Gurus and Halo Effects

We need to talk about the Huberman case

Gurus

A few days, ago, New York Magazine published a profile on Andrew Huberman — everyone’s favorite pop neuroscientist. It does not paint a pretty picture. Since polarization is the defining trait of social media culture, the response was predictable: Huberman’s fans (Huberfans?) dismissed the article as a vile hit piece. Others, who’ve never liked him or perhaps suffered the occasional pang of professional envy, felt vindicated.

Between those extremes lies a hinterland where few people wander. Nuance. Take a walk with me and let’s see what we find.

Actually, before we get going, I’m curious:

First, background.

Andrew Huberman is an associate professor of neurobiology and ophthalmology at Stanford University. He’s also the host of a podcast that skyrocketed to the stratosphere of social media success (5 million followers and counting on YouTube alone). In his podcast, he provides seemingly¹ scientific advice on various aspects of self-improvement. How does addiction work? What should your ideal morning routine look like? When should(n’t) you drink coffee? And so on².

Sounds good if you’re into that kind of thing. What’s the issue?

The New York Magazine piece offers a look into his off-screen (off-mic?) behavior. I can’t be sure about the veracity of all the claims, but in cases like these, women are all too easily dismissed by chest-pounding alpha males (who are mostly self-delusional, by the way). So, I’ll assume there are threads of truth in the article.

As he swiftly tiptoed up the Olympus of self-improvement gurus, Huberman collected a stable of girlfriends. He promised each one that he was monogamous so they engaged in unprotected sex with him. One of them started IVF treatments (also under the guise of monogamy) and, on top of that, had to deal with Hub’s anger outbursts — because she had children from a previous relationship(?!). Another woman claims that Huberman told her (his spokesperson denies this):

… that what he wanted was a woman who was submissive, who he could slap on the ass in public, and who would be crawling on the floor for him when he got home.

That… doesn’t sound like he’s actually looking for a relationship, right?

Halo effects

Huberman is a good podcaster. He has a soothing voice, is obviously very intelligent, doesn’t talk down to his audience, and is ruggedly handsome in a manly-man kind of way. No wonder people fall for him. What’s more, I’m sure his information, though not always accurate, has helped thousands of people develop, or at least explore, routines that benefit their health and well-being.

Huberman has done more for science communication than I will ever do. He makes neuroscience cool and inspires people to take control of their lives and/or pursue a career in science.

Hello, halo effect.

The halo effect is the deep-rooted cognitive bias that makes us think more highly of beautiful people than of others with equal capacities who don’t happen to look like a Greek god(dess). Being beautiful automatically makes people think you are smart, and kind, and made of sunshine and rainbows. This bias extends beyond physical beauty. People who excel at one thing are automatically assumed to be above average at other things as well.

Huberman is a talented, successful podcaster. Therefore, the halo effect tells our brains, his information is always correct, even if he ventures into areas where he has almost no expertise. Therefore he is a good man. Therefore the NY article is a hit piece. Therefore the quoted women are just jealous.

You see the problem. Huberman (merely an example of several podcasters/influencers in a similar position) finds himself resonating with a large adoring audience, among which many beautiful, accomplished, independent women who like his messages of self-improvement. And who can resist the guru himself? Huberman, perhaps buoyed by his success, can now indulge in the less salubrious parts of his psyche. Who’ll stop him? He’s not merely human, he’s Huberman (okay, that one was bad, I apologize).

That’s one of the two major defensive arguments of the Huberfans. All the good he’s done counts for something. If he has several girlfriends³, so what?

What irks me most about all this is the blatant disrespect he seems to have for women. If I read the NY piece, I interpret his actions as those of a man who is not looking for a partner, but is on a conquest to get laid with several beautiful women, whom he expects to be available to him at the snap of a finger while he brushes their needs and wants aside. If they voice their suspicions, he waves his halo at them and turns on the gaslights. That’s (even) more damning than having multiple girlfriends. I’m sure you’ve heard similar stories of plenty of ‘successful’ men. Do they even like women, I wonder?

So, burn Huberman at the stake?

Return to nuance land

Not quite.

Stella Tsantekidou

⁴, also on the Huberman case, has an interesting perspective: Huberman got shamed but not canceled, which might be the appropriate response.

I don’t know Andrew Huberman personally. Maybe he’s a great guy. Maybe the stress and pressure of being catapulted into a special kind of stardom got too much and, as it does in some people, it exploded outward into questionable behavior toward others. Maybe there are unresolved attachment issues. Maybe there are aspects of the story that we don’t know. Maybe parts of the NY piece are exaggerated. I am doing my best not to sit on hill High Morals here. I do not know, and cannot know, what led to Huberman’s behavior. All I can say is that if his behavior is represented accurately in the article, it is problematic to me.

That brings us to the second main defensive argument of the Huberfans. Despite my terrible pun earlier, Huberman is still human. A flawed human like the rest of us. What happens in his personal life is none of our business (true, I mumble while writing about it) and it doesn’t affect his work.

Hold up. I’m not convinced about that last one. ‘Do as I say, not as I do’ is an aphorism with some value. After all, nurses smoke more than other occupational groups and a lot of medical specialists engage in rather impressive levels of substance abuse. We get it. They’re stressed, overworked, and - for the nurses - dreadfully underpaid.

Huberman may be stressed and overworked too (definitely not underpaid…). What’s different here, beyond that he aims his coping behavior at others? Why might his personal life matter for his professional endeavors? There’s a whole related discussion about separating the art from the artist, but let’s stick to the case at hand. Millions of people look up to Huberman and hang on his every word. He’s done several podcast episodes on how to build healthy relationships, recommends supplements (from his show’s sponsor…), and claims integrity and honesty as important parts of his personal brand. He never asked to become anyone’s role model, but surely he’s aware that he is, no matter how much he may (dis?)like it.

So, does this dive into his relationship issues - ah, sweet drop of celebrity-obsessed culture - matter?

If the assertions in the article are true, part of the answer - to me - is yes, it matters. Why? Because if the NY piece reflects his true behavior, then he sees people as means, not ends⁵. (Dark triad, here we come?)

If he lies to, cheats on, and gaslights the women he claims to love, what makes you think he won’t do it to his audience?

1. Seemingly scientific, because several of his claims are on shaky grounds. Also, his podcast is sponsored by supplements (which he gladly recommends) that crumble under the first whiff of scrutiny.

2. Atchoo! Sorry, my ‘should’ allergy crops up from time to time.

3. Some of the chest-pounders we met earlier even see this as a sign of his ‘virility’. Sigh.

4. I always feel uncomfortably awkward tagging people — best intentions only, promise.

5. Kant would be so proud of me.