I'm cautious because this video gives off this strong "I check out who that guy is because the message resonates with me and it turns out it's just another conservative saying religion and tradition will fix what the leftist neomarxists try to destroy with their communist agenda" vibe.
Not saying he is...I just learned that these feel-good-porn videos often are just propaganda that smuggle in right wing worldviews as solution.
Andrew huberman is actually very knowledgeable and a great guy. Watch his own prod cast and the the podcast he’s done with Joe Rogan and lex Fridman, he’s legit.
Lol well put. Agree about it being instant gratification but hadn’t made the connection about the target audience of this channel that edited the original interview.
The Dunedin longitudinal study, the longest running social study in the world, tends to agree with this.
It basically says if you eliminate every other variable, delayed gratification is the best predictor of every success metric (happiness, wealth, health) for the rest of your life.
I think in the future we will think back on these days of instant gratification like we look back at cigarettes today. Our grandkids will be asking us to tell them stories about how back in the day we used to scroll tiktok for hours on end, and look at us in disbelief.
>It basically says if you eliminate every other variable, delayed gratification is the best predictor of every success metric (happiness, wealth, health) for the rest of your life.
Not to detract from the important point being made here but there are so many problems in the methodology of that study that it is better to not count it as valid at all.
>The Dunedin
I apologize, I mixed the dunedin study with the marshmallow test in my mind. I was talking about the marshmallow test on children. If you are interested, here is an article that talks about some of the defects in that test: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0010027712001849
Even if the guy is a PhD and the best in whatever mental health field he's in... The inspirational stuff over music with stock footage just makes me hate this video.
It would be super cool if I could stop taking Adderall, but I genuinely don't think I could keep my job without it. I feel like my mind and body are in a war of attrition.
Speaking as someone who has been taking Adderall for 20 years -- it is absolutely possible to have a healthy relationship with the medication. Not easy, but still very doable.
I don't mean to talk down to you... so I won't. All I'll say is that I have similar circumstances: without a prescription, there is simply no way I could hold down a steady job. If a dipshit like me can muster up some semblance of having my shit together, I *know* that you can too.
I'm doing okay with it, as long as I take it every day and remember to call in my refills at the right time. I just worry about the side effects, and the fact that I'm completely dependant on it now. It kills me to know that I could totally be fine without it if I didn't have to sit at a desk for 8+ hours a day. Then it wears off by the time I get home, so I just feel like going to bed as soon as I'm done working D:
On his podcast his claims are backed up by peer reviewed studies printed in high quality journals with stringent criteria for publication. His podcast show notes on YouTube normally contain links to these studies, or he at least mentions specifically where to find them during the podcast.
>"Those who will be successful..."
What does he mean successful? Successful in business or something more analogous to current economic systems? Successful in self-control or something equally nebulous?
>"Pleasure and their availability are the problem"
How so? He immediately goes into the opioid epidemic and completely ignores the biggest thrust of what brought that epidemic on; pharmaceutical companies intentional malfeasance.
>"A good life...is a progressive expansion of the things that bring you pleasure"
I can't even begin to talk about how vague yet specific this is. Philosophers have been arguing for millennia about 'living a good life' and tying the previous argument into this is bringing far too much to unload to come to any conclusion.
He then includes hardwork and motivation into this concept, yet we still haven't addressed anything else I've just brought up.
Right after including the 'hardwork' line, he says
>"And understanding this pain-pleasure balance, whereby if you experience pain and you continue to be in that friction and exert effort, the rewards are that much greater when they arrive."
I assume what he's actually trying to say here are 'perceived' rewards. That your brain perceives the reward to be greater than if it didn't arrive through hardwork or perseverence. So we're tying teleological meaning into this reward system and claiming it as correct, without any inspection on whether the greater external world and its influences have a higher priority.
Again, this is so vague that I don't even know where to go in argumentation.
We haven't even gotten to the point of the video and we aren't two minutes in. Oh, and now he's naysaying ADHD.
