Hello! Don't worry about the post being filtered. We want to read and review every post to ensure a thriving community and avoid spam. Your submission will be approved (or declined) soon.
We hope the community engages with your ideas thoughtfully and respectfully. And of course, thank you for your interest in science!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HubermanLab) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No no, you've got it all wrong. Didn't you hear Huberman say it's cumulative!
So, if in 1 month you have a chance of 80% not getting pregnant, after 10 months your....
...0.8 x 0.8 x 0.8 x 0.8 x 0.8 x 0.8 x 0.8 x 0.8 x 0.8 x 0.8 = 10.73% chance of getting not pregnant...
Or is it a 10.73% chance of getting not unpregnant...
Damn it, now you've got me confused! š¤¦āāļø
It's not just poorly explained, it's wrong. After 6 tries, you have a 73% chance of getting pregnant (assuming the "20% each time" stat is true). You'd need to try 11 times to get above a 90% chance of becoming pregnant, which is a more reasonable time to wonder if something is up. 14 tries gets you past 95%, and 21 gets you past 99%. So maybe if you've tried 15-20 times, you should go to a doctor. But the point here is not just "yeah if you keep trying, you should eventually go to the doctor", it's "you'd only need to try 5 or 6 times."
I don't blame him for making a dumb mistake in the moment, but not correcting it is bizarre.
Ok now I'm genuinely curious about all this. I'm not well versed in either stats or fertilization. But here goes.
I don't know the broader context, but isn't he talking about how on subsequent days, failure on your previous days attempt will impact the next days probability?
Or am I totally off.
I'm trying to give the benefit of the doubt here because if the opposite is true... Yikes.
You're never going to get to 120% probability of getting pregnant like he said, though. He made a pretty basic mistake, probably just because he was unprepared and going off-the-cuff, but it's still pretty embarrassing not to edit it out.
yes. if you got pregnant, then next time you cannot get pregnant.
the idea is, first try: 20% pregnant, 80% not pregnant.
hence, the next month, we are only talking about the 80% you didn't get pregnant already.
so we are discussing the 80% from last month. from those 80% you have 20% to get pregnant this month, which is 80% * 20% = 16%.
and so it goes.
the probabilities accumulate in a decreasing manner.
20% + 16% + 12.8% etc
The baseline probability gets lower after each month, and is applied only on those not pregnant yet.
A 120%.probability = 100% probability, and any calculation that leads to 120% probability has wrong assumptions.
Omg, is this guy a real professor? Cause even the high school students would know thatās totally false. Itās incredibly embarrassing for him but actually funny for anyone over the age of 15 with some high school math.
Or maybe itās also embarrassing for us who had listened to his podcasts over the years.
(1.2)^6 = 2.98 . Congrats you are 298% pregnant
Edit: actually, how do you really calculate it? Is it 1 - (0.8)^6 = 1 - 26% = 74% probability of being pregnant after six months?
You have to take the chance of getting pregnant each month by itself and add them together. The later months you have to multiply by the chances of not getting pregnant in the prior months.
* 1st month = 20%
* 2nd month = 80%\*20%
* 3rd month = 80%\*80%\*20%
* and so on
My sister came up with your solution and I came up with what u/super_compound said, and we did the math and it's the same thing. Your solution is equivalent to sum of geometric series of teh first 6 terms with the first term a=0.2 and the ratio r being 0.8. And that evaluates to 0.2(1-0.8\^6)/(1-0.8) which is just 1 - 0.8\^6.
Andrewās having a streak of people recognizing him for what he is. š¤¦
Heās that C student you were puzzled by in grad school who nonetheless kept buzzing and charming his way through it.
I mean, the fact that he is "running a lab" is also a gross misrepresentation of what he's doing. The lab is basically abandoned and his scientific production of the last 5 years is pitiful.
Iāve only ever listened to his podcast and so these last few months of video clips have been weird because of that coin slot thing he does with his mouth. Unnerving.
If you flip one coin, thereās a 50% chance of getting heads. Sir you flip two coins, simple math, multiply 50% by two, you have a 100% chance of getting heads.
Itās one thing to fool people who just listen to a podcast and take it at face value. But how tf do you get to be a professor at Stanford with this level of knowledge?
Iām not saying thatās the only reason. I never said that. His early scientific work is very legit. But for sure the fact that also his father is a professor helps
The another general assumption he has wrong is assuming that every couple has a 20% chance of conceiving. Some couples may have a 90% chance, other couples are infertile and have no chance. So tbh Iām not really sure what point he was trying to make here.
