Supplementary Material 3: Sand-worms, Anti-Capitalist Merch, and High Level Idea-Jacking
We test the boundaries of the Supplementary format with a stacked third edition containing: Matt's Review of Dune 2 and the Three-Body ProblemHasan Piker's Anti-Capitalist MerchThe Controversy Surrounding Andrew HubermanDifferential Charity and Selective DecouplingGrace before meals at Triggernometry and Christian HipsterismJordan and Bret's Pseudoacademic-eseHigh-Level Idea JackingDream InstructionsLinksHasan Piker's Ideologie StoreNew York Magazine: Andrew Huberman's Mechanisms of ControlSlate: So, Should You Trust Andrew Huberman?The Darien Gap & Postmodernism | Bret Weinstein & Jordan Peterson | EP 434Triggernometry: Can We Live Without Religion? - Alex O'ConnorImmune: A Journey into the Mysterious System that Keeps You AliveThe full episode is available for Patreon subscribers (1hr 33mins).Join us at: https://www.patreon.com/DecodingTheGurus
Hello and welcome to Decoding the Gurus, with me, the anthropologist Chris Kavner, and him, the psychologist Matthew Brown, looking into the guru's sphere and trying to discern its mysteries from the movement of the heavenly spheres.
How was that for a radio-style introduction, Matt?
Do you approve?
That was all right, but you forgot to mention this was the supplementary materials.
That was the key part that you needed to mention.
I was laying that up for you.
I was just giving you something to say.
But that's true.
This is supplemental, supplementary, whatever you prefer, materials.
The little cake at the end of the meal.
Yes, yes.
I think I'm going to enjoy this segment.
It's, you know, the pressure's off.
It's not serious business.
It's not a proper decoding episode.
We're not seeking to educate.
You know, people can do the ironing.
There's nothing of value.
There's nothing of value.
We're not going to say anything useful for anyone.
You may as well just hang it up.
This is purely to keep your company on a long drive or when you're doing the ironing or something like that.
That's the goal.
If you're running now, faster.
Go faster.
Way, way, slacking off.
Speed up.
That's right.
Ignore the pain.
Run through it.
Yeah, come on.
The gurus would do it.
Just think of David Goggins or whatever.
One of those guys.
Or Jocko.
Imagine Jocko is behind you.
Say, run, run, run.
Yep.
He's slapping your butt as you go.
Faster, faster.
Yeah, if you slow down.
That's what happens.
So there you go.
That's motivation for those who save us for exercise activities.
That's done.
And for those of you ironing, Chris, make it into a game.
See how many shirts and undies you can iron in a 10-minute window.
Count them.
And then see if you can improve on that score.
Wow, that's gamifying.
That's psychology in action.
Matt's available for your nudge whenever.
I could do public talks, whatever you need me for.
There's lots of tips.
I've got a whole box of them.
Yeah, Ted will become calling.
Well, we've got many things on the slate that we'll look at today.
And just to be clear, Matt...
I'm going to make another public service announcement for people.
These supplementary materials are about half an hour or so we put out on the main feed.
The rest of it goes onto the Patreon.
There's usually about an extra hour.
Originally, we tried to keep the intro segments to around 30 minutes.
So, you know, just think about it like that.
The intro segment is now the separate bit that you get.
Just as usual, it's own little intro thing, easy to skip.
And if you want more intro goodness, go over to the Patreon and pony up the $2.
Or don't.
That's it.
See if we care.
Yeah, exactly.
You're not going to stop us.
You can't.
So, yep, that's it.
I'm just telling people because they might be freaked out whenever the paywall music or whatever comes down.
But there is a way.
There is a way that they can access it.
So that's what I want to let them know.
Don't panic.
Don't panic.
Yeah.
You still have options.
And you're actually not losing things.
You're getting things.
Think about it like that.
Come on, take a more positive mindset, okay?
There's a way that you can hear more of us.
There was no way before.
There was no way before.
Now there is a way.
All right.
That's enough of that, Chris.
That's enough of that.
What have you got for us?
We've got a few things on our agenda.
We have a list of things to meander through.
But don't go through it, Matt, because we might not get through all of them.
So we'll...
Oh, yeah, this is the one that our programming note.
If you want to see the things that we're going to talk about, look at the show notes.
Okay?
You can see what's listed there.
Or you can look at these bookmarks, which I put in every episode, which tell you all of the segments that are in.
So you can just look at the bookmarks now and be like, oh, look, they're going to talk about this, this, and this.
And yeah, it's all clear for you.
There are bookmarks available in all good podcast players.
Yeah, that's information, especially for the boomers out there.
You probably don't know this.
You don't know how to do it.
Yeah.
Well, one thing we're definitely going to get to is my hot take about the three-body problem and Dune part two.