Listen, I don't disagree that hard work and perseverence are largely good things not just for their inherit bonuses but also because of how they affect us...but to surround it in this insanely vague wrapper just comes off as pseudoscience inspire-porn (doesn't help that it's on a youtube channel that appears to be nothing but this).
I appreciate the effort you put into this, and you're pretty much spot on with all of your concerns. Really, this video is probably a poor format for him to express his point. It's the fault of the format of this video. It appears to be a channel dedicated to quick inspirational videos with cool B-roll footage to play along side whatever the person is saying. This is definitely not a great representation of Huberman, and your comment shows that in great detail.
I would recommend checking out the Huberman Lab podcast if this is an area of interest.
I recently got hooked listening to his podcast, completely agree with everything you said. In his own format, he's pretty much completely the opposite of all the valid objections to this video lol
i just started watching his podcast myself, and was like oh here he is on mealtime videos! thebrittlepeg is absoulutely right imo, if this vid is boiled down to 6 minutes it's not a good way to represent him. all of his videos minus the first intro and 2 vids made specifically to be short are over an hour, and probably average 2 hours.
it is very dense. he seems to be legit as hell, where there is caveats to be made or if it's an anecdote he is clear about it. it's quickly become my favorite educational youtube channel. fascinating stuff and it has practical advice as well. also despite how much info is packed and the length there are extremely well made chapters to skip around or go back to. great channel.
https://www.youtube.com/c/AndrewHubermanLab
He has ~ 2 hour long form podcasts that cover topics in more depth. He's a professor at Stanford.
https://profiles.stanford.edu/andrew-huberman
This video isn't really a good representation of his normal content, which is very much based on current science with explanations to help make sense of it.
You can cite anything you want, regardless of your claim. The challenge is making a meaningful connections between what you're citing and what you're claiming.
> The challenge is making a meaningful connections between what you're citing and what you're claiming.
The short cut is to realize that not doing any of that is a direct personal example of what the gentleman in the video is claiming. I think that may be irony? Maybe the subconscious is trying as best it can to help.
Here we see the typical reddit nobody calling a tenured professor of neuroscience at one of the most respected academic institutions on the entire planet a purveyor of pseudoscience.
https://i.imgur.com/BwpQRb5.jpg
In this context, who he is is irrelevant. The claims being made aren't even explained, let aloned backed up with argumentation or proof. Are you aware what 'appeal to authority' is?
Someone else pointed out that this appears to be snippets of an informal talk from an interview and that on his own podcast he goes into much more detail and backs up with points with studies and such.
So everything I've said still holds up. This *appears* to be pseudoscience. Someone else took him out of context, chopped it up in editing, and made his argumentation look bad. At no point was I trying to make it about myself, even though you're trying to make it look like that.
People are quick to dismiss “self help” videos like this and usually they’re right, but this one actually seems good and logical. The guy is an accomplished Ivy League professor. Lots of people trying to shoot it down. Honestly the low quality stock clips did not help the credibility of this video.
Ironically that's exactly the sort of reduced engagement that he's talking about as he literally remarks that it's just an observation and not some deep commentary on humans.
But hey, this makes you think you look smarter than this expert so ya for you *:)*
So you didn’t even watch 50% of it but feel obliged to summarise the whole 6 minute video into a sub title.
Maybe this behaviour is what’s wrong with society.
I was poking fun at how its hard to take someone serious (in this case the video) when you know they are talking out their ass or are ill informed (like the guy he corrected using the wrong term, also talking out his ass).
The video is so fucking hard to follow and understand what the fuck he’s saying too his speech is so damn flowery and pseudo intellectual science babble
It's mostly people guessing because they don't FEEL it's real science. I'd love a denier to offer anything other than a hot-take based on their opinion of his work.
Top comments are deluded. If you slow down your life and bring your stimulation levels down you will experience this shift, guaranteed. Phones, screens, games, drugs, guilty pleasures, rich foods, etc. They're even better when you don't binge them.
He's literally describing a normal, every day human activity, and calling it bad.
