Talk:Andrew Huberman

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2024

Source # 22 (the Coda article) should be removed, along with the points which cite it, due to lacking credibility and weak citations for its claims. Source 22 refers to a Twitter post, which shares an edited clip, with the poster mentioning they can't find the source anywhere. Huberman has clarified his stance on sunscreen on his website (https://ai.hubermanlab.com/s/mqaEnxdY), and via a linked podcast episode where he was a guest, and the podcast available there is full length as originally posted. Huberman specifically mentions compounds such as Oxybenzone (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxybenzone), the likes of which are under scrutiny by the scientific community (which Huberman is a member of) and have been banned in multiple countries. This information would make for a more informative inclusion if it is useful at all to mention Huberman's off-hand statements about sunscreen. Archive8 (talk) 07:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I tried in vain to have this section updated or deleted altogether back in February. I don't have the energy to recreate the posts, but if you're interested you can navigate back to the February Talk page. The posts were lengthy. In a nutshell, I also pointed out the problems with Source 22, including that it cited to a short (and edited) podcast clip posted on Twitter in which Huberman made a comment about sunscreen. I noted that Huberman has repeatedly clarified his nuanced view on sunscreen. Since my original posts, he has even uploaded a full-length podcast episode discussing (at length) the benefits of wearing sunscreen. There is no legitimate reason for Huberman's Wikipedia page to make the average reader believe Huberman has broad anti-sunscreen views. The only person who would tell you otherwise is the author of the Coda Article. In that regard, it is telling that when I originally edited out the sunscreen section in February, the author of the Coda Article, changed the page back. Incredibly, the author of the Coda Article has even bragged on Threads about how his article is cited to/referenced in Huberman's Wikipedia page. 65.207.135.114 (talk) 21:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Actually not that hard to find the old section and reposting the discussion here:

The fact that one of three paragraphs in the Reception section focuses on sunscreen quotations is highly misleading for several reasons. First, it distorts the topic's significance. Including the quotation "he's 'as scared of sunscreen as I am of melanoma"' in a short section entitled "Reception" suggests that sunscreen is a major focus of Dr. Huberman's discussions. The topic of sunscreens barely ever comes up in the thousands of hours of Dr. Huberman's podcasts.

Relatedly, it is problematic that the Wikipeda article neither cites nor links to the podcast episode where Dr. Huberman made that statement. Dr. Huberman makes the Melanoma statement at the 1:37:00 mark of a podcast on Micronutrients. [Dr. Rhonda Patrick: Micronutrients for Health & Longevity - Huberman Lab Huberman Lab Podcast #70 (youtube.com)]. The topic of sunscreens is a brief aside--taking up less than three minutes of discussion during a nearly three-hour podcast. The episode is almost entirely focused on other topics, micronutrients. But anyone reading Huberman's Wikipedia page would conclude that sunscreen was a significant focus of the episode. In short, the Wikipedia page plucks a quote from relative obscurity and features the quote prominently--thereby distorting its significance.

The quote also lacks necessary context. If you watch the three minutes where sunscreen is discussed, it becomes clear that Dr. Huberman does not hold broad anti-sunscreen views as the Wikipedia page currently suggests. Rather, the quote was an offhand comment that was the byproduct of a long conversation as opposed to a core belief. Dr. Huberman states during the three-minute segment that he has concerns about some compounds, like titanium dioxide, found in some sunscreens because there was some evidence that the compounds crossed the blood brain barrier, but he conceded the evidence was not established and that his concerns were a hypothesis. He also literally says during that podcast that some sunscreens are safe. Melanoma is a deadly cancer. He clearly does not advocate -- as the Wikipedia article suggests -- that sunscreen is more dangerous than cancer.

Originally, I supplemented that portion of the Reception Section of the Wikipedia Page to provide a more complete explanation of what Huberman said about sunscreen during that Dr. Rhonda Patrick episode. I also provided the primary source citation, so that readers could watch the full episode themselves and reach their own conclusions.

The author of the Coda article cited in the Wikipedia article thereafter sent me an email complaining I was citing to the wrong source. I was citing to the Dr. Rhonda Patrick episode and the Coda article author contended I should have cited to an 18 second podcast clip (discussed below). The supplementation I added to the Wikipedia page has since been deleted.

Overall, it is probably not beneficial to include the quote "he's 'as scared of sunscreen as I am of melanoma"' in Huberman's page since it distorts its prominence. It certainly is counterproductive to include the quotation in isolation and to delete the link to the actual podcast where he made the quote. That is not truth-seeking behavior.