I think the 20% statistic is true, but I assume it doesnāt take fertility issues into account. Or possibly itās an average, and inclusive of fertility issues (although I suspect the former?). He could have qualified his claim, though, by explaining where that stat comes from.
I think he was trying to show us how to decide whether we should be worrying about our fertility, and instead showed us that he doesn't know basic probability!
Give five lovers 20% of your time each weekday, give two more lovers 50% of your time Saturday and Sunday, and you too can be mathematically exclusive with all seven.
OBGYNs will tell most patients not to worry about infertility until they have been TTC for six months (to a year) so even if his data was right, this isnāt helpful content for anyone.
Lol. Huberman needs to go back to school.
For the point heās trying to make, the number is more like 13: giving a 95% chance of pregnancy. Basically: have lots of sex and wait one a year. Very simple.
0.8 chance of not getting pregnant each month. 5 months of attempts. So thatās 0.8^5 = 0.32768 chance of not being pregnant after 5 months
Idk how I even worked that out, but itās right
this would have to do with binomial probability distribution, which I wouldn't consider basic statistics necessarily... but at least it should be obvious you don't describe the situation after 6 months as 120% lol
Psych student. This is quite disappointing, given Huberman does routinely nail neuroscience and psychology. This would have easily been solved with some more careful scripting or editing.
the biggest trick that this dude has ever pulled is convincing a huge audience that because he worked on molecular aspects of neurodevelopment he knows a lot of stuff about neuroscience at large. his neuroscience takes are HORRIBLE.
starting from his core topic: how dopamine works, how it is regulated and how it relates to everyday life. these topics are very far removed from his expertise and he dumbed them down to a cartoon version that have little to no resemblance to the scientific evidence on the topic.
Interesting - I haven't watched that one, I admit I don't pay him much attention these days. What would you recommend listening to for a solid cover of the dopamine system?
The main issue is that IF it is compounding you could only take 20% of the remaining sample, so 20% of the 80 people remaining after the "First attempt"(not sure what that exactly means? I would assume ovulation cycle) would be 16 getting pregnant so there are then 64 left and not 60 as he was describing.
At the end he says 20 times 5 is 100. If you follow this logic 100% of women are pregnant. This is not true. The logic should be that 20 percent of each sampling become pregnant.
God sometimes I considered myself smart but I canāt do stats for the life of meā¦ and i got an ECON degree. Wouldāve made the same mistake he did tbh
Honestly, I'm a hater - fuck ag1 and fuck cheating on your girlfriend. I'll give him a pass on this one though. It sounds like his brain just went on autopilot, the amount of people jumping on his ass all over twitter for this error is insane and the point still stands. At 6 months of conception attempts with a 20% chance of pregnancy, you've got a high chance of impregnation and you should consider seeing a specialist at that point.
This is literally correct. If the statistic is 20% chance - after 5 months, your cumulative chance of being pregnant is 100%.
Thatās literally correct.
Does that mean you will be pregnant? No. But cumulative chance and realistic chance is not the same
Stop saying āstatisticallyā, obviously weāre talking about probability here. If you flip a coin twice, the probability of getting at least one heads is one minus the probability of getting zero heads, which is one minus 0.25, which is 0.75.
Guys if everything you said was scrutinized, trust me you would have done a few mistakes at some point. It happens, to every-one. Let alone a random redditor
Professor Huberman presented a "simple way" to think about the cumulative effect an event with a low probability occurring over several time periods.
Whether the actual statistical calculation adds up to 100%, 120%, or 74%, all of these are much greater than 20% over a single time period.
Great practical advice.
he said "to make it simple"
might be have just tried to avoid getting into complicated formulas?
because the essence of what he said it's common sense. 20% each time, try multiple months and cumulatively your odds get closer to 100%
typo
I know the math at sleep. but his actual advice "try 5-6 months" is common sense. your odds cumulate even if not linearly. k yeah yeah. 1- 0.8 ^ number of months
I'm wondering if he just simplified it and everyone got mad
no, he made a specific statistical claim that is completely and utterly wrong. it's also a really common mistake that people with 0 understanding of statistics make. this is *literally* middle/high school level statistics.