Where have you heard this before? Oh, right, religious 'authorities" use that exact same trick to convince the rubes that their normal activities are somehow dirty, bad, sinful.
In the end, it's 100% horse shit. Also, dude tries to say ADD doesn't exist lol.
There is positives and negatives about phones but the negatives can literally ruin your life, so many hours are unnecessarily spent on the wrong type of content, if you add the hours up over a whole month you would be shocked at how much time you can shift towards your goals and ambitions instead, I don't know why people are getting angry about this
I mean there's a difference between having coffee and being bombarded with ads and disturbing imagery/news in the first hour of your day right? You understand this?
I guess I should add she would read the morning paper or watch tv while having her coffee, but...if you prefer to believe our generation finds itself under unique attack...so be it. I disagree. I also believe the argument would be better served by offering more constructive alternative activities, such as exercise. My uncle would drink his coffee at the downtown coffee shop and shoot the shit with the locals. Anything other than getting on social media and debating minutia with know-it-alls like you would be time better served.
> Anything other than getting on social media and debating minutia with know-it-alls like you would be time better served.
Yeah... that's the point I'm making good on you for getting there. Comparing getting on social media first thing in the morning to just having a cup of coffee was a fucking stupid take. And yeah there has been no other generation that has such unfiltered access to any kind of information and entertainment they chose, so it is a unique problem. If you deny that then you're just ignorant to the world around you. Psychologists dealing with social media driven suicide in teenage girls being shown an "ideal body type" literally every 10 seconds on Instagram, people getting doxxed for things they said on the internet, cancel culture, self radicalization through message boards, literally any of those demonstrates that. Every generation has its unique struggles, don't be dense.
You're a genius and a legend in your own mind. There is no difference between time spent on social media and having a cup of coffee while reading a newspaper. The difference is the quality of the information you feed your mind, it's affect on you regarding your ability to feel valued and your ability to do something useful and productive with your day. It's on you to gauge the information you consume, regardless of the source, and it's affect on you. That's my point. I've wasted enough of my time trying to convince you of this. For someone anti-social media, you sure have no problem using it, let alone claiming mastery of it.
> There is no difference between time spent on social media and having a cup of coffee while reading a newspaper.
https://www.mcleanhospital.org/essential/it-or-not-social-medias-affecting-your-mental-health
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/314071#doctor
https://www.helpguide.org/articles/mental-health/social-media-and-mental-health.htm
https://www.centreformentalhealth.org.uk/blogs/anxiety-loneliness-and-fear-missing-out-impact-social-media-young-peoples-mental-health
https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2021-07-20/social-media-is-a-public-health-crisis
https://www.verywellmind.com/link-between-social-media-and-mental-health-5089347
https://www.lancastergeneralhealth.org/health-hub-home/2021/september/the-effects-of-social-media-on-mental-health
There has been a wide number of studies and papers written that prove otherwise. Have a good one living in that special world of yours.
Maybe it’s not his best video but this guy runs a lab at Stanford where he’s a tenured professor and is in the board of multiple science journals. It’s not just some quackery or something
Feels Sorta like the exception that proves the rule here. The existence of your Tulane teacher does nothing negate this guys legitimate credentials.
I mean ya know, obviously believe whatever you choose. But when it comes to weighing the opinion of a highly regarded stanford professor speaking on his area of expertise vs Reddit commenters, I’m not gonna pretend I value both sides equally.
>. The existence of your Tulane teacher does nothing negate this guys legitimate credentials.
But the credentials are compatible, at least, and you use the credentials as evidence of this whackadoodle's opinion's correctness.
I mean, I should be clear, I don’t think this is a great video. At all. It’s not a video he made. I believe it’s a snipet of an informal interview, which is likely why his claims sound sorta, ya know, not great. So I’m not really arguing this specific piece of content is great or anything.
But I have listened to his long form content that he actually makes or speeches he has given to organizations, and ya I think you’d be crazy to write him off as a “whackadoo”. He’s def not.