Next, the inclusion of a sentence stating that Dr. Huberman claimed "that molecules in some types of sunscreen [SIC] can be found in neurons 10 years after application; without providing any evidence" is also problematic. Initially, the citation for that statement is to the Coda article, which is not a scientific journal. The Coda article, in turn, supports that statement by citing to an 18 second clip of a podcast from a Twitter post by Dr. Michelle Wong. The views expressed by Dr. Wong (whoever she is) in a Twitter post is certainly not an ideal citation. Moreover, given that the Twitter post only includes 18 seconds of the podcast, it appears very possible that the cited segment takes something Dr. Huberman said out of its complete context in order to support an incomplete narrative. If this is the case, then it has the effect of incorrectly portraying Huberman as broadly untrustworthy. In the one other podcast readily available on the internet where Huberman mentions sunscreen, he states some sunscreens are safe and some may not be safe. [Neuroscientist: Andrew Huberman explains ALL SUNSCREEN IS NOT SAFE! (youtube.com)].

I welcome additional discussion on this topic, but consideration should be given whether the sunscreen portion of Huberman's Wikipedia page is a net positive or a net negative. It seems pretty clear its inclusion is a net negative. Bobbysteinhere (talk) 20:50, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I not quite sure what the objection is. If AH said something in a podcast and a source reported on it, then what's the issue? Are you saying the clip was falsified? Bon courage (talk) 14:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I assume the goal is not to be a political attack advertisement. I assume the goal is to have an accurate page. If so, then read my entire post--including the title--on the problems with Huberman's Wikipedia page being so focused on sunscreen quotes. Bobbysteinhere (talk) 19:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't convinced me either. Looks like you're attempting to white wash the controversial claims he has made. The page isn't "so focused on sunscreen quotes", it is a small paragraph at the bottom. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:53, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on. My post—including the title of my post—-and my principal criticism concerns one section in the Huberman article: The Reception section. In that one section (as opposed to the entire page), there is disproportionate coverage about Huberman’s views on sunscreens. He hardly discusses sunscreens on his podcast or in his research, but a neutral reader of that section would think it’s a significant focus of his. I provided a detailed explanation as to why that one section is a problem in my original post. Instead of grappling with that detailed explanation, you’ve latched onto what I put in a quick reply to a comment. Agree my reply should have referred to that one section, and not to the whole page, as having disproportionate sunscreen coverage, but it is obvious from my original post that I was only criticizing one section.

Indeed, if I were to criticize the page generally, then my focus would be on why there is almost no discussion of his publications or research. He’s a tenured professor at Stanford School of Medicine. A neutral reader of this page wouldn’t be aware of that because the page has (using your phrase) almost completely whitewashed his research accomplishments. 2600:1700:8C80:5B50:A984:F510:35DB:FE6 (talk) 02:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He's an associate professor sure. He's much more notable as a podcaster/guru/pundit (which is why there's a Wikipedia article for him). It's normal for scientists to produce papers: has any of his work garnered attention other than what we mention? Bon courage (talk) 05:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's politics got to do with it? Is sunscreen political in the USA now? (I lose track). Bon courage (talk) 07:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bon courage Sunscreen as a subject matter is not political. The actions of taking a quote out of context or drawing outsized attention to a gaffe is very akin to a political attack ad. A famous historical example would be the political damage done to George Romney's presidential campaign against LBJ when he used the term "brainwash" to describe how he had been wrongly convinced to support the Vietnam war after being presented with a one-sided view of the war by the military. The poor word choice overshadowed George Romney's actual message regarding why he had changed his support of the war and, more importantly, unfairly made him seem crazy.

Though the sunscreen quotes are a less extreme example, it's the same action at play. Huberman clearly doesn't view sunscreen as dangerous as cancer. He has not stood by that one off statement, nor has he repeated it. In fact, he has gone out of his way to explicitly state that some sunscreens are safe. In other words, the statement was a gaffe. And it's not surprising that a guy who speaks as much as he does was guilty of making a gaffe. But by including that quotation in the Reception section, it suggests to an uninformed reader that Huberman holds that whacky view or that sunscreen is a big part of his beliefs.

So my point in using the word "political" is that Wikipedia should strive to be the antithesis of a political attack ad. But the inclusion of the sunscreen quotes (particularly the melanoma quote) deviates from Wikipedia's truth-seeking purpose.

