This must be something like the fourth New York Magazine cover story to go viral in a row. I don’t think this random podcaster’s sex life is either newsworthy or interesting, but from a business perspective they’re clearly doing something right.
Sarah is really tempting fate with her defense of Huberman and calling the other women dunces. Let's hope her relationship is as solid as she seems to think. Over 30% of men on dating apps are married or partnered.
Nobody is commenting on the substantive part of this episode, which is of course the lifestyle talk at the end. As usual Sarah's take is - as kids these day say - "based." Married people have an obligation to make some reasonable effort to be and stay attractive to one another - not just physically, but in terms of their responsibilities and roles in the lives they put together. That's the nature of the agreement. If Sarah decides in five years it's time to get a pink mohawk and a sleeve of tribal tattoos, or if her husband decides he looks best in yoga pants and high heels, those are effectively breaches of the contract. It could also be a deal-breaker if Sarah decides she wants to become a competitive shooter who spends 40 hours a week at the range, or her husband an organic farmer (assuming that isn't what he is now) with a heroin hobby (which I assume he doesn't have now). Such changes in terms are potentially divorce-worthy.
On a personal note, I was disappointed by the clown-fetish shaming.
And no, so-called "fact-checkers" are by no means an adequate bulwark against insinuation -- that's why they're employed: so that media outlets can make insinuations without being sued.
I can't stand Huberman and his pop-sci guru ilk, so there's a delicious sense of Schadenfreude in discovering that his life might be a mess -- but that's eclipsed by my revulsion at bathroom-wall gossip masquerading as journalism.
Absent from all the hubbub about this article is any frank introspection about what women might be seeking from a superficially prestigious "big-game" catch. If there's anything murky in those types of relationships, that's for adults to navigate on their own time, and it requires them being honest with themselves about what they wanted from someone like Huberman in the first place. We absolutely cannot trust outlets like New York to hold women to a grown-up standard that encourages the requisite self-awareness.
The adolescents in the publishing world who pursued this piece did so as an attempt to re-assert that private details are the public's property to litigate. You can almost sense the desperate between the lines.
Also, this is a case in point for just how far removed we've gotten from placing proper value on "feminine intuition."
It kind of seems like you two went off the rails assuming what Huberman's show was about and what his personality is like. I know Sarah said she hasn't listened to any of his podcasts, has Meghan?
I'm a casual listener and he just comes off as kind of a super nerd to me. And what happens when super nerds get famous and lots of attention by women? They get awkward, of course.
Huberman's show is so popular because, amongst a ton of science talk, he distills things down into practical advice that actually works for people. Whenever I follow a strong recommendation from him, it's noticeable how much better I feel for the day. For example, try his caffeine advice: Don't have your morning caffeine until at least 90 minutes after you wake up. I did this and that stopped me from having my afternoon energy crashes immediately. I had significantly much more energy throughout the entire day. I used to be half asleep while trying to play with my kids after their school day... Not anymore.
So yeah, when Huberman gives some advice, I'll definitely listen. I think he's a target because he's another avenue of "unapproved knowledge." He goes directly to the audience and does not lean on authority figures. You can test his findings yourself and see what actually works for you. He's got other great pieces like the caffeine advice.
Yeah, you can take things too far and have an never ending optimization orgy, but I don't think that most people do this. I think most people are there to actually learn some simple things to help their lives.
Totally with Sarah on the Huberman piece. I though it was utter garbage, and as a fan of his podcast (it has helped me a lot in recent years) I have absolutely zero interest in his private life. I'm sure if you spoke to most people's ex's they would have some not so flattering things to say. A few of his real life friends came to his defence which is also telling, as well as them not being able to get any actual dirt on his practice, or anything relevant to what he actually does which is podcast about science and making it more accessible. This type of journalism is gross in my opinion.