I've got opinions and I'm not going to stop recording.
Do it, Matt.
Let's start there.
Yeah, that's a nice positive note to start things.
I'm going to take us down as we go on.
So let's start with something fun.
Yeah, all right.
All right.
Let's ease people into it.
You've seen Dune 2, haven't you, Chris?
What did you think of it?
I thought that Dune 2 was very impressive atmospherically in terms of the stylistic components.
And it gave me what I wanted, which was more...
Of the sandy planet and the space opera-style intrigue from the first movie.
I already know the story because I read...
I didn't read the books.
I read the summaries of all the books.
So I already know what is going to happen.
But that was interesting.
But it didn't give me much beyond that, I will say.
It was not like Lord of the Rings or something where I feel that it was a kind of revolutionary...
Experience and filmmaking or that kind of thing.
It was very competent, very enjoyable, good space opera, but not particularly revolutionary or deep.
That's the way I would put it.
Yeah, I'm on board with all that, but I'm interested to hear you say that it wasn't like Lord of the Rings because I'd say it was very much like Lord of the Rings adaption because very polished.
I think very faithful to the books in terms of capturing like an interpretation of the vibe, the feel, the aesthetic, all that stuff.
So just like I really enjoyed the Lord of the Rings movies because they brought the books that I've read many times to life in pretty much the same way as I envisaged them.
I think my visualization of the Dune books, and I've read the whole series twice, by the way, Chris, twice.
Oh, wow.
Yeah.
As a much younger person.
But, you know, I don't think I had as strong of visuals in my head when I was reading them.
But, you know, the way that they imagined it felt completely accurate to me.
Yeah.
Well, I guess the way I would put it, I don't mean to say that it wasn't fearful to the books.
I know there's some differences and whatnot, but I think the general vibe is that they did a very good job of, you know, converting the book into the media film.
But...
The difference that I mean with Lord of the Rings is, you know, if you look at the Lord of the Rings movie, a hell of a lot happens in the space of the two to three hours that is going on.
They cram in a lot.
It feels like there's, you know, a kind of very dense package of information, whereas Dune felt more like taking their time to atmospherically create the situation.
And I don't know, it just, I feel that the thematic, Components of it are not particularly hard to grasp.
I mean, that's also the case with Lord of the Rings.
But like, so religious fundamentalism can be bad or people that are messiahs can create atrocities and death and there are no completely good or evil.
People, apart from the Harkonnens, in some respect.
But you know what I mean?
I don't know.
It just struck me as a pretty straightforward, oh, this guy is going to be the Messiah, but watch out!
There's a lot of signs that him being the Messiah might lead to some trouble.
That's it, right?
That's essentially all that happens.
And you could say in Lord of the Rings, well, they just take a ring from here.
Go for a long walk, basically.
Yeah, but there's other...
The complexities there, you know, Smeagol and all that kind of thing.
I just, I don't know.
Maybe if you read the book, you're getting a lot of the, you know, the depth, which isn't so obvious to somebody that's only seen the film.
But yeah, that just struck me as like a pretty straightforward story.
And I enjoyed it as such.
But I saw people, including the director, kind of responding to the point that, you know, He wanted to signpost that Paul Atreides is not the pure, heroic figure.
There were some concerning aspects about the devotion of his following.
I thought he hammered that into the ground, like, repeatedly.
It's very, very clear about that message, but apparently...
For a lot of people.
That was subtext.
That was subtext.
So, yeah.
You've got to feel sorry for these directors.
They make it so obvious yet still.
But look, I mean, that's all true, I guess.
I think one way in which the Dune books are a little bit more interesting than The Lord of the Rings.
I mean, The Lord of the Rings has its own great aspects to it.
And they're similar in the sense that they're sort of epic tales and they're kind of taking a medieval...
Real-world historical tropes and putting them into an unfamiliar situation, which is what fantasy and sci-fi often does.
You're right.
And even though doing this set in a science fiction, it's very much great houses and palace intrigue and that kind of thing.
So it is like a medieval heel, just with big spaceships and planets instead of territories and ships.
The evocation of the Middle Ages goes beyond just the fact that it's kind of this neo-feudal type situation with a relatively weak sort of emperor type king person and all of the various barons and houses vying for control.
As well as that, the sort of mercantilism and the way the economy sort of worked in the Middle Ages is brought in too.
They didn't have the Chome Corporation in there, Combiner Honnet or the Advance of Mercantiles.
One of my favorite things.
But even the navigators who are a guild, the Tlaxo and so on, the sort of Catholic Church is there with the B 'nai Jusseret.
You know, like, it all sort of mirrors that sort of late Middle Ages guild-based mercantilism where, you know, you essentially have monopolies of things that are controlled by certain organizations which are sort of a power base in and of themselves.
Yeah, I did get the subtle...
