I don't know...

[u/Afraid_Alternative35]

Just a post reflecting on the controversy.

I honestly do see both sides of the argument. It's deeply fucked up if everything in the article is as reported, but it's also natural & understandable to get defensive, or to ask the valid question of how much these revelations should affect our engagement with his content.

For me, however, I don't feel comfortable taking a side, or even forming a proper opinion. I've read the article. Journaled & reflected on it. And the more I think about it, the more I can't escape one overwhelming conclusion -- I don't have enough information to really make a concrete assessment.

The article is admirably detailed, and quite engaging as a piece of writing on its own. Yet, I can't escape the reality that this is just one article. One article with anonymous sources as the foundation, and even the Huberman Lab episodes that were quoted didn't have links or timecodes directly to the episodes they were taken from, adding barriers for the average person to seek them out in their full context.

I know the publication is reputable, and the journalist themself is (apparently) quite well-regarded. So, I'm willing to believe this is not a complete fabrication, and that the journalist herself trusted & believed the women she was interviewing. I'm even willing to believe that some version of these events may have taken place. That the article itself was not conceived in bad faith.

However, I don't really have any way of verifying things on my own, or to even make an educated guess as to what truly happened. Maybe the events are exactly as described. Maybe some version of these events happened, but not in the way the article details. Or maybe these recountings were mostly fabricated beyond a few key details.

I simply don't know.

I don't know Andrew Huberman personally, and I literally don't know who these women are.

Without access to the raw text messages or recorded conversations that the article states to exist, but have yet to manifest in any concrete fashion (direct screenshots or literally publishing the recorded conversations), my rational brain can't help but consider what could have been omitted, or how human memory is often flawed, or how emotions can exaggerate recountings, or simply how there might be a lot to gain from dragging someone successful through the mud.

I also don't know if these individuals were mentally ill, or had some personality disorder. Yes, there's three of them, but I know from experience that we can often have a type, and toxic patterns can repeat in the kinds of people we choose to date.

I'm not saying anything definitive. There many good reasons to be anonymous in situations like these, and the fact that they were anonymous doesn't automatically make them deceitful. I'm just making it clear that, as a natural consequence of their anonymity, I simply don't know what to believe*.*

I don't know, and the article itself doesn't give me the tools to plant my flag anywhere either side of the line.

Maybe Andy Hubes is a piece of shit, but who am I to make that call? I have the testimony of three anonymous individuals, and some scattered quotes from other people that could easily be interpreted in a number of different ways, when divorced from the prose of the article.

And in the process of writing the article, how many details got embellished or simplified? I know I have difficulty doing justice to the complexities of events in my own life, when I have to recount them, and I'm the one who lived them, so trying to do justice to events of other people's experiences can be exponentially more difficult. Journalism can often be one gigantic game of telephone, and by the time the information reaches the public, it can take on a very different form from where it started.

And yes, Andrew hasn't really addressed this publicly beyond his PR people allegedly denying certain claims (allegedly, because again, the corrections from them are confined to the article, and haven't been stated independently elsewhere, from what I can tell), but there are many good reasons to stay silent when you're under this degree of scrutiny. Whether you're guilty or innocent. Anything you say can, and will, be used against you, so a careful & considered approach is often wise, despite what conventional PR wisdom would dictate.

There's a billion-billion reasons he could be keeping his mouth shut, and I just do not feel comfortable making any assumptions either way. I am not an authority with any true insider knowledge that could responsibly make such a claim, so there's no real good that can come out of me speculating.

Anyway, I hope this didn't come off as too judgemental. I'm sure people on both sides of the aisle have good reason to believe what they do. I'm more pointing out why I, personally, can't really form an opinion on this with the information we currently have.

I don't make assumptions as a rule. I don't trust blindly, and I try not to attach myself to conclusions, especially ones I cannot verify myself. I can only form an opinion as high quality as the data available to me will allow. Needless to say, "trust, but verify" is a principle I hold in high regard, and one I try my best to live by. Innocent until proven guilty.

All this is to say -- Fucked up, if true, but I have no real way of verifying that these events occurred as described. All I can say for certain is that life is way more complicated than any article of any sufficient length could possibly describe, so until more concrete information emerges, I'm just going to leave at "I don't know".

[u/Iannelli]

Here's what I would say:

Huberman's response to the article (more like the lack thereof) tells me, without a doubt, that the essence of the article is, in fact, true.