I'll go on record as in complete disagreement with everything you all said about Huberman. I have actually listened to his podcast, probably 12 or 15 episodes over the past few years. I also listen to other podcasts that would be considered "adjacent" to his, or part of some ill-imagined "optimizer" category. I have three main points of disagreement to make here:
1. Everyone is painting with a very broad brush when lumping all these different podcasts in together. Each one is different, even if a lot of the topics and guests overlap. As I see it, I was put on to Huberman's podcast by the Apple Podcasts algorithm based on another podcast that I listened to that I'm sure would garner the same withering criticism but from which I derive great value (to each her own). I don't see all these men as a monolithic group. There are a few women I know of in this space, but it is mostly men. The information still has value for me.
2. We spend a lot of time these days analyzing and talking about how men, especially young men, are flailing, failing to launch, opting out of the workforce, not becoming educated, etc. These podcasts are designed to help people add some structure and healthy habits into their lives. Huberman's podcast is not about the micro topics that were jokingly mentioned (cup of coffee, poop, etc.). It's more like what effect does alcohol have? Nicotine? What is ADHD? How to get better sleep? Etc. There are some silly fads in this space - sauna, cold plunge, etc. But overall I think the goal is to help people live better, healthier lives. Why on earth is that so awful?
3. My biggest beef with this episode is that I believe that the events in the article occurred roughly as they were reported and do not understand the skepticism. In fact, a close read would reveal responses from Huberman's camp that ratify a lot of the allegations in the article (e.g. "our Thanksgiving plans were tentative" - he admits to standing her up, with the slight spin that he had never 100% agreed to show up,. Okay sure. So you admit you ditched her.). The responses to this article are a mishmash of "this story shouldn't have been published," "I don't care about his personal life," "these women are idiots and should have known better and deserve to be treated this way," "what else do you expect from this super hot alpha male?" (and he is NOT hot, but whatever), and "good for him for dating five women at once." Sometimes all of this from the same person, and suspiciously along tribal lines. I am IN this tribe, at least somewhat, and I believe the story and think Huberman is an asshole! I don't believe he was targeted for political reasons. I have no love for NY Magazine, but I am not in denial about the possibility that the man has poor character (indeed was always alert to it, as I am automatically suspicious of never-married men over 40 with no children). Whether the story should have been published I have no opinion on. I guess New York Magazine can publish whatever they like and be whatever kind of magazine they want to be. They are obviously doing something that they intended since the stories are so widely read and talked about. That is a hazard of the new media ecosystem, we can decry it but this is the way things are now. I found the story entertaining and horrifying. Others felt differently. That's fine.
The response to the story (drawing from several sources) has been more troubling than anything in the story itself. I am particularly annoyed by the "these women are stupid and should have seen the red flags" discourse. Blaming the victim is so classic, and such a mistake - it is the way that we reassure ourselves that such a thing would never happen to us because, gosh darn it, we are too smart for that. We would have seen the signs! We would never have dated him to begin with because he is too far above real mortal women to be held to such a standard as honesty or monogamy! We would have read those texts and kicked him to the curb! We would never have believed that a man was working when he said he was working! None of us have ever, EVER, been successfully lied to or cheated on! We would never be so stupid as to expect a man to be faithful to us if he has a successful podcast or a muscular physique!
Well, I am here to tell you that I have been taken in by a man I was interested in, more than once in my life. I have been lied to and led on (although never to my knowledge cheated on, but I'm sure that happened too!). And while I eventually figured it out and left, one could argue that in a case or two it took way too long for someone of my intelligence. So I guess I am (or was) as dumb and naive as all of these women. I admit to being human.
What bothers me the most is that a lot of these critiques are coming from people who profess to care about the degradation of marriage and family. Holding women up to be mocked for seeking a monogamous relationship and trying to build one by trusting a man not only does not help, but hurts, the cause of promoting such relationships. The more we say, "what did they expect?" [with the unwritten second part, "men are dogs who think with their genitals and can under no circumstances be counted on to keep their word"], the more we ratify the continued degradation of monogamous male-female relationships. If we want those relationships to succeed, we should hold men accountable for bad behavior, no matter who they are. Honestly, a line was crossed when Bill Clinton's peccadilloes were publicly accepted that never should have been crossed. It has been a race to the bottom ever since, with a tribal and hypocritical discourse that picks and chooses based on political affiliation who can be publicly shamed for unacceptable behavior.