Parallels between spice and oil and the colonial trade in the Middle East across the Middle East.
Well, spice is spice, right?
Like in the late Middle Ages, spice was a big deal, right?
Well, yeah, yeah.
But I mean that those parallels were, again, it's not very subtle, right?
A bit like the Fremen are kind of like Arab.
People, right?
A little bit presented.
That's right.
And that's not subtle either.
No, that's right.
Just like the correspondence between the Benedict Cera and the Catholic Church is not subtle.
That's what I liked about it.
Like Lord of the Rings, it's epic, it's cool.
I love everything about it.
It's huge world building.
But as a narrative arc, it's very much just good versus evil, right?
Pretty much every group is either on the good side or on the evil side.
There's relatively few people who are.
Smeagol.
Smeagol.
Morally ambivalent.
Well, Smeagol.
Yep.
But that's not real life, right?
That doesn't ring true.
And the sort of thing I kind of like about the Dune universe is that, you know, yes, you do have the obligatory bad guys, the Harkonnens, and they do make out the Atreides are loyal.
You know, brave and all that stuff.
But I like the aspect of it, of how there's a lot of moral ambiguity to it.
And for me, the main story is...
And this is different from how most people online seem to read it and even how you described it, which is this kind of like a moral warning, you know, like watch out for power is corrupting or like messianic religion, you know, jihads and so on is going to create lots of trouble, you know, that's a bad thing.
But for me, I saw it more as like a commentary on how like you have this fine balance of powers.
You know, in this world with all of these different power bases vying for control.
The emperor's trying to keep his control of all of these powerful houses.
The houses are trying to one-up each other.
The various guilds have got their own agendas.
So it's a delicate system and everyone's kind of edging closer to the precipice.
And they set up the conditions for Paul Atreides to essentially be the catalyst for this cataclysmic...
But, you know, it's unintentional kind of on all parts, but basically they lose control of the situation and everything goes to shit.
And I think that's a good, like, that's a more subtle and interesting narrative arc to me than just good triumphing over evil.
Yeah, I guess so.
I mean, I like the stuff it gets to with the golden path eventually and the potential issue if you were a...
Omniscient, clairvoyant or whatever, who could see all the potential pathways and you realize that the one that lets humanity survive requires incredible bloodshed and totalitarian repressive.
I think that is interesting and potentially more morally complex than the Lord of the Rings story or whatnot.
So I can see that, Matt.
Yeah, there's...
But you mentioned the free body problem.
What's the connection with that?
Yes.
And I should say, I'd largely...
I agree, essentially, with your take on June.
I enjoyed it.
You know, it's a nice story.
It looked great, good tone and all that stuff.
A good movie, but still fundamentally just kind of a typical story, right?
Yeah.
Despite all the sci-fi stuff.
Yeah, yeah.
The three body problems.
And look, a lot of science fiction books are like that too.
Like, they're basically space operas, right?
Yeah.
A big, big rollicking adventure, but, you know, it's just a story in the end.
You very rarely in science fiction come across books that are new and different.
And, yeah, The Three-Body Problem, the series of novels by, what's his name, Liu Chixin, apologies for the pronunciation.
I read that a few years ago and, you know, I had really mixed feelings about it because the commentary that people have had about the adaption that's come on Netflix was similar to my feelings about the book, which is like the dialogue felt wooden.
The characters didn't feel kind of real.
And even though there were lots of, it was just very interesting the way it followed, like it was all about these interesting ideas.
It starts off with the Cultural Revolution in China, and it's very much a Chinese, China sort of centric story, even though the rest of the world is involved too.
But it involves so many strange things, like this virtual reality computer game and these...
Strange aliens from a trisolaris system who are coming to Earth and weird new technologies and fifth columns and all sorts of stuff.
And it spans hundreds of years.
So the feeling you get from reading it is not only very interesting, like it brings in ideas like the sort of dark forest idea of how interstellar civilizations are all keeping quiet because of game theory and stuff.
If you say, hello, we're here, then you'll sort of almost certainly get...
Yeah, more powerful civilization, yeah.
Yeah, yeah.
And all of that is sort of communicated in a pretty compelling way.
So, I mean, I am enjoying the Netflix series too.
I don't think you've seen it, but for me, it is actually a pretty good adaption so far of the book.
And while I've seen it criticized for exactly the same reasons that I...
The sort of things that left me cold about the book.
But, like, that's okay.
That's what science fiction's about.
Like, if you want good characterization and sort of, like, people's inner lives, then go read Lady Shadley's Lover or Madame Bovary or something.
This is a hot take.
This is a hot take.
Okay, so your argument is, like, science fiction isn't meant for...
Yes, because it's very hard to do everything at once.
Like, science fiction is known for being bad at this, right?