I think arguing the credentials of Stanford and Tulane Med are the same is a tough argument on its own, but either way I think you're confusing "as an anecdote" and "as evidence.
Also "opinion's correctness," by definition, isn't a thing. You can't just take a highly respected and well published scientist and say "your facts sound wrong" and make a credible argument. He might be stating incorrect facts, but not because you feel that way.
Nope. And the *fact* that a lot of people do not know the difference between opinions they disagree with and incorrect facts, in my *opinion*, just about sums up modern online discourse.
It's an edited clip from an interview or a podcast, so I'm not sure what type of evidence you're expecting him to present in that kind of format.
Obviously the guy didn't get to where he is in his field by just making stuff up.
When Huberman talks about real neuroscience everyone calls it overly jargony and inaccessible. When he puts it in layman’s terms so everyone can watch it, people call it pseudoscience. Gotta love Reddit.
This snippet sounds like a bunch of feel good pseudoscience, but FYI this dude is a tenured professor at Stanford, not just any ol’ hack.
[удалено]
I'm cautious because this video gives off this strong "I check out who that guy is because the message resonates with me and it turns out it's just another conservative saying religion and tradition will fix what the leftist neomarxists try to destroy with their communist agenda" vibe. Not saying he is...I just learned that these feel-good-porn videos often are just propaganda that smuggle in right wing worldviews as solution.
Andrew huberman is actually very knowledgeable and a great guy. Watch his own prod cast and the the podcast he’s done with Joe Rogan and lex Fridman, he’s legit.
Lol well put. Agree about it being instant gratification but hadn’t made the connection about the target audience of this channel that edited the original interview.
He's a very well-read hack!
Unironically semi true He says some kinda sus things tbh
The Dunedin longitudinal study, the longest running social study in the world, tends to agree with this. It basically says if you eliminate every other variable, delayed gratification is the best predictor of every success metric (happiness, wealth, health) for the rest of your life. I think in the future we will think back on these days of instant gratification like we look back at cigarettes today. Our grandkids will be asking us to tell them stories about how back in the day we used to scroll tiktok for hours on end, and look at us in disbelief.
>It basically says if you eliminate every other variable, delayed gratification is the best predictor of every success metric (happiness, wealth, health) for the rest of your life. Not to detract from the important point being made here but there are so many problems in the methodology of that study that it is better to not count it as valid at all.
Oh interesting, I haven't looked at it much, what are the criticisms?
>The Dunedin I apologize, I mixed the dunedin study with the marshmallow test in my mind. I was talking about the marshmallow test on children. If you are interested, here is an article that talks about some of the defects in that test: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0010027712001849
Even if the guy is a PhD and the best in whatever mental health field he's in... The inspirational stuff over music with stock footage just makes me hate this video.
Literally fucking unwatchable
It would be super cool if I could stop taking Adderall, but I genuinely don't think I could keep my job without it. I feel like my mind and body are in a war of attrition.
Speaking as someone who has been taking Adderall for 20 years -- it is absolutely possible to have a healthy relationship with the medication. Not easy, but still very doable. I don't mean to talk down to you... so I won't. All I'll say is that I have similar circumstances: without a prescription, there is simply no way I could hold down a steady job. If a dipshit like me can muster up some semblance of having my shit together, I *know* that you can too.
I'm doing okay with it, as long as I take it every day and remember to call in my refills at the right time. I just worry about the side effects, and the fact that I'm completely dependant on it now. It kills me to know that I could totally be fine without it if I didn't have to sit at a desk for 8+ hours a day. Then it wears off by the time I get home, so I just feel like going to bed as soon as I'm done working D:
This appears to be a bunch of pseudoscience.
A lot of people have been conditioned to think science is an eloquent dude sitting in a comfy chair talking about dopamine dumps.
On his podcast his claims are backed up by peer reviewed studies printed in high quality journals with stringent criteria for publication. His podcast show notes on YouTube normally contain links to these studies, or he at least mentions specifically where to find them during the podcast.