I have gone on long enough, but saying all that to say, with love, y'all were way off on this one.
The New York Magazine story is yet another example of misandrist women in mainstream media digging into powerful men’s personal lives in order to damage their reputations. If the genders were reversed, this would be widely recognized as misogyny.
After she first mentioned it I looked into Sarah's super smart bidet with an eye to replacing my basic 101 model (which is possibly the best thing I've purchased in my life). The only problem is I have an older house with the toilet in a little closet off the master bathroom, and there's no outlet in there. But I was thinking there's a room just on the other side of the wall backing the toilet, and there's an outlet right there, and I could probably drill a hole through the wall, feed through the cord, and plug in the bidet there.
And then it struck me: This is a device designed specifically to shoot a stream of water at my butthole and I'm contemplating ways to hook it up to an electrical source. This seems like a *bad idea.* I'm going to stick with my hydraulic-only dumb bidet.
I’m surprised Sarah and Meghan found the age-gap article’s transactional view of relationships to be different and refreshing. My impression is a lot of people think and talk about relationships that way, especially online. Most weeks I end up arguing against it in these comments in some form or another. At what point do we accept these are mainstream narratives and not some “hidden dark truth”? If enough people are red-pilled, it’s not a red pill anymore.
This must be something like the fourth New York Magazine cover story to go viral in a row. I don’t think this random podcaster’s sex life is either newsworthy or interesting, but from a business perspective they’re clearly doing something right.
Sarah is really tempting fate with her defense of Huberman and calling the other women dunces. Let's hope her relationship is as solid as she seems to think. Over 30% of men on dating apps are married or partnered.
She has no actual experience dating as an adult.
Nobody is commenting on the substantive part of this episode, which is of course the lifestyle talk at the end. As usual Sarah's take is - as kids these day say - "based." Married people have an obligation to make some reasonable effort to be and stay attractive to one another - not just physically, but in terms of their responsibilities and roles in the lives they put together. That's the nature of the agreement. If Sarah decides in five years it's time to get a pink mohawk and a sleeve of tribal tattoos, or if her husband decides he looks best in yoga pants and high heels, those are effectively breaches of the contract. It could also be a deal-breaker if Sarah decides she wants to become a competitive shooter who spends 40 hours a week at the range, or her husband an organic farmer (assuming that isn't what he is now) with a heroin hobby (which I assume he doesn't have now). Such changes in terms are potentially divorce-worthy.
On a personal note, I was disappointed by the clown-fetish shaming.
And no, so-called "fact-checkers" are by no means an adequate bulwark against insinuation -- that's why they're employed: so that media outlets can make insinuations without being sued.
"He's like human cocaine" 😂
I can't stand Huberman and his pop-sci guru ilk, so there's a delicious sense of Schadenfreude in discovering that his life might be a mess -- but that's eclipsed by my revulsion at bathroom-wall gossip masquerading as journalism.
Absent from all the hubbub about this article is any frank introspection about what women might be seeking from a superficially prestigious "big-game" catch. If there's anything murky in those types of relationships, that's for adults to navigate on their own time, and it requires them being honest with themselves about what they wanted from someone like Huberman in the first place. We absolutely cannot trust outlets like New York to hold women to a grown-up standard that encourages the requisite self-awareness.
The adolescents in the publishing world who pursued this piece did so as an attempt to re-assert that private details are the public's property to litigate. You can almost sense the desperate between the lines.
Also, this is a case in point for just how far removed we've gotten from placing proper value on "feminine intuition."