And look, in an ideal world, and maybe some genius...
There are some exceptions.
There are famous exceptions to this, but yes.
Yeah, I mean, but it's just very hard to keep all of those balls in the air and sort of do everything at once, you know?
So, science fiction usually compromises and focuses on interesting ideas and strange situations.
And that is often at the expense of characterization and stuff.
Well, I can give you an example of this because there's a series of novels by Adrian Tchaikovsky.
Tchaikovsky, is that how you pronounce it?
Anyway, Children of Time, I think, is the first one.
Love them.
Right, yeah.
And this is basically, the thing is, there are evolved spiders in it that become intelligent and later other creatures, right?
And you get from their viewpoint.
So that's interesting.
But exactly what you said.
I find that very interesting initially, but it basically ends up that the spiders are essentially weird humans because it's hard to keep a story where you have a completely alien viewpoint if you are a human writing it.
So, yeah, you know, it's still a decent story, but I think the spider and other alien aspect ends up just being very human-like at the end.
So, yeah, I stand off on that take.
Oh, wait.
Just hold your thought.
Just before you do, because this will be really quick.
You mentioned spiders, yeah?
I did, yeah.
And spider civilizations in science fiction.
And it would be remiss of me to let that go past without mentioning A Deepness in the Sky by Verna Vinge, a sequel to Fire Upon the Deep, which also involves intelligent spider civilizations.
And it is very good.
Very, very, very, very, very good.
Very difficult to find an audiobook format, though, I will say.
But that's neither here nor there, Matt.
And I will say the culture war, the way that they have reacted to this is there's a very visceral portrayal of the cultural revolution in China with a physicist being executed on stage and made to denounce science in favor of the revolutionary ideology.
And it's a very...
Emotionally effective portrayal of that situation.
And as a result, because it's the communists doing very bad things to intellectuals, it was culture war fodder.
Fodder.
Culture war fodder.
For people to say, look, communists were terrible.
This is what it was like.
And so on.
So that's all I've seen of the problem.
Well, the Cultural Revolution was terrible.
Yeah.
And, you know, that was accurate.
And, you know, even, I mentioned to you, I forgot his name, he's the current Chinese premier, super leader.
Xi Jinping.
Xi Jinping.
Like, even his family, his parents were hit by exactly the same kind of thing.
It was just so common across all of Chinese society.
You know, traumatic, essentially, for such a huge number of people.
So I actually really liked that integration into the story, Chris, because I think there was a deep message there.
Because in the three-body problem, basically the traumatic experiences that the protagonist, the female scientist, experienced as a result of the Cultural Revolution sort of led to a deep mistrust and pessimism about humanity and our culture and our potential for whatever.
And that...
That's had led her to a kind of a nihilistic thing.
So I thought that actually fit pretty well.
And as, you know, I've read opinion pieces about, sorry, the Chinese leader's name again?
Xi Jinping.
You know, I've read opinion pieces about him saying that his kind of obsession for control and a tendency towards a more authoritarian approach to running China.
I mean, it could be psychoanalyzing a bit, but people have speculated that that is...
At least partially due to not wanting to have that time of chaos again and to not let the dangers of losing your grip over the country can lead to that kind of chaos.
It's a theory.
It's a theory.
A bit too analytical for me, but I'm sure it's at least part of the contributing factors.
I don't know if it's true.
I remember it was a reputable article that I'd read.
I think I read it too, actually.
This all rings a bell for me.
The final thing I'll say about that, though, is that I think you've also got to make a bit of an allowance in terms of what feels like wooden dialogue and what feels like non-identifiable characters.
A lot of it could be the fact that it's kind of lost in translation.
I've noticed this a bit in reading books that were originally in Japanese.
Translated from Chinese?
Yeah, so you've got both the cultural differences, but on top of that, the sort of translation.
Well, you're a free-body problem apologist, Matt.
That's fine.
That's all right.
I think that's a relatively uncontroversial stance to take.
And actually, I do have something that relates, you know, while we're on the subject of cultural revolutions and potential apologists for various regimes involved.
And we have recently discussed someone who is tanky-ish or tanky-adjacent, Hassan Piker.
You remember him?
He's been up to something that I thought would be worth mentioning.
I remember his friend.
Our favorite anti-capitalist.
What a guy.
What a guy, what a guy.
So I think this just merits a short mention that I saw him promoting.
I don't know if it's new or it's just a new line, but he has like a brand of merchandise called...
Ideology.
It's a bit like the, you know, what is it?
I'm thinking about that spoof movie about the modeling industry.
Oh, Zoolander?
Yeah, yeah.
there's some homeless chic thing that he's promoting oh god yeah oh yeah what was that called uh derelict derelict yeah derelict from zoolander so a bit like that but the interesting
thing but i think i already know i can hear a thousand at the camplist wheeling getting ready to send me the meme of the guy jumping out of the well and
The one meme of a guy jumping out of a well does not answer every question.