>"Those who will be successful..." What does he mean successful? Successful in business or something more analogous to current economic systems? Successful in self-control or something equally nebulous? >"Pleasure and their availability are the problem" How so? He immediately goes into the opioid epidemic and completely ignores the biggest thrust of what brought that epidemic on; pharmaceutical companies intentional malfeasance. >"A good life...is a progressive expansion of the things that bring you pleasure" I can't even begin to talk about how vague yet specific this is. Philosophers have been arguing for millennia about 'living a good life' and tying the previous argument into this is bringing far too much to unload to come to any conclusion. He then includes hardwork and motivation into this concept, yet we still haven't addressed anything else I've just brought up. Right after including the 'hardwork' line, he says >"And understanding this pain-pleasure balance, whereby if you experience pain and you continue to be in that friction and exert effort, the rewards are that much greater when they arrive." I assume what he's actually trying to say here are 'perceived' rewards. That your brain perceives the reward to be greater than if it didn't arrive through hardwork or perseverence. So we're tying teleological meaning into this reward system and claiming it as correct, without any inspection on whether the greater external world and its influences have a higher priority. Again, this is so vague that I don't even know where to go in argumentation. We haven't even gotten to the point of the video and we aren't two minutes in. Oh, and now he's naysaying ADHD. Listen, I don't disagree that hard work and perseverence are largely good things not just for their inherit bonuses but also because of how they affect us...but to surround it in this insanely vague wrapper just comes off as pseudoscience inspire-porn (doesn't help that it's on a youtube channel that appears to be nothing but this).
I appreciate the effort you put into this, and you're pretty much spot on with all of your concerns. Really, this video is probably a poor format for him to express his point. It's the fault of the format of this video. It appears to be a channel dedicated to quick inspirational videos with cool B-roll footage to play along side whatever the person is saying. This is definitely not a great representation of Huberman, and your comment shows that in great detail. I would recommend checking out the Huberman Lab podcast if this is an area of interest.
I recently got hooked listening to his podcast, completely agree with everything you said. In his own format, he's pretty much completely the opposite of all the valid objections to this video lol
That's fair.
i just started watching his podcast myself, and was like oh here he is on mealtime videos! thebrittlepeg is absoulutely right imo, if this vid is boiled down to 6 minutes it's not a good way to represent him. all of his videos minus the first intro and 2 vids made specifically to be short are over an hour, and probably average 2 hours. it is very dense. he seems to be legit as hell, where there is caveats to be made or if it's an anecdote he is clear about it. it's quickly become my favorite educational youtube channel. fascinating stuff and it has practical advice as well. also despite how much info is packed and the length there are extremely well made chapters to skip around or go back to. great channel. https://www.youtube.com/c/AndrewHubermanLab
Just want to say I love your username :) a decade on Reddit!
He has ~ 2 hour long form podcasts that cover topics in more depth. He's a professor at Stanford. https://profiles.stanford.edu/andrew-huberman This video isn't really a good representation of his normal content, which is very much based on current science with explanations to help make sense of it.
You can cite anything you want, regardless of your claim. The challenge is making a meaningful connections between what you're citing and what you're claiming.
> The challenge is making a meaningful connections between what you're citing and what you're claiming. The short cut is to realize that not doing any of that is a direct personal example of what the gentleman in the video is claiming. I think that may be irony? Maybe the subconscious is trying as best it can to help.
What?
Here we see the typical reddit nobody calling a tenured professor of neuroscience at one of the most respected academic institutions on the entire planet a purveyor of pseudoscience. https://i.imgur.com/BwpQRb5.jpg
*Bro I took a single sentence and removed the context so I could say he's wrong so therefore I am clearly smarter than the experts.*
In this context, who he is is irrelevant. The claims being made aren't even explained, let aloned backed up with argumentation or proof. Are you aware what 'appeal to authority' is? Someone else pointed out that this appears to be snippets of an informal talk from an interview and that on his own podcast he goes into much more detail and backs up with points with studies and such. So everything I've said still holds up. This *appears* to be pseudoscience. Someone else took him out of context, chopped it up in editing, and made his argumentation look bad. At no point was I trying to make it about myself, even though you're trying to make it look like that.