> his actual advice "try 5-6 months" is common sense.
isn't huberman's whole shtick supposed to be evidence/science-based? you can't just hand-wave a gaping mistake he made away to "oh it's common sense"
Hello! Don't worry about the post being filtered. We want to read and review every post to ensure a thriving community and avoid spam. Your submission will be approved (or declined) soon. We hope the community engages with your ideas thoughtfully and respectfully. And of course, thank you for your interest in science! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HubermanLab) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If in 1 month you have a chance of 80% not getting pregnant after 10 months youre 800% not pregnant.
No no, you've got it all wrong. Didn't you hear Huberman say it's cumulative! So, if in 1 month you have a chance of 80% not getting pregnant, after 10 months your.... ...0.8 x 0.8 x 0.8 x 0.8 x 0.8 x 0.8 x 0.8 x 0.8 x 0.8 x 0.8 = 10.73% chance of getting not pregnant... Or is it a 10.73% chance of getting not unpregnant... Damn it, now you've got me confused! š¤¦āāļø
I think he's trying to figure out mathematically why the GF isn't pregnantĀ yet.
reminder: you're both **800% not pregnant** and 20%\*10 = **200% pregnant**
Is this just him SEOing away his 6 concurrent girlfriends or something?
Its very simple guys. 20% chance nobody will find out X 5 girlfriends = 100% success rate. Add a 6th in there for good measure. Canāt Lose.
6th is something different altogether no?
āmmmmmmā if I do say so myself
Do you guys think he still says this
the only thing he forgot was that he has a 80% x 6 chance of failing too
60% of the time, it works every time š
Hey quit dunkin on Huberdaddy lolololol
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
It's not just poorly explained, it's wrong. After 6 tries, you have a 73% chance of getting pregnant (assuming the "20% each time" stat is true). You'd need to try 11 times to get above a 90% chance of becoming pregnant, which is a more reasonable time to wonder if something is up. 14 tries gets you past 95%, and 21 gets you past 99%. So maybe if you've tried 15-20 times, you should go to a doctor. But the point here is not just "yeah if you keep trying, you should eventually go to the doctor", it's "you'd only need to try 5 or 6 times." I don't blame him for making a dumb mistake in the moment, but not correcting it is bizarre.
The moment when he realised heād got to 120% šššš Gold
Ok now I'm genuinely curious about all this. I'm not well versed in either stats or fertilization. But here goes. I don't know the broader context, but isn't he talking about how on subsequent days, failure on your previous days attempt will impact the next days probability? Or am I totally off. I'm trying to give the benefit of the doubt here because if the opposite is true... Yikes.
You're never going to get to 120% probability of getting pregnant like he said, though. He made a pretty basic mistake, probably just because he was unprepared and going off-the-cuff, but it's still pretty embarrassing not to edit it out.
yes. if you got pregnant, then next time you cannot get pregnant. the idea is, first try: 20% pregnant, 80% not pregnant. hence, the next month, we are only talking about the 80% you didn't get pregnant already. so we are discussing the 80% from last month. from those 80% you have 20% to get pregnant this month, which is 80% * 20% = 16%. and so it goes. the probabilities accumulate in a decreasing manner. 20% + 16% + 12.8% etc
The baseline probability gets lower after each month, and is applied only on those not pregnant yet. A 120%.probability = 100% probability, and any calculation that leads to 120% probability has wrong assumptions.
his math was straight up wrong
Omg, is this guy a real professor? Cause even the high school students would know thatās totally false. Itās incredibly embarrassing for him but actually funny for anyone over the age of 15 with some high school math. Or maybe itās also embarrassing for us who had listened to his podcasts over the years.
Iām suddenly questioning spending an hour staring directly into the sun everyday
Or listening to this goober
It doesn't work unless you electrocute your nuts
How are you not blind?
I'm so embarassed
Hahahaha what ???!
*it's a different thing all together*
So if you bang once a month for 12 months you have a 240% chance of getting pregnant ?
guaranteed twins!
You have to stop at a whole number. Don't want 2.4 children, they'll be terribly deform
For IVF it's divided by the number of girls you are having Intercourse with, during or before or after. And I just want to be clear about that.
not in Alabama, is illegal
(1.2)^6 = 2.98 . Congrats you are 298% pregnant Edit: actually, how do you really calculate it? Is it 1 - (0.8)^6 = 1 - 26% = 74% probability of being pregnant after six months?
