making people have opinions about these evil things!!
The people who are disproving the hypotheses are doing so through peer-reviewed studies in a research setting. They are not doing it on podcasts.
No, I mostly just think it's horrible in Huberman's case. Most of the people you listed aren't prolific liars who prey on young men to sell a no-fap, buy-my-supplements lifestyle to. I've literally never seen a Brian Cox fan expend as much energy in defence of the man as you Huberman listeners. He's more akin to grifters like Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson who trade on their PhD credentials to make claims that go behind their area of expertise and talk almost exclusively to lost and lonely young men who are looking for guidance.
I am not defending the man. I am just trying to get to the meat of why there is so much hate on him.
All that young men, nofap, supplement-seller thing is NOWHERE in his podcast. It just shows that people are just reading clickbait article titles. Please watch one of his episodes about sleep, or alcohol, or whatever. I've explained it in many comments already. This dude is REALLY careful about what he puts in his podcasts, and it shows.
BTW, none of his advice has ever said anything losely related to Peterson's rethoric of male superiority thingie, and I don't even know who that Sam Harris is.
I can tell you something tho. So far in all discussions, NO ONE has brought up what I believe is Huberman's biggest mistake: bringing Zuckerberg in. That was a very bad episode, but everyone (I even remember Veritasium f*cking it up hard once) deserves to make mistakes sometimes (particularly if no illegal action was taken). I think (hope) he learned his lesson because every comment was clear. No highlight videos were made out of that episode which clearly shows they probably realised the mistake.