If you are going to respond to this message, I would ask that you tackle it substantively. By that I mean, could you please focus on the purpose served by including that Melanoma quote. If it is not noteworthy, then why include it? And if you do think that gaffe is noteworthy, then could you talk about why, at the very least, it would not be helpful to the average Wikipedia reader to include the context within which he made that quote. More specifically, why would it not be helpful to discuss the context within which he made that quote during the course of the Dr. Rhonda Patrick episode? Please reread my original post to better appreciate the context within which he made that gaffe. Thanks. Bobbysteinhere (talk) 19:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose suppressing a "whacky view" would be just as bad. If secondary source(s) mention this it's suitable for here; I suppose that's the measure. Your 'gaffe' idea seems unsourced. Bon courage (talk) 19:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My point is different than what you are saying. My point is that including the Melanoma quote is analogous to political operatives seizing on George Romney’s “brainwashed” quote. Just as Romney’s poor word choice did not reflect an actual belief he had been brain washed, Huberman’s Melanoma statement is not a reflection that he actually believes sunscreen is as dangerous as cancer. The podcast episode where he made that statement is the best evidence of what he believes on the subject——not a one off opinion piece. If you or I wrote a one off opinion piece in a magazine it would not make that opinion true, would it? Nor would the one off publication of that opinion make the opinion noteworthy. Bobbysteinhere (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You point seems to hinge on your having access to AH's 'true' thoughts. All Wikipedia can do is follow appropriate sources, if they're interested in this sunscreen thing, Wikipedia follows. Bon courage (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This will be my last reply. First, please watch the podcast and decide for yourself if I'm engaging in mindreading or if I'm simply reporting to you that the Melanoma quote lacks context and distorts his overall viewpoint. On the second point, if Breitbart published a piece that took a quote from Paul Krugman out of context, would it be appropriate for Wikipedia to then include that quote in Paul Krugman's bio. Or would it be more appropriate (to the extent that quote was included at all) to provide the context in which Krugman made that statement? Bobbysteinhere (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC) 65.207.135.114 (talk) 21:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. As this request involves reasonably detailed arguments about sourcing and due/undue coverage, it's not an uncontroversial change to be made via the Edit Request Template. PianoDan (talk) 17:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

New York Magazine coverage of deceptive personal behavior

Should there be any mention, per the New York Magazine article, of Huberman misleading romantic partners and engaging in serial infidelity? Proposed text: "In 2024 New York Magazine published an article which included claims by multiple women that Huberman was romantically deceptive and engaged in serial infidelity." Here is the original article: New York Magazine Here are examples of subsequent coverage in other sources Guardian 1 Guardian 2 The Byte The Verge The Independent Daily Mail DolyaIskrina (talk) 18:03, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi DolyaIskrina. I removed the RfC tag and re-titled this section. RfCs are meant to be tier-2 dispute resolution, used only if local discussion can't reach consensus. This looks like a fresh proposal. Let's give local discussion some time. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm all for whatever gets us to consensus sooner, but I've seen mostly stonewalling and confusing WP:GOSSIP for anything that is salacious as opposed to something that is poorly sourced. This is well sourced, so the real debate should be about WP:DUE, not whether or not it is gossip. DolyaIskrina (talk) 20:44, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

"In 2024 New York Magazine published an article which included claims by multiple women that Huberman was romantically deceptive and engaged in serial infidelity." DolyaIskrina (talk) 21:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

And about his lab? BanishedRuler (talk) 03:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The current text about his lab at the bottom of the "Academic Career" section covers that. I would put my proposed text at the bottom of the "Podcast" section. DolyaIskrina (talk) 15:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Now can I open an RfC? I'd love advice on the most sanguine wording. DolyaIskrina (talk) 03:49, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

You don't need someone's permission or consensus to start an RfC. However, WP:BLP sanctions do apply if it goes wrong multiple times. Given that your first RfC was rejected and that numerous warnings and issues related to WP:FRINGE and WP:BLP have already been highlighted on your talk page, I think the community would like to hear from someone more familiar with the WP:BLP policies. That's why there was not much input on WP:BLPN. Weilins (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

How do you know "that's why there was not much input on WP:BLPN" It seems to me that there is a lot of discussion going on somewhere without any transparency on this topic. Was that discussion on reddit or wikipedia? DolyaIskrina (talk) 15:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Weilins: There was ZERO input on BLPN. That's a whole different thing than "not much input", there was absolutely zero. The post to BLPN was ignored or overlooked. Who knows why? You are just making wild guesses at this point, and it's not productive. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 06:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Including a well writen sentence or two should not infringe BLP policy, as the allegations are reported by multiple reputable sourcess and are now part of his publick image. BanishedRuler (talk) 02:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