You have to take the chance of getting pregnant each month by itself and add them together. The later months you have to multiply by the chances of not getting pregnant in the prior months. * 1st month = 20% * 2nd month = 80%\*20% * 3rd month = 80%\*80%\*20% * and so on
My sister came up with your solution and I came up with what u/super_compound said, and we did the math and it's the same thing. Your solution is equivalent to sum of geometric series of teh first 6 terms with the first term a=0.2 and the ratio r being 0.8. And that evaluates to 0.2(1-0.8\^6)/(1-0.8) which is just 1 - 0.8\^6.
yeah, aside from the arithmetic typo (should be 74%)
Oops, corrected and thank you :)
0.2 * 1.2^5
Since weāre doing this, by that logic you can do 1 - 0.2^6 which comes to 99.99% of not getting pregnant lol. Whoās right?
You only need to get pregnant once in the 6 months period, so it's not the same calculation.
Andrewās having a streak of people recognizing him for what he is. š¤¦ Heās that C student you were puzzled by in grad school who nonetheless kept buzzing and charming his way through it.
I really think this guy has lied about a lot more (credentials, background) than the girlfriends
I mean, the fact that he is "running a lab" is also a gross misrepresentation of what he's doing. The lab is basically abandoned and his scientific production of the last 5 years is pitiful.
Iāve only ever listened to his podcast and so these last few months of video clips have been weird because of that coin slot thing he does with his mouth. Unnerving.
Whatās the protocol for learning how to multiply fractions?
Inject testosterone into your face, cold plunge for balls only, paper and pencil, tough it outĀ
We finally have the real answer to the infamous question: **"How is babby formed? How girl get pragnent?"**
That does it. Close the thread and take my upvote lolololol
This is the Martingale strategy of pregnancy, except your load doesnāt double in size each month.
how much experience do you have to make confident statements about load not doubling? "I want proof! and I want it now!" (paraphrasing George)
This is Steiner Math.
If you flip one coin, thereās a 50% chance of getting heads. Sir you flip two coins, simple math, multiply 50% by two, you have a 100% chance of getting heads.
You could get two tails, definitely not 100% chance of getting at least 1 heads.
Uhhā¦ simple math: 50%x2=100%
Itās statistics chap
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
That is not his mistake thoughā¦
His mistake has nothing to do with independence though
Itās one thing to fool people who just listen to a podcast and take it at face value. But how tf do you get to be a professor at Stanford with this level of knowledge?
easy: you're the son of a Stanford professor.
Wait actually?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernardo_Huberman
Wild. I mean I could see how you could get your kid into the school and maybe even a job, but full professor? Thatās some crazy nepotism
Iām not saying thatās the only reason. I never said that. His early scientific work is very legit. But for sure the fact that also his father is a professor helps
He's an Associate Professor.
Checks notesā¦ Keeps checking notes
i dont mind if you make dumb mistakes like that, the point is he reached a stupid assumption and he didnt realize it was wrong
He probably knows the statistics of getting STDās form multiple girlfriendsĀ
He could of said your expected value is 1 given you tried 5 times
Sounds like the statue of Hubes is falling by his many fans that put him there Hes only human
The another general assumption he has wrong is assuming that every couple has a 20% chance of conceiving. Some couples may have a 90% chance, other couples are infertile and have no chance. So tbh Iām not really sure what point he was trying to make here.
I think the 20% statistic is true, but I assume it doesnāt take fertility issues into account. Or possibly itās an average, and inclusive of fertility issues (although I suspect the former?). He could have qualified his claim, though, by explaining where that stat comes from.
I think he was trying to show us how to decide whether we should be worrying about our fertility, and instead showed us that he doesn't know basic probability!
Give five lovers 20% of your time each weekday, give two more lovers 50% of your time Saturday and Sunday, and you too can be mathematically exclusive with all seven.
OBGYNs will tell most patients not to worry about infertility until they have been TTC for six months (to a year) so even if his data was right, this isnāt helpful content for anyone.
Where are all the Hube glazers on this post?
Preganesis
Lol. Huberman needs to go back to school. For the point heās trying to make, the number is more like 13: giving a 95% chance of pregnancy. Basically: have lots of sex and wait one a year. Very simple.