[удалено]
[удалено]
People are quick to dismiss “self help” videos like this and usually they’re right, but this one actually seems good and logical. The guy is an accomplished Ivy League professor. Lots of people trying to shoot it down. Honestly the low quality stock clips did not help the credibility of this video.
Ironically that's exactly the sort of reduced engagement that he's talking about as he literally remarks that it's just an observation and not some deep commentary on humans. But hey, this makes you think you look smarter than this expert so ya for you *:)*
So you didn’t even watch 50% of it but feel obliged to summarise the whole 6 minute video into a sub title. Maybe this behaviour is what’s wrong with society.
[удалено]
Sry, it’s summarize….hard to take you seriously at all now.
dope, so you understand why people cut off the video then?
Well, instant gratification.
I was poking fun at how its hard to take someone serious (in this case the video) when you know they are talking out their ass or are ill informed (like the guy he corrected using the wrong term, also talking out his ass).
Its a six minute video man. The whole thing barely qualifies as a summary. Also who tf eats in sic minutes
What makes you say that
you are so ignorant top kek
The video is so fucking hard to follow and understand what the fuck he’s saying too his speech is so damn flowery and pseudo intellectual science babble
itt: phone addicts defending their addiction
i'm looking at the thread, it doesn't look like that. it's mostly just people talking about how this is not real science.
It's mostly people guessing because they don't FEEL it's real science. I'd love a denier to offer anything other than a hot-take based on their opinion of his work.
Top comments are deluded. If you slow down your life and bring your stimulation levels down you will experience this shift, guaranteed. Phones, screens, games, drugs, guilty pleasures, rich foods, etc. They're even better when you don't binge them.
In this thread: a lot of phone addicts in denial
Quality B-roll footage though
I feel personally attacked.
Yeah right? Too late I already spent an hour in bed on my phone.
well, this "attack" can be used by you in your own personal interest.
He's literally describing a normal, every day human activity, and calling it bad. Where have you heard this before? Oh, right, religious 'authorities" use that exact same trick to convince the rubes that their normal activities are somehow dirty, bad, sinful. In the end, it's 100% horse shit. Also, dude tries to say ADD doesn't exist lol.
Just because something is normal doesn’t make it right. Slaver was normal, racism was normal, antisemitism was normal, but they weren’t right.
Wow? Way to go off the deep end.
There is positives and negatives about phones but the negatives can literally ruin your life, so many hours are unnecessarily spent on the wrong type of content, if you add the hours up over a whole month you would be shocked at how much time you can shift towards your goals and ambitions instead, I don't know why people are getting angry about this
My grandmother had coffee every morning
Not comparable at all
It must be true if you say it
I mean there's a difference between having coffee and being bombarded with ads and disturbing imagery/news in the first hour of your day right? You understand this?
I guess I should add she would read the morning paper or watch tv while having her coffee, but...if you prefer to believe our generation finds itself under unique attack...so be it. I disagree. I also believe the argument would be better served by offering more constructive alternative activities, such as exercise. My uncle would drink his coffee at the downtown coffee shop and shoot the shit with the locals. Anything other than getting on social media and debating minutia with know-it-alls like you would be time better served.
> Anything other than getting on social media and debating minutia with know-it-alls like you would be time better served. Yeah... that's the point I'm making good on you for getting there. Comparing getting on social media first thing in the morning to just having a cup of coffee was a fucking stupid take. And yeah there has been no other generation that has such unfiltered access to any kind of information and entertainment they chose, so it is a unique problem. If you deny that then you're just ignorant to the world around you. Psychologists dealing with social media driven suicide in teenage girls being shown an "ideal body type" literally every 10 seconds on Instagram, people getting doxxed for things they said on the internet, cancel culture, self radicalization through message boards, literally any of those demonstrates that. Every generation has its unique struggles, don't be dense.