It appears that every one of those sources simply refer to the original accusations from the New York Magazine article without really adding anything of substance. Even in that article it's a he said she said situation which is why I think others (and myself) believe WP:GOSSIP applies. I am still learning the ins and outs of Wikipedia editing but I see this was brought up and shut down on BLPN so I am not sure I understand why it's being brought up here again? FlamesJanko (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't "shut down" on BLPN. It simply wasn't commented on. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• It's a big Meh from me. A sentence or two on this is harmless enough, but seems to add little knowledge to the topic. The folks at WP:BLPN might have something to say? Bon courage (talk) 17:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  That's what I'm a bit confused about. When looking at this talk page about the same discussion above (nymag/treatment of women), it was mentioned that this was already brought to WP:BLPN and closed. Why is it being discussed here again and possibly being thrown into BLPN once more for the same reason? FlamesJanko (talk) 19:31, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  Oooh, I forgot that. Got a link? Bon courage (talk) 19:38, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  I only know because it was mentioned by the person who posted it in this talk page (looks like they were also the person who submitted it to WP:BLPN), I went looking and found it in the archive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive360#Andrew_Huberman FlamesJanko (talk) 20:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  Oh, no substantive discussion there then (so nothing to close). Bon courage (talk) 20:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Since no one is saying this as a problem per BLP, and since this is officially no longer an RfC, I'm thinking about putting the text onto the page and letting people change it there.DolyaIskrina (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

It seems like that's the opposite of what's being said with it not having any worthy discussion on BLPN. Everything around this is focused on the NYM piece that was rejected months ago and described as "a huge quivering mass of gossip-sociopathy-sperm-drenched-ick-revenge." right here on this talk page. Pastillawheel (talk) 17:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

None of that is a policy concern. Nobody on BLPN was concerned about it. It's covered in RS. So there needs to be a reason to exclude it besides "I don't like it." DolyaIskrina (talk) 18:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

My understanding is that BLPN didn't take it up because the issue was already settled here on the Talk page when it was brought up the first time. Pastillawheel (talk) 18:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

That is incorrect. Nobody commented on BLPN. DolyaIskrina (talk) 19:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Pastillawheel, it's odd to me that there is this opinion that something happened over on BLPN that didn't. If you are getting your information from some outside wikipedia source, like, say reddit, please read: WP:CANVASSING. DolyaIskrina (talk) 19:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

There is a link to the the BLPN archive of it right above in this same conversation, I can actually see the link while I type here: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive360#Andrew Huberman

If you're referring to where I got my information about it being discussed, please read what I wrote again more carefully. It was discussed on THIS talk page, here is an anchor link to it: Talk:Andrew Huberman#Huberman and suspected mistreatment of Women Pastillawheel (talk) 19:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes I opened it on BLPN and nobody commented. It's now being spun on off wikipedia locations that this is somehow determinative, but it isn't. There is no policy reason to exclude the text. If you have a policy based objection this is the place to raise it. DolyaIskrina (talk) 20:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

There is enough opposition here, so I'd recommend that you take the WP:RFC route if you still want to include this. New York Magazine didn't explicitly name the women who made these allegations, so there is no way for other sources to investigate it further (respect WP:BLPPRIVACY). The articles you shared are just regurgitated pieces based on NYM's article with no independent content. WP:BLPPUBLIC is pretty clear: If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. Weilins (talk) 20:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the policy reason! I disagree with your interpretation of "sources documenting the allegation." That doesn't mean multiple independent investigations. That would be a bar that practically no scandal could clear. Usually there is one paper that breaks the story, as in this case, and then other papers that agree that it was reporting of a quality that is worth risking repeating, which is what we have in this case. We have multiple editorial boards that feel the story is worth risking liability exposure. I admit that not all of my additional sources are great RS, but IMO enough of them are, plus the sheer number of them, to meet the requirement of "multiple sources." Cheers. DolyaIskrina (talk) 21:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind including it if, at some point, the women who made this allegation reveal their identities. At this stage, it is just too private and personal. WP:COMMONSENSE applies here: If the women had revealed their identities, other media publications might have approached them and would have covered the story independently, rather than just quoting verbatim what NY Magazine wrote. I think we should give this story some additional time to develop and respect the privacy of living people involved. If this is a fact, it will come out eventually. Wikipedia is meant to be factual and this isn't a fact yet. Weilins (talk) 15:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:COMMONSENSE doesn't mean we get to make up our own rules. We follow BLP which isn't about respect or factuality. Wikipedia is full of properly attributed exaggerations, falsehoods, myths, legends, and even slander, as is any encyclopedia. This isn't a courtroom. We definitely don't set up personal standards about what is or isn't a fact. That would be WP:OR. We include notable claims supported by reliable sources in accordance with policy and guidelines. DolyaIskrina (talk) 04:47, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Someone has tried this before and it was reverted and Arbcom sanctions were applied to this article ([1]). You should revisit this discussion and re-read this one. Enough editors have disagreed User:Bon courage, User:FortunateSons, User:Hemiauchenia ([2]), including myself. Unless women involved reveal their identity, there will be no consensus on including this. You have tried on WP:BLPN and here—both failed to develop any consensus. I'd suggest you drop the stick and possibly revisit it when there is better sourcing. I'm done here. Good luck! Weilins (talk) 16:02, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I think you are misrepresenting Bon courage's position. So it's you and two other editors establishing an arbitrary standard of "unless the women come forward." Seems like time for an RfC. DolyaIskrina (talk) 22:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, the above is a a bit of an absurd argument and kind of a stretch. Saying that the women need to be identified is not anywhere in Wikipedia policy.