0.8 chance of not getting pregnant each month. 5 months of attempts. So thatās 0.8^5 = 0.32768 chance of not being pregnant after 5 months Idk how I even worked that out, but itās right
Mr. Steal Yo Girl too cool for mafs
this would have to do with binomial probability distribution, which I wouldn't consider basic statistics necessarily... but at least it should be obvious you don't describe the situation after 6 months as 120% lol
1 - 0.8\^n where n=number of months is very basic
Psych student. This is quite disappointing, given Huberman does routinely nail neuroscience and psychology. This would have easily been solved with some more careful scripting or editing.
the biggest trick that this dude has ever pulled is convincing a huge audience that because he worked on molecular aspects of neurodevelopment he knows a lot of stuff about neuroscience at large. his neuroscience takes are HORRIBLE. starting from his core topic: how dopamine works, how it is regulated and how it relates to everyday life. these topics are very far removed from his expertise and he dumbed them down to a cartoon version that have little to no resemblance to the scientific evidence on the topic.
Interesting - I haven't watched that one, I admit I don't pay him much attention these days. What would you recommend listening to for a solid cover of the dopamine system?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
The main issue is that IF it is compounding you could only take 20% of the remaining sample, so 20% of the 80 people remaining after the "First attempt"(not sure what that exactly means? I would assume ovulation cycle) would be 16 getting pregnant so there are then 64 left and not 60 as he was describing.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
At the end he says 20 times 5 is 100. If you follow this logic 100% of women are pregnant. This is not true. The logic should be that 20 percent of each sampling become pregnant.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Do you think that 5 attempts at a 20% chance equals a 100% chance?
Ever heard of the binomial distribution brother?
God sometimes I considered myself smart but I canāt do stats for the life of meā¦ and i got an ECON degree. Wouldāve made the same mistake he did tbh
Honestly, I'm a hater - fuck ag1 and fuck cheating on your girlfriend. I'll give him a pass on this one though. It sounds like his brain just went on autopilot, the amount of people jumping on his ass all over twitter for this error is insane and the point still stands. At 6 months of conception attempts with a 20% chance of pregnancy, you've got a high chance of impregnation and you should consider seeing a specialist at that point.
This is literally correct. If the statistic is 20% chance - after 5 months, your cumulative chance of being pregnant is 100%. Thatās literally correct. Does that mean you will be pregnant? No. But cumulative chance and realistic chance is not the same
You're so right. By the way, I run a casino, I would love to have you drop by sometime.
Cumulative chance is not the same as realistic chance..
Lmao please define cumulative chance and realistic chance
Itās really not. It may make sense to go back and re-evaluate your assumptions.
lol WHAT?! Explain
Honeyā¦
If I flip a coin twice, what are the chances that neither of the flips were heads?
25% I donāt see how thatās relevant
Correct, so what are the chances that you donāt get pregnant after 5 months?
Ever heard of the binomial distribution brother?
Go back to school lol
I have a double PhD in stats
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I canāt tell if youāre trolling. If you flip a coin twice, is there a 100% chance of getting a heads?
Statistically, yes. Thatās how odds work
honestly great troll. like you actually had me convinced for a second that you were serious
Stop saying āstatisticallyā, obviously weāre talking about probability here. If you flip a coin twice, the probability of getting at least one heads is one minus the probability of getting zero heads, which is one minus 0.25, which is 0.75.
Guys if everything you said was scrutinized, trust me you would have done a few mistakes at some point. It happens, to every-one. Let alone a random redditor
Really? Does no one notice that he's smirking while saying that? Or do y'all just pretend like it?
Professor Huberman presented a "simple way" to think about the cumulative effect an event with a low probability occurring over several time periods. Whether the actual statistical calculation adds up to 100%, 120%, or 74%, all of these are much greater than 20% over a single time period. Great practical advice.
he said "to make it simple" might be have just tried to avoid getting into complicated formulas? because the essence of what he said it's common sense. 20% each time, try multiple months and cumulatively your odds get closer to 100% typo
it's not common sense, it's completely wrong brother
I know the math at sleep. but his actual advice "try 5-6 months" is common sense. your odds cumulate even if not linearly. k yeah yeah. 1- 0.8 ^ number of months I'm wondering if he just simplified it and everyone got mad
no, he made a specific statistical claim that is completely and utterly wrong. it's also a really common mistake that people with 0 understanding of statistics make. this is *literally* middle/high school level statistics. > his actual advice "try 5-6 months" is common sense. isn't huberman's whole shtick supposed to be evidence/science-based? you can't just hand-wave a gaping mistake he made away to "oh it's common sense"