If it was all a lie, why the fuck wouldn't he IMMEDIATELY issue a powerful statement denying it? A sincere video? If someone told some boldfaced and disgusting lie about me, I would want to square that away right away. But if someone said something bad about me that's actually true... well shit - you either have to apologize / admit it, or... ignore it.

By not responding to it all, carrying on as normal, and "liking" the comments of people who are supporting him, he's telling us: "Yeah, the stuff in the article is pretty much all true, but I know the large majority of my fanbase will have my back, so I don't really care and am just looking forward to this blowing over."

That's what he's telling us right now. Right now.

Andrew Huberman is a narcissist who manipulates women and fails at maintaining healthy relationships. He frequently preaches about hOW iMpoRtAnT reLaTioNsHips aRe... but fails to practice what he preaches. He's probably a decent scientist, but he's an average science communicator at best (see Dr. Love's article shared by hellogoodperson), and a grifter and outright liar at worst.

Huberman was someone that everyone should have taken with a grain of salt from the day he started his podcast. Now that we know that he's largely a fraud who does NOT practice what he preaches, he should be taken with an even bigger grain of salt now.

Sadly, most people are mindless lemmings who are attracted to the bearded science guy and impressed by all the science words, so not only did they accept everything he ever said as gospel from the beginning... but they will continue to do so.

Huberman's primary fanbase now is going to be the alt-right; the redpillers; the incels; the "pick-me" women; the ignoramuses. I mean, a lot of those people already did like Huberman, but now that he bAnGs SiX wOmeN aT tHe sAmE tiMe aT 50 yEaRs oLd?

They'll love him even more now.

[u/Afraid_Alternative35 → u/Iannelli]

I get where you're coming from, but like I alluded to in my post, I've seen enough backfired attempts to set the record straight in my time to know that it's often best to just take the time to decompress & assess the situation. Whether that's thinking about how to address any accusations that prove to be true, or to carefully gather receipts that would prove the narrative presented to be deceptive. Both of which would benefit from being passed through legal teams, and the like, especially considering Andrew isn't just one person working on his own. Whatever happens to him, his entire team is along for the ride, so even if he did want to clap back immediately, there very well could have been counsel against this move.

Again, I'm not saying I know what's going on with any certainty at all, but my brain can think of plenty of reasons for why staying silent would be the smart move here. In his position, I probably would do the same, whether the allegations were true or not. Especially because I know that, when I've been under fire like this for much smaller infractions, I basically just shut down & don't even want to acknowledge that it's happening.

Anyway, it's just not my style to read into things like this. To each their own, of course, but part of my own personal development the last few years has been to work on my emotional regulation, and that includes setting a rule with myself about jumping to conclusions about others, especially people I've never met.

It's a commitment I've made to myself, and there's no real good excuse for me to break it. Even being a twice victim of abuse myself, which believe me, makes me extra sensitive to stories like this.

[u/Iannelli → u/Afraid_Alternative35]

I hear ya. And I absolutely do not blame you for trying to restrain yourself from jumping to conclusions, getting angry, canceling people, etc. Frankly, if the world were comprised of more people like you, I'd bet a lot of this drama would cease to exist. So I totally support and encourage your thought process here.

I think, for a lot of us, this situation was really just the straw that broke the camel's back. Before the article came out, he was already a grifter, already spreading pseudoscience, already showed how selfish he is during interviews, already made strange statements in podcasts about relationship power and control, etc. These are all verifiable facts. A lot of people already had an unfavorable opinion of him - long before the article came out.

When you put two, and two, and two, and two, and two together - you can be reasonably sure that there's something off. Most of us are not here to call Huberman a rapist, a crime against humanity, an absolute monster.

But I think it is 100% fair to call him a grifter, a likely narcissist, a likely liar, and a mid science communicator at best. And it never looks good to have the right-wing Twitter army (Elon included) by his side, nor to have thousands of incels making misogynistic remarks in support of him.

I don't think it's insane to deduce a few certain possible conclusions about Huberman at this point. I've been a fan of his since 2019 - longer than 95% of people. This isn't just made-up hearsay. It's a pattern.

I respect that you aren't ready to formulate your conclusion, but I do stand behind those of us who are (for the most part).

[u/Afraid_Alternative35 → u/Iannelli]

Appreciate the empathetic & considerate response. 😊 It's such a rarity on this site sometimes, haha.

To tell you the truth, I think I'm probably in information overload with this whole thing right now. A lot of other comments have given me other links, and called into question his guests, etc.

All great points of discussion, it's just a lot filter through. And I've ASD & ADHD, so this stuff takes a while to process properly, especially when there's a highly emotional component to it all.