No, it does not.
So it's essentially a line of hoodies that if you told me that this was like, you know, a movie and it was parodying an anti-capitalist, I would say it's too on the nose.
But he's released a set of shirts with messages like corrupt collusion collapse.
We're doing a coup.
Capitalism in decay.
Capitalism seems to be doing Fine, on that website.
Spend $100, get one free.
He's got a nice shirt there.
Capitalism is voluntary, which is definitely true, I think, in this case.
$65 for that.
And, you know, so this is more than just like the obligatory merch shop that some podcasters do.
Like, this is like a fashion line.
An anti-capitalist fashion.
Yeah, of overpriced basic shirts and sweat sweaters and things like that with edgy communist slash anti-capitalist slogans on them.
And they're all modelled by him.
He's the model for every item on this website.
Right, so now let me explain a little bit to people who don't get this.
Yes, it's perfectly fine to be a socialist or somebody highlighting the issues with capitalism and not being living in a hovel in the ground, you know, a house that you fashion together from twigs and sticks.
Yes, that's correct.
It's perfectly reasonable to be critical of economic systems and to exist within them.
What is hypocritical?
Is being a hyper-capitalist.
Like somebody who is a millionaire living in a mansion house with luxury cars and releasing overpriced t-shirts that are selling slogans against capitalism while you profit mightily from those.
Like, there are degrees, right?
We have a category in the Garometer which is called excessive profiteering.
People recognize this.
When it comes to their ideological opponents.
But for some reason, when it comes to...
Well, for some reason, because they like, you know, the political ideology.
For a very obvious reason.
Yes, go on.
They give people like Hassan a pass and they...
Universal responses that trot out the little cartoon of the guy popping out of the well.
But the guy popping out of the well wasn't popping out to sell you his brand of t-shirts.
I mean, it is beyond parody.
It is absolutely on the same level of Zoolander, of some fashion house releasing a line called Derelict.
To raise attention to issues faced by homeless people.
Like, that's basically the deal.
I mean, this is socialism slash communism, anti-capitalism, as just a fashion statement.
And that sums up Hassan Piker perfectly, in my opinion.
Yeah, yeah, that's it.
So, there you go.
I just did Warren Short mention.
And, you know, if you really like what Hassan is selling, And you think that he's doing, you know, a lot of good.
Why don't you go have a look?
There's lots of good fashion.
They've got a good message on it.
You know, we'll put the link in the show notes.
So there we go.
We're doing our part to take down the capitalist system, okay?
So don't get annoyed with us.
Oh, very good.
Good on you.
Well, there's Hassan.
There's Hassan.
Let's stop talking about him.
I want to forget about him again.
I'm so happy not thinking about him.
Get back, Hasan, back into your well.
Now, the other thing that happened, which was quite notable recently, Matt, is that there was a very long article released about one Andrew Huberman by the New York,
what's that, the New York Magazine?
I believe it is.
The cover story was called Following for Dr. Huberman by Kerry Howley.
Now, as the title suggests, This is a rather critical piece.
It essentially covers Huberman's personal relationships, yes, but also alleges that he's oversold his backstory about his troubled upbringing and humble beginnings.
That he is not running a productive lab as presented.
There doesn't seem to be much going on at Stanford.
And generally, he is presented as a relatively narcissistic, flaky person, quite self-obsessed.
But the main issue which got attention was that he is revealed to have been simultaneously dating six women while making them Believe that they are dating exclusively, monogamously,
right?
And this includes sharing living arrangements with one of them and also having them undergo IVF fertility treatments, right, to try and increase the chance to get pregnant.
So this is seen as being somewhat counter to the image which he has tried to develop.
Of a considerate, very thoughtful, you know, compassionate science guy.
As he comes across in the piece, it presents him like sort of sociopathic, right?
Somebody that is perfectly content with manipulating six people simultaneously.
And there's other weird things about one of the points made is that he is encouraging unprotected sex with his partners.
Divulging to them all the other activities that he's engaged in and one of them gets a sexually transmitted disease, right?
Yeah, insisting on unprotected sex while at the same time secretly having sex with a lot of other people.
Yeah.
Now, the reaction to this piece has been rather varied.
One category of reaction is to say, this is just a hit piece.
It's digging through the dirt, bringing up ex-girlfriends and their...
You know, stories.
And there's always he said, she said aspects to this.
And what does this really have to do with the content that Huberman is pointing out?
Like, isn't this just gossip, right?
Tabloid level gossip.
That's been one reaction.
What do you think about that, Matt, as a argument?
Well, I think I saw something with someone who described it as, I guess, definitive as not judging people for A polyamoric lifestyle, which seems to be, you know, a fairly blatant rebranding,
you know, like a 1950s madman territory.