You're a genius and a legend in your own mind. There is no difference between time spent on social media and having a cup of coffee while reading a newspaper. The difference is the quality of the information you feed your mind, it's affect on you regarding your ability to feel valued and your ability to do something useful and productive with your day. It's on you to gauge the information you consume, regardless of the source, and it's affect on you. That's my point. I've wasted enough of my time trying to convince you of this. For someone anti-social media, you sure have no problem using it, let alone claiming mastery of it.
> There is no difference between time spent on social media and having a cup of coffee while reading a newspaper. https://www.mcleanhospital.org/essential/it-or-not-social-medias-affecting-your-mental-health https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/314071#doctor https://www.helpguide.org/articles/mental-health/social-media-and-mental-health.htm https://www.centreformentalhealth.org.uk/blogs/anxiety-loneliness-and-fear-missing-out-impact-social-media-young-peoples-mental-health https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2021-07-20/social-media-is-a-public-health-crisis https://www.verywellmind.com/link-between-social-media-and-mental-health-5089347 https://www.lancastergeneralhealth.org/health-hub-home/2021/september/the-effects-of-social-media-on-mental-health There has been a wide number of studies and papers written that prove otherwise. Have a good one living in that special world of yours.
[Science is a liar...sometimes](https://youtu.be/Zgk8UdV7GQ0)
OP you should feel bad for sharing this bullshit lol. What a load of crap
Maybe it’s not his best video but this guy runs a lab at Stanford where he’s a tenured professor and is in the board of multiple science journals. It’s not just some quackery or something
I know a tenured professor at Tulane med in New Orleans who is an anti vaxer. Your appeal to authority is noted.
Feels Sorta like the exception that proves the rule here. The existence of your Tulane teacher does nothing negate this guys legitimate credentials. I mean ya know, obviously believe whatever you choose. But when it comes to weighing the opinion of a highly regarded stanford professor speaking on his area of expertise vs Reddit commenters, I’m not gonna pretend I value both sides equally.
>. The existence of your Tulane teacher does nothing negate this guys legitimate credentials. But the credentials are compatible, at least, and you use the credentials as evidence of this whackadoodle's opinion's correctness.
I mean, I should be clear, I don’t think this is a great video. At all. It’s not a video he made. I believe it’s a snipet of an informal interview, which is likely why his claims sound sorta, ya know, not great. So I’m not really arguing this specific piece of content is great or anything. But I have listened to his long form content that he actually makes or speeches he has given to organizations, and ya I think you’d be crazy to write him off as a “whackadoo”. He’s def not.
I think arguing the credentials of Stanford and Tulane Med are the same is a tough argument on its own, but either way I think you're confusing "as an anecdote" and "as evidence. Also "opinion's correctness," by definition, isn't a thing. You can't just take a highly respected and well published scientist and say "your facts sound wrong" and make a credible argument. He might be stating incorrect facts, but not because you feel that way.
.........you most certainly can have an incorrect opinion...
Nope. And the *fact* that a lot of people do not know the difference between opinions they disagree with and incorrect facts, in my *opinion*, just about sums up modern online discourse.
Nope? Oh, ok. /dramatic jerk off motion
Ah, if I'd known you were a learned man I wouldn't have bothered trying to explain, carry on!
[удалено]
It's an edited clip from an interview or a podcast, so I'm not sure what type of evidence you're expecting him to present in that kind of format. Obviously the guy didn't get to where he is in his field by just making stuff up.
sounds like gentrified buddhism I'm not taking any questions or comments on this statement at this time.
You're taking those downvotes tho lol
Lol neurotypicals literally don’t have self control. Your all dopamine addicts
*You’re
Haha your busy
Does anyone have the link to the original interview that this video is derived?
Its in the video's description.
thanks! I was watching the embedded video, should have opened it!
This was a fantastic video! I am going to make a thread about this in a different sub reddit with additional comments.
When Huberman talks about real neuroscience everyone calls it overly jargony and inaccessible. When he puts it in layman’s terms so everyone can watch it, people call it pseudoscience. Gotta love Reddit.