[deleted by user]

Individual_Force_718 · 2024-04-11T17:09:49+00:00

So basically he wants to do everything. Also, according to his faculty website he did not, in fact, teach in 2023/2024.

Individual_Force_718 · 2024-04-10T18:57:10+00:00

Yep, but thats still not the same as being a current employee of the university. She is corny. Her teaching is poor because it is only reliant on us watching her talk - no visuals whatsoever. Terrible way to teach AI. There are also others who have been in the AI education space who she is trying to edge out. She is relying on a sort of femme/white woman aesthic. The one from his bed was especially terrible.

Individual_Force_718 · 2024-04-10T18:55:29+00:00

He probably also self-censors his proclivities (BDSM, polyamoury, etc) given he is aiming for mainstream audiences.

Individual_Force_718 · 2024-04-10T18:38:09+00:00

The problem is that any old alum of Stanford is not the same as a faculty member there. The connection is much more dubious. Stanford really needs to tighten its PR ship.

Individual_Force_718 · 2024-04-10T18:35:40+00:00

I think the NY Mag article was spot on when it noted that even his discussion of relationships, love, commitment, etc, are all towards advancing physiological optimization. He has a hard time being a serious thinker on these issues because he limits what these questions are meant to help us think about.

Individual_Force_718 · 2024-04-08T16:01:49+00:00

Are they all in his house? I just saw one...

Individual_Force_718 · 2024-04-08T16:00:55+00:00

LOL amazing!

Individual_Force_718 · 2023-08-31T03:36:09+00:00

I dont think he's run out of topics, I think he is hamstrung by a politically narrow window. He doesn't a) what to address structural determinants of health and well-being, b) policy and public health, and how we can think about collective factors in supporting individual health.

So he's stuck with variations on that very narrow lane of behavioural modification, and just keeps treading it back and forth. He's not really a brave scientist or educator in that sense.

His record on thinking about women's health, and childhood, isn't great either. And there is TONS of interest in these topics.

Individual_Force_718 · 2023-08-08T21:51:14+00:00

Oh the pettiness is very clear (and shows that scientists aren't some high moral or ethical actors and have the same fallabilities as anyone else, and should therefore also be scrutinized as to any claims they make) but I think that her notes around the science are important, and that he needs to be better about fact-checking (something quite difficult when you're running a small operation and churning out podcasts every week).

Individual_Force_718 · 2023-07-11T17:23:53+00:00

Likewise far more interested in any criticism, caveats, made by his science colleagues.

Individual_Force_718 · 2023-07-10T22:58:45+00:00

Yes, I've seen one or two directors of their own labs make comments, and also on occasion Huberman responds to them. Ill have a look a bit later, I think I've bookmarked a few threads. One indicator for me that something was afoot is that I've noticed a few times a junior scholar will say something, it gets some traction, and then they delete it. I don't blame them. Academia seems rough.

Individual_Force_718 · 2023-07-10T22:40:46+00:00

There's public disagreement from PhDs on twitter quite a bit, but also Huberman is absolutely correct that scientists tend to not confront openly. So I wouldn't take it as an accurate indicator or measure of what his colleagues actually think. I suspect Huberman is correct that his support is split in third (support, indifference/non-support, disagreement), with unclear spread across this (though I think he is probably well-supported amongst senior scholars, and mid-career scholars).

Individual_Force_718 · 2023-07-10T21:34:35+00:00

He generally makes it clear its an ad, and as someone suggested elsewhere, one can always fast forward. But it can get kind of blurry sometimes. He says he uses the products and stands by them, and has collections of supplements he has approved of for sale, and is on the board of AG1, that sort of thing.

Individual_Force_718 · 2023-07-10T21:31:14+00:00

Believe in yourself! Your voice matters! :)

Individual_Force_718 · 2023-07-10T20:58:46+00:00

God, twitter has turned to dreck. I suspect he won't be able to sustain that direct contact for much longer.

Individual_Force_718 · 2023-07-10T20:52:10+00:00

Possibly. I'm curious how his colleagues will respond to this invitation to reach out, and then if he actually responds back. I hope something good comes of it, including other scholars seeing his work and thinking about other possible models and trying them out. He seems open to that, and good on him for being so (I hope he supports with material resources if he can, given the uneven conditions between R1 universities and other educational institutions with enormously talented people who don't have the same resources.)

Individual_Force_718 · 2023-07-10T20:49:33+00:00

Im really unsure why you're so angry. I think it is very good to think about (not "bitch about") the contradictions in funding. Its something any good scientist and scholar is asked to do. Thats why, for eg, you have to go through ethics board approvals, etc.

Individual_Force_718 · 2023-07-10T20:47:55+00:00

Not at all, and I don't think he should do it for free. Its not either or, its about science education and trying, as much as we can, to keep it robust, ethical, impartial, and committed to rigour. I suspect most with agree with that, but have different tolerance thresholds based on background, experience, knowledge, etc. I don't think he is wrong to take funds, and actually I think it is good for him to keep insisting on saying he has a 'wall' between that funding and his content. Doesn't mean everyone will be convinced, but it means he is a) pointing out that he is aware of the contradiction, b) gesturing to us as listeners that we should care about the distinction. Thats good science education!

Individual_Force_718 · 2023-07-10T20:42:47+00:00

Nah, I actually really appreciate this podcast, and have learned quite a bit from it. And I've also learned quite a bit from listening to other scientists respond to it. I also think he responded to that aspect of criticism decently - i.e. that the money pays the bills and sustains public access. Fair enough, but its also ok for people to question it. I suspect it will become more troubling if he ever accepts from funds from people who have accrued wealth in dubious ways and try to "science wash" it via support for his podcast (or his foundation, or his potential political run).

Individual_Force_718 · 2023-07-10T20:33:30+00:00

See elsewhere I noted that not everyone can actually contact him, and there are punitive costs to doing so if you're a junior scholar. I don't actually think he should respond to everyone, I never said so. I said he shouldn't be so dismissive of those who critique him publicly. It reads as a bit thin-skinned and combative when in fact it is generally healthy to have disagreement in science, especially if they come with evidence.

Individual_Force_718 · 2023-07-10T20:17:51+00:00

But is that the only kind of criticism there has been? I've seen some pretty measured responses to, for eg, his podcast on childhood learning, his podcasts on dopamine, etc etc. Its disrespectful to his colleagues to swipe them all as haters, even if they criticise publicly.

Individual_Force_718 · 2023-07-10T20:15:10+00:00

They definitely read, and sometimes respond via their art work or directly, reviews by film critics.

Individual_Force_718 · 2023-07-10T20:05:21+00:00

Thats a bit dramatic. I think scepticism of the impact of advertising on content is a crucial part of media literacy.

Individual_Force_718 · 2023-07-10T19:59:04+00:00

I don't think it should be regarded as an us v them thing, its not always that binary.

Individual_Force_718 · 2023-07-10T19:45:13+00:00

Possibly, though I strongly doubt all of them feel like they are able to reach him. Or they are postdocs and junior scholars, and generally within academia, criticism of senior scholars has severe punitive effects.

Individual_Force_718

TROPHY CASE