You'd simply call someone like this a womanizer or, you know, a creep.
But you can't just say, well, I've unilaterally declared that I'm a member of a polycule.
He's in an involuntary polycule.
He's created a...
And people pointed out that, like, the New York mag has...
Positive articles about polyamorous relationships.
But the key point there is that people in polyamorous relationships, whatever you think about them, everybody is supposed to be informed that they're in a polyamorous relationship.
That seems key.
That does seem key.
Yeah, that is generally something stressed.
So when it is one person who is in the know that they're in multiple simultaneous relationships and the other are unaware...
Then that's not the same as the polyamorous ideal, right?
What about the fact, Matt, that it's irrelevant?
That, you know, this is just personal gossip.
We all have things in our lives that we wouldn't want discussed in public.
So why are we digging through the garbage on Huberman's personal relationships?
That's right.
It's just salacious gossip.
He's doing nothing more than putting that expensive testosterone replacement therapy to good use.
What's the point of being an alpha if you don't get what you want?
Yeah, some people, I believe some of his fans did mention the charming phrase, Chadramming.
He's just chadramming or whatever the case might be.
He's a millionaire, Matt.
He's a super influential man.
He's very handsome and rugged and virile.
And so what?
He chooses to, you know, lead on six women?
What are we?
Moralizing church Nazis?
This is too anti-24.
A person, an individual can do what they want, right?
People can do what they want.
Yeah, look, I mean, look, there is obviously an aspect to it, which is...
Yeah, a personal hit piece in a way, you know what I mean?
It may be a well-founded hit piece, but, you know, just like with, say, Donald Trump, you know, and the various personal revelations that occurred there.
At one level, it is about him personally, and it isn't about his policies or whatever, but people still consider it relevant.
So, yeah, look, I mean, for me, I guess, I do take, like, I'm not such a high decoupler that I'm going to take anything.
That is like the various bits of information you have about somebody's background, about the kind of people they associate with, the way they conduct themselves and their personal lives.
I mean, a lot of this stuff can be relevant when you're forming an opinion about someone and way before these revelations.
I mean, this doesn't really change our evaluation of...
No.
Very much at all, because we identified a whole bunch of issues that we've got with his approach to his podcasting career.
Science communication.
And science communication and the way he evaluates literature and his somewhat disturbing connections to the Wu Health and, you know, Maximizer, Alpha Male, Manosphere type thing, which he kind of, yeah, he has like a dual personality in his public broadcast,
which is presenting himself as...
You know, a very normal, a very respectable researcher and not just a manosphere bro pushing woo health and supplements.
And, you know, so for me, this further information about his personal life, while you have to treat it with, you know, you don't necessarily assume that everything that is written is 100% true.
Yeah, it does fit with the less charitable interpretation that you and I had about his activities.
Yeah, so to me, there...
Is validity to the criticism that, one, the piece is overwritten.
It's extremely long.
I would say 10,000 words or more.
And it gives a lot of detail as a result.
You know, it at times feels like, what is the point of this four paragraphs you've spent on a particular issue?
And I think there's legitimate points to be raised there.
But one aspect that I would want to emphasize is that...
It isn't just a matter of he said, she said.
For a magazine like this to publish this kind of piece, they would have done fact-checking.
And the story that they are recounting involves people receiving messages, receiving videos, and so on.
And they indicate in the piece that they have confirmed via these sources.
And the fact that they have multiple sources giving the same account from different perspectives means it isn't just...
He said, she said.
So anything that's in that piece will have been checked to make sure it's not actionable, right?
That they have reason to support it.
And similarly, that's why they provide the responses from Huberman's spokesperson consistently, like denying things and then saying where the evidence contradicts what has been said there.
So it isn't just the case of he said, she said.
Yes, it doesn't mean that you should take every account that's provided.
Every quotation by the women as the God's honest truth and the exact objective presentation of what happened.
But it is also not the case that everything is just equally as likely.
No, it definitely seems that there was a misrepresentation of exclusivity with these women.
Now, that's one thing.
But the other is that...
People are mistaking this as, so if somebody has six girlfriends, we shouldn't be able to heed their health advice.
And no, that's not the point.
The point is somebody who presents themselves in a certain way and then has a personal life which suggests a completely different character than is presented to the public.
That is what is usually considered hypocritical, right?
You know, like the preacher saying gay people are an abomination and then sleeping with gay prostitutes, right?
It's the delta between their public persona and what they are actually engaged in.
That's, I think, part of the thing that people are missing.
So Huberman's presentation of himself as a very down-the-earth...
Humble science guy who is producing content about resisting giving in to temptation, about treating people with respect, about how to form meaningful relationships.