Plenty of credible high-quality news outlets use unnamed interview subjects to generate stories. What matters is if the news organization itself is legitimate and reliable, and there are good reliable sources that do cover this issue well. Picking apart the articles for this reason or that reason doesn't really work, because if the sources are themselves considered generally reliable by Wikipedia standards, then they are usable and fine to cite and reference for making changes to the Andrew Huberman Wikipedia page. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 16:18, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I was wondering why you need to use a proxy to hide behind when you say all this? WP:LOUT is not allowed and such attempts won't help build any consensus because consensus is reached based on policy-based arguments, not by counting votes (WP:!VOTE). Weilins (talk) 14:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I'm not a user with a Wikipedia account.

You're making false accusations against two innocent people, and not assuming good faith. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 04:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I just pointed out a fact. Either change your network or increase your devices' security, so unknown people are not routing (potentially harmful) data through your devices. If somone (in future) does a cyber crime through your devices then you have to answer. You can't say "What are you talking about?" Better fix it now. Weilins (talk) 14:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I just pointed out a fact. Ahem, no. What you did was accuse me of editing while logged out, and without any evidence. I don't have a Wikipedia account. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 17:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

@Weilins: So let's have a policy-based discussion then, and drop the casting of aspersions.

Which Wikipedia policy, exactly, says that interviewed sources/subjects who wish to maintain their privacy must out themselves to be taken seriously by Wikipedia editors?

The whole point of having generally reliable media to draw on, is that credibility is determined based on journalistic and editorial integrity of said news organization. If the editorial process allowed an article to go to print, it means they fact-checked and vetted sources, etc. That's for the media to do. Our job as editors is to draw from these reliable sources. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 04:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

If NY Mag interviews some women and just post it verbatim then it is not a secondary source - it is a primary reference (see WP:INTERVIEW). If you have reliable secondary references where a credible journalist have written about this topic then please share the link with quote here. Weilins (talk) 14:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

@Weilins: The New York magazine piece didn't "interview some women and just post it verbatim". Have you read the article? It is a lengthy piece, not an interview. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 17:07, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to Add "Controversy" Section Regarding Sponsorship Ethics and Claims (Blue Light Glasses)

I propose adding a "Controversy" section to the article on Andrew Huberman, addressing criticism he has received regarding his endorsement of blue light blocking glasses.

This controversy revolves around Huberman's shift in opinion on the efficacy of blue light blocking glasses. Previously, he dismissed these glasses as largely ineffective, emphasizing that general bright light, rather than specifically blue light, impacts circadian rhythms and sleep. However, after entering a sponsorship agreement with a blue light blocking glasses brand, Huberman began promoting their purported benefits, including improved sleep quality, reduced cortisol levels, and enhanced mood.

Critics, including investigative journalist Scott Carney, have questioned whether financial motivations influenced this change, highlighting that many of these claims lack strong scientific support. Recent studies indicate that typical screen exposure to blue light is insufficient to significantly affect sleep or circadian rhythms. This situation raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest and the broader implications for trust and integrity in science communication.

For reference, here is a video summarizing the issue: Scott Carney's YouTube clip, Andrew Huberman is Lying to You.

I believe this addition would provide a balanced perspective on Huberman's public influence and the challenges of maintaining scientific objectivity in the context of sponsorships. Feedback on this proposal is welcome. Karolgie (talk) 12:40, 29 November 2024 (UTC)