It kind of seems like you two went off the rails assuming what Huberman's show was about and what his personality is like. I know Sarah said she hasn't listened to any of his podcasts, has Meghan?
I'm a casual listener and he just comes off as kind of a super nerd to me. And what happens when super nerds get famous and lots of attention by women? They get awkward, of course.
Huberman's show is so popular because, amongst a ton of science talk, he distills things down into practical advice that actually works for people. Whenever I follow a strong recommendation from him, it's noticeable how much better I feel for the day. For example, try his caffeine advice: Don't have your morning caffeine until at least 90 minutes after you wake up. I did this and that stopped me from having my afternoon energy crashes immediately. I had significantly much more energy throughout the entire day. I used to be half asleep while trying to play with my kids after their school day... Not anymore.
So yeah, when Huberman gives some advice, I'll definitely listen. I think he's a target because he's another avenue of "unapproved knowledge." He goes directly to the audience and does not lean on authority figures. You can test his findings yourself and see what actually works for you. He's got other great pieces like the caffeine advice.
Yeah, you can take things too far and have an never ending optimization orgy, but I don't think that most people do this. I think most people are there to actually learn some simple things to help their lives.
Totally with Sarah on the Huberman piece. I though it was utter garbage, and as a fan of his podcast (it has helped me a lot in recent years) I have absolutely zero interest in his private life. I'm sure if you spoke to most people's ex's they would have some not so flattering things to say. A few of his real life friends came to his defence which is also telling, as well as them not being able to get any actual dirt on his practice, or anything relevant to what he actually does which is podcast about science and making it more accessible. This type of journalism is gross in my opinion.
Combining two words into a new word is a portmanteau.
First
On the topic of fact checking and the limitations of facts, this piece has always stayed with me: https://slate.com/culture/2013/03/bob-woodward-and-gene-sperling-what-woodwards-john-belushi-book-can-tell-us-about-the-sequester-scandal.html . It’s by a writer who ended up “fact checking” a Bob Woodward book, and found that while everything Woodward wrote was 100% “factually correct”, the end result was a complete distortion of what actually happened.
I'll go on record as in complete disagreement with everything you all said about Huberman. I have actually listened to his podcast, probably 12 or 15 episodes over the past few years. I also listen to other podcasts that would be considered "adjacent" to his, or part of some ill-imagined "optimizer" category. I have three main points of disagreement to make here:
1. Everyone is painting with a very broad brush when lumping all these different podcasts in together. Each one is different, even if a lot of the topics and guests overlap. As I see it, I was put on to Huberman's podcast by the Apple Podcasts algorithm based on another podcast that I listened to that I'm sure would garner the same withering criticism but from which I derive great value (to each her own). I don't see all these men as a monolithic group. There are a few women I know of in this space, but it is mostly men. The information still has value for me.
2. We spend a lot of time these days analyzing and talking about how men, especially young men, are flailing, failing to launch, opting out of the workforce, not becoming educated, etc. These podcasts are designed to help people add some structure and healthy habits into their lives. Huberman's podcast is not about the micro topics that were jokingly mentioned (cup of coffee, poop, etc.). It's more like what effect does alcohol have? Nicotine? What is ADHD? How to get better sleep? Etc. There are some silly fads in this space - sauna, cold plunge, etc. But overall I think the goal is to help people live better, healthier lives. Why on earth is that so awful?