And then you get a piece which is essentially detailing a litany of abusive, manipulative relationships.
And also, as part of that, using optimizer and therapeutic language to justify Your behavior, it speaks to a worrying disconnect between your public and private personas.
I think the analogy with the religious preacher who's got a dodgy personal life, that sort of holds with him a bit, doesn't it?
I mean, he's followed the line of a lot of our heterodox type influences in proclaiming relief in God and sort of finding religion.
That happened a few months ago, I think.
Yeah, and he has talked about, you know, the importance of honesty in relationships and all these kind of things.
In fact, Matt, there's a clip that's been doing the round where he was talking to David Buss, the evolutionary psychologist who talks about male and female relationship patterns and these kind of things.
And listen to this segment.
You can't have long-term affairs with six different partners.
Yeah, unless he's juggling multiple...
Phone accounts or something like that.
Right, right.
And some men try to do that, but I think it could be very taxing.
So that is a meme.
People, you know, inserted Kirby Enfusiasm music at the end, but that was them talking about, you know, men who would do this kind of thing about having different phone accounts and all that kind of stuff.
And Huberman's response to this was also interesting because he tweeted out, if you go and look at this account, he's just tweeted out some promotional stuff from the episode.
He hasn't said anything about it, except the episode that he released was one with a magician talking about, you know, the psychology of magic and whatnot.
And let's just listen to a segment of the clip that he used to promote the episode.
It's like falling out of love.
I mean, a previous guest on the podcast, Carl Diceroth, one of the best bioengineers, neuroscientists, and psychiatrists in the world, went on Lex Friedman podcast, and they were talking about love.
And Carl said something interesting that's very relevant here.
He said, he's a colleague of mine at Stanford, very poetic guy.
He said, you know, love between two people, romantic love, that is, is one of the few things, That's great.
And falling out of love involves, of course, the ending of the story moving forward, but also, in some cases, sadly, a revision
the event.
Yeah, so I wonder if there was any subtext to the choice of clips that he used there.
Yeah, yeah.
So he released that after this article came to light.
He hasn't responded to the article directly, but he released that.
No, he just released a clip indicating that when relationships end, people have a tendency to feel disappointed and revise their assessment.
Yeah, maybe revise the facts.
Yeah, yeah.
So, you know, that is a response I would take.
But the point there as well, Matt, if you assume that this was not planned as a response is, Huberman is often talking very sincerely.
About relationships and love and connection and human bonding and these kind of things with his audience, right?
So I feel that this is why some people would regard the revelations as being contradictory to that image that it cultivates.
And actually, although you can find immediately the heterodox fear, the kind of Lex Friedman extolling, you know, how much...
Andrew Huberman is a good man.
Scott Adams retweeting things about the media attacking him or whatever.
His subreddit actually does have a lot of people saying, well, this is just causing me to have a very different opinion of Andrew.
And it's fair to say there's also a clear gender divide in the responses where women have recognized the issue that his behavior indicates more readily.
Man, there does tend to be more, well, boys will be boys.
You know, he's a millionaire alpha.
What did you expect?
Yeah, yeah.
I mean, the way that the usual suspects and the podcasters, Stan, just join shoulder to shoulder on things like this every time something like this comes up.
Like Lex Fridman's response there was totally predictable from him.
And this is someone, Lex, you know, he's all about just pure love.
Love, honesty.
All of those things, schmaltzy, saccharine bullshit, frankly.
And of course, his response to this was, it's heartbreaking to see a hit piece written about my friend Andrew Huberman.
I know him very well and can definitively say that he is a great human being, scientist and educator.
Hit piece attacks like this are simply trash, clickbait, journalism.
Desperately, I can't read the rest because he's blocked me.
Clinging on to relevance, Andrew should be celebrated, period.
His podcast has helped millions of people, including me, Lead healthier lives.
Keep going, brother.
And that response is very illustrative.
But one thing to say, though, Matt, I'll just mention quickly, is like, so what, Lex?
And so what all these bros that are talking about Huberman's benefit?
That doesn't actually undo any of the things that are detailed in that page.
You can get benefit, but it isn't all about you and your workout routine, right?
That's like not the point of the article.
But in terms of Lex, it totally illustrates what you've said before, which is that his hyper-empathy and hyper-love is extremely selective.
And in this case, it's very selective in terms of being targeted at his mate.
Bro.
Bro.
And he'd be the same with Joe Rogan or any of these other people, but certainly would not extend it to other parties, I think.
Just trash, hit piece journalism.
Nothing to see here.
Yeah, and the other response that you see quite a lot is people beginning their take by saying, I haven't read the piece on Huberman, but it's very common that people don't read the piece.
They focus on their interpersonal relationship with Huberman.
I find them, they always be nice.
He's always been very kind and important to me.