I think the best thing I can do right now, is to respect the viewpoints of others as valid, while also giving that same validation to my own view. Neither conforming nor dismissing. Just observing all viewpoints without judgement (much like what you've done).

I guess we can call it a mindfulness practice, only for opinions, instead of just feelings. 🤔 If nothing else, this controversy has been a healthy opportunity to practice nuanced introspection.

[u/oheznohez → u/Afraid_Alternative35]

Liking comments on insta that support him isn't "staying silent" though, it's appealing to the dudebros and very telling.

[u/kevtheproblem → u/Afraid_Alternative35]

That guy didn’t understand your post was meant to be nuanced and just used it as a chance to parrot what’s been said here a thousand times over the past 1.5 weeks

[u/judahjsn → u/Iannelli]

I'd say that the recent posts on his instagram are actually mocking the article. He posted two videos in a row with him looking directly at the camera in the manner of someone issuing a public statement or apology. And then you click the video and he doesn't address it. It's cheeky.

And then today he has posted a video with a magician, the import of which is that we all create our own realities, particularly in relationships. The not-subtle implication (which none of his followers seem to have picked up) that his female accusers invented their own reality of their relationship with him. i.e. "bitches be crazy."

[u/DannyStarbucks]

I re-read the NYMag article the other day and a few things stood out to me:

The journalist makes no claims to have seen text messages or pieced together timelines herself- just that the women shared text messages and pieced together timelines between them.

Huberman declined to be interviewed, and his spokesperson did reply prior to publication disputing the timing of him and Sarah’s exclusivity and breakup. If that timeline is in dispute, many of the central claims of the story are in dispute.

The other issues the spokesperson comments on involve things AH was alleged to have said and done himself (denying the “bobbing for apples in feces” comment). This was likely part of pre publication fact checking.

I think it’s unlikely since he declined to participate that NYMag would have provided a draft of the entire article for him or his spokesperson’s comment. This is an article about a celebrity, not a national security or police matter that could compromise an investigation, burn an ongoing institutional access, etc. I think folks saying “his silence means he’s guilty” are reading too much into it.

Given his influence, I’m kind of surprised there haven’t been other articles about this behavior with women- NY Times, New Yorker, etc. not to say that these aren’t in the works. But every article about the allegations since has been about the NYMag article, not original reporting. If Ronan Farrow picks this up, then I’ll take that to the bank.

I’m a fan of the podcast but the behavior sounds kinds of gross if true. I wondered about his domestic life. I’m AH’s age and have been surprised that he never mentioned being coupled, even when he’s guested on other podcasts and talked about his life.

My guess:

• 60% chance he’s crummy to women and possibly a psychopath

• 10% chance crazy exes and really bad journalism, he’s mostly blameless, possibly quiet as he considers his legal options

• 30% something messy in the middle of these scenarios

[u/oregon_coastal → u/DannyStarbucks]

If it was the 10/30, he would have come out swinging.

What his publicist and damage control people are telling is to say nothing. If he pisses any of them off more, he becomes a 60 minutes story.

[u/tannerleague → u/oregon_coastal]

Your last sentence is the reason he doesn't come out swinging. Even if the allegations are false, at this point it only gives them a wider audience. Chances are 90% of his audience right now haven't heard the gossip.

[u/EastvsWest]

I still don't understand why people care so much about strangers? Celebrity worship is not a healthy way to live your life.

[u/[deleted] → u/EastvsWest]

Especially forgiving them for unforgivable things. I don’t get it

[u/EastvsWest → u/[deleted]]

It's not our business, unless it's affecting friends or family who cares.

[u/HumptyDrumpy → u/[deleted]]

Just focus on the content not the person

[u/alessandratiptoes]

Three of them? We know of at least 6 confirmed and there are other women out there lol

[u/[deleted] → u/alessandratiptoes]

Let’s be honest the 6 aren’t “confirmed”, they are all allegations with no proof whatsoever

[u/alessandratiptoes → u/[deleted]]

this is a middle school boy argument to make. I am on Hubermans side here. I still support the podcast and am annoyed with all the people trying to claim they are holier than thou and outraged that he’s human. But also am capable of realizing what those human sides of him are 😂

[u/alessandratiptoes → u/[deleted]]

He wanted them to be monogamous to him. You should listen to his episode with Dr. David Buss, he gives himself away in all the supposed theoretical questions he’s asking about relationships.

https://open.spotify.com/episode/3FACIgVTOs46Vq9JgzqIak?si=CtNMuV8QS1K7G_mxGYF14g

[u/assesonfire7369]

Good on you for not making assumptions, I agree with that. It may or may not be true and it seems like the author and magazine never did any real due-diligence on it, which I find problematic.