3. My biggest beef with this episode is that I believe that the events in the article occurred roughly as they were reported and do not understand the skepticism. In fact, a close read would reveal responses from Huberman's camp that ratify a lot of the allegations in the article (e.g. "our Thanksgiving plans were tentative" - he admits to standing her up, with the slight spin that he had never 100% agreed to show up,. Okay sure. So you admit you ditched her.). The responses to this article are a mishmash of "this story shouldn't have been published," "I don't care about his personal life," "these women are idiots and should have known better and deserve to be treated this way," "what else do you expect from this super hot alpha male?" (and he is NOT hot, but whatever), and "good for him for dating five women at once." Sometimes all of this from the same person, and suspiciously along tribal lines. I am IN this tribe, at least somewhat, and I believe the story and think Huberman is an asshole! I don't believe he was targeted for political reasons. I have no love for NY Magazine, but I am not in denial about the possibility that the man has poor character (indeed was always alert to it, as I am automatically suspicious of never-married men over 40 with no children). Whether the story should have been published I have no opinion on. I guess New York Magazine can publish whatever they like and be whatever kind of magazine they want to be. They are obviously doing something that they intended since the stories are so widely read and talked about. That is a hazard of the new media ecosystem, we can decry it but this is the way things are now. I found the story entertaining and horrifying. Others felt differently. That's fine.
The response to the story (drawing from several sources) has been more troubling than anything in the story itself. I am particularly annoyed by the "these women are stupid and should have seen the red flags" discourse. Blaming the victim is so classic, and such a mistake - it is the way that we reassure ourselves that such a thing would never happen to us because, gosh darn it, we are too smart for that. We would have seen the signs! We would never have dated him to begin with because he is too far above real mortal women to be held to such a standard as honesty or monogamy! We would have read those texts and kicked him to the curb! We would never have believed that a man was working when he said he was working! None of us have ever, EVER, been successfully lied to or cheated on! We would never be so stupid as to expect a man to be faithful to us if he has a successful podcast or a muscular physique!
Well, I am here to tell you that I have been taken in by a man I was interested in, more than once in my life. I have been lied to and led on (although never to my knowledge cheated on, but I'm sure that happened too!). And while I eventually figured it out and left, one could argue that in a case or two it took way too long for someone of my intelligence. So I guess I am (or was) as dumb and naive as all of these women. I admit to being human.
What bothers me the most is that a lot of these critiques are coming from people who profess to care about the degradation of marriage and family. Holding women up to be mocked for seeking a monogamous relationship and trying to build one by trusting a man not only does not help, but hurts, the cause of promoting such relationships. The more we say, "what did they expect?" [with the unwritten second part, "men are dogs who think with their genitals and can under no circumstances be counted on to keep their word"], the more we ratify the continued degradation of monogamous male-female relationships. If we want those relationships to succeed, we should hold men accountable for bad behavior, no matter who they are. Honestly, a line was crossed when Bill Clinton's peccadilloes were publicly accepted that never should have been crossed. It has been a race to the bottom ever since, with a tribal and hypocritical discourse that picks and chooses based on political affiliation who can be publicly shamed for unacceptable behavior.
I have gone on long enough, but saying all that to say, with love, y'all were way off on this one.
The New York Magazine story is yet another example of misandrist women in mainstream media digging into powerful men’s personal lives in order to damage their reputations. If the genders were reversed, this would be widely recognized as misogyny.
After she first mentioned it I looked into Sarah's super smart bidet with an eye to replacing my basic 101 model (which is possibly the best thing I've purchased in my life). The only problem is I have an older house with the toilet in a little closet off the master bathroom, and there's no outlet in there. But I was thinking there's a room just on the other side of the wall backing the toilet, and there's an outlet right there, and I could probably drill a hole through the wall, feed through the cord, and plug in the bidet there.
And then it struck me: This is a device designed specifically to shoot a stream of water at my butthole and I'm contemplating ways to hook it up to an electrical source. This seems like a *bad idea.* I'm going to stick with my hydraulic-only dumb bidet.
i love sarah spitting fire
I’m surprised Sarah and Meghan found the age-gap article’s transactional view of relationships to be different and refreshing. My impression is a lot of people think and talk about relationships that way, especially online. Most weeks I end up arguing against it in these comments in some form or another. At what point do we accept these are mainstream narratives and not some “hidden dark truth”? If enough people are red-pilled, it’s not a red pill anymore.
Huberman Cope is about escaping morality. Optimizing is about longevity. It’s a fountain of youth thing.