And then, like you say, Relating it to where they see him as sitting in the culture war.
So if they're a heterodox, you know, like podcasting bro, then absolutely fine.
What's the issue?
And vice versa as well.
I feel like people have very, very flexible standards.
Another thing you said to me is that if it was like Ibrahim X. Kendi, about which these personal dealings had come to light, which didn't reflect well on him, They would not forego the opportunity to put the boot in, right?
Some consistent people might, but generally speaking, no.
And this thing in the general heterodox sphere about high decoupling and that kind of thing, it is very rarely practiced consistency.
So they do not take the arguments of people they dislike in isolation from the people.
That is very rare.
Somebody who they agree with, that has done something bad that they don't want to focus on.
Selective decoupling.
I've decided to brand this.
Selective decoupling.
Yes, selective decoupling is correct.
It is an epidemic at the minute.
Basically, the summary is that the piece presents somebody who engages in self-mythologizing, who's deceitful, uses therapy speak, or optimizing.
In order to justify self-gratification and fairly abusive behavior.
And that is completely contradictory to the public image that Huberman has attempted to cultivate.
And so it's notable for that reason.
It doesn't matter if Huberman wants to sleep around with tons of people.
That's all fine, you know.
And he has disagreements with his exes.
That's fine, but the reason that this piece is notable is because of the discrepancy between the public and private image that it details and some of the worrying, manipulative tendencies, right?
So, no, you don't have to stop listening to Huberman for your protocols if that's what you get, but you also perhaps should consider the people that you're getting your important life advice from, how far They exemplify the values that they're preaching about.
I think that does matter a little, but, you know, maybe some people, not at all.
Yeah, yeah, I mean, my final word on this is that, you know, we had our take of him and what his operation, modus operandi, is, and it was different from how he presented himself as being nothing more than, you know, a scientist and a public educator and somebody who is looking to promote health.
This new information, He's entirely consistent with our take on him and is inconsistent with the way he presents himself.
One last thing I'll say about the whole thing is there's a segment at the very end of the article where they detail him talking to a guy, Conti, I think it's a therapist, and particularly a therapist that Huberman has worked with.
And they're analyzing this email, which...
Huberman got, which he read as passive-aggressive, where some colleague, when he doesn't respond to an email in time, they guess he didn't want to collaborate on the topic.
And him and Paul Conti then spend around nine minutes on their podcast dissecting the psychological flaws in that person and, you know, what are all the issues that they have that are going into that kind of response.
And so this article represents that Huberman often.
Like, you know, doesn't respond to things in time or whatever, which is not a big sin.
But the point is willingness to analyze someone's character publicly for nine minutes on your podcast and then argue that, you know, well, nobody should be interested in any details about how you behave,
you know, interpersonally with people.
It feels like an inconsistency to me.
And the fact that him and the therapist don't consider...
Maybe the issue isn't with the other person.
Maybe there is a legitimate grievance or something like that.
That just speaks to some of the issues involved here and the different levels of charity being granted.
But that's it.
That's it, Matt.
And you don't have to think that the women involved are saints or any of that.
You don't have to take everything in trust.
Just take it for what it is.
A critical article which details some worrying.
Agreed.
Well, well, Matt, we were also discussing the tendency that you have seen across a whole bunch of figures in the guru sphere, especially the ones that cultivate a more conservative audience,
that they often turn out to, surprise, surprise, have developed a new appreciation for Christian values and religion.
Now, yes, their audience also tend to be more religious and find these things valuable, but that's just a coincidence, Matt.
It's really that they've done the intellectual work to consider the issue more thoroughly.
So you see this in...
Huberman has come out discussing his religiosity.
He's not perhaps one of the worst offenders, but Russell Brand...
More recently, discovering Christ and the Bible as very valuable sources.
You know, he always had an interest in mysticism and various Eastern traditions and whatnot.
But suddenly, Christianity, good old Christianity, it's become of more interest to him.
Yeah, more appealing.
He may have overlooked some of the important insights there.
And Constantine Kissin, also, he hasn't gone full bore of embracing Christianity.
But he has come out, at least on his sub-second what, declaring his lack of faith in new atheism, right?
And his growing appreciation for the importance of religiosity.
Maybe he was too quick to dismiss the importance of religion.
You know, Dave Rubin as well.
Who is the original cultural Christian?
If you'd like to continue listening to this conversation, you'll need to subscribe at patreon.com slash decodingthegurus.
Once you do...
You'll get access to full-length episodes of the Decoding the Gurus podcast, including bonus shows, gurometer episodes, and Decoding Academia.
The Decoding the Gurus podcast is ad-free and relies entirely on listener support.
Subscribing will save the rainforest, bring about global peace, and save Western civilization.
And if you cannot afford $2, you can request a free membership, and we will honor zero of those requests.