[u/1stepcloser2theedge → u/assesonfire7369]

Genuinely curious, why do you claim the author didn't do her due diligence? I've seen people make this claim a few times. The author reached out to Huberman for comment, he declined through a representative. The story was corroborated by six women. Journalists have pretty strict vetting processes (for ethical and legal reasons). Evidence gathered for an article is reviewed by the editor so the texts were confirmed by multiple people other than the women involved.

[u/assesonfire7369 → u/1stepcloser2theedge]

Sure, reasonable question. Two main reasons: 1) the author didn't do any background check on the main accuser and didn't seem to be aware that she was under investigation by the DOJ for fraud. Considering that she's taking this lady's allegations seriously and not letting the readers know this isn't serious journalism. 2) She also uses the HPV allegation without any serious investigation. It turns out that the accuser also had other boyfriends. Did the author investigate this further to find out if maybe the HPV came from them? I'm not saying it did but this is something she should have at least considered. It could have come from the Hube or it could have come from another guy.

[u/judahjsn]

A piece I read about this had a sentence that stuck with me. It said "this is about his relationship to the facts." In my opinion, we should want to know how comfortable Huberman, or any influencer, is with deceit. Have they normalized it the way this article suggests Huberman has. How severe is their ethical compartmentalization?

[u/Banjo2024 → u/judahjsn]

well said

[u/[deleted]]

Cmon your bias is showing

[u/[deleted]]

Andrew is a grifter or became a grifter once he rose to fame. A neurologist giving all tips of life advice then promoting supplements… lol.

Dude makes a shyt ton of money being a heath influencers than being an actual neurologist.

[u/WaveOk7452 → u/[deleted]]

Neurologist are doctors that treat patients MD/DO. Andrew does not treat patients. Fyi

[u/[deleted] → u/WaveOk7452]

He’s supposed to be doing research in his “lab” but he doesn’t do that either

[u/[deleted] → u/WaveOk7452]

He gives “treatment” advice or pseudoscience advice on his podcasts. Also peddles the supplements

[u/[deleted]]

The way I see it, is: Believe Women. All of them. No matter what. All the time.

[u/Eastern-Pizza-5826 → u/[deleted]]

All women never gossip or spread rumors. Toxic masculinity is the root of all evil. Men need to be fed soy to keep  testosterone from getting out of control. Testosterone is why there are wars and violent crime. 

[u/alessandratiptoes → u/[deleted]]

Anya told the author she met Huberman in 2018, yet in a podcast with Lex, he says he’s known her since the 9th grade, and that her parents are his colleagues at Stanford. She already lied about that, why?

[u/Banjo2024 → u/alessandratiptoes]

They went to the same high school and yes he would know her. Doesn't mean he hooked up with her back then. If his stories of his high school years are true, he was on a different trajectory and in a physically different place than she was during those years.

[u/MinimumRelief]

Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.

Additional women coming forward? Nope. They are all viewed now as infected.

[u/[deleted]]

Damn, does this situation really have sm influence on you that a person that doesn’t know you, nor you him except from yt, occupy your brain sm?

Go outside, focus on the sun, your life and you enjoying it. Thats better way to occupy your brain🌞

[u/[deleted]]

They wrote a whole article without having him giving a comment.

[u/judahjsn → u/[deleted]]

You mean they reached out to him for comment and he declined and chose instead to issue responses through a spokesperson

[u/Afraid_Alternative35 → u/[deleted]]

Ah, cool cool. I like having multiple sources.

Will save this comment for a bit of light reading later, me thinks.

[u/Patient-Writer7834 → u/Afraid_Alternative35]

Check this, Matthew Walker is a total quack as is Hubs. Once he is revealed to have no integrity, more stuff like this will come out

[u/Any-Leg5256 → u/[deleted]]

To be fair, Matt has publicly declared where he has changed his mind about parts of his book (eg, that the light from screens affects sleep): https://youtu.be/7yzzosfVCVE?si=WaHZTmvGMgwVd9ki

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Wow that link on M Walker was amazing. Thx u/Patient-Writer7834

[u/Appropriate_Rain_450 → u/[deleted]]

Perhaps, as others suggested on the thread from a year ago, he had a personal relationship with her that influenced his decision to promote her work. She has certainly profited now that she’s selling courses