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