The Cancelling of Andrew Huberman [video]

Even if an article on Wikipedia isn't overtly of a political nature, they (the inner-circle) conveniently decide what is a credible source on a per-article basis. I've seen plenty of pages where it's arbitrarily decided that some rando blog is a reliable source, and I've seen the opposite on pages about topics the inner-circle clearly doesn't like. Many pages that one would think would be low on bias read like they were written by a nu-atheist; the only real research papers are whatever has been cited by CNN at least once, and any new research that goes contrary to what "the science" has said for the last generation simply doesn't exist (aka "there is no evidence"). Wikipedia are happy to make their articles overly long and full of waffle, making simple topics overly dense, but simultaneously ignore information that adds nuance. The system, whether intentional or not, serves to confuse.

As for Huberman, incoming attacks on him are in some part self induced. I don't think it's as simple as "they hate him because he sat in the same room with Joe Rogan." He is a neurobiologist who speaks on a wide variety of topics as if he is an expert in all of them, and he promotes many ideas that actually do lack enough evidence to give sound recommendations. For instance, he spoke of substances like tongkat ali and fadogia agrestis as if they actually show promise in humans, while failing to clarify that all we have are poor quality rat studies, and that the latter substance is toxic. Of course his defenders will say that he never explicitly told anyone to take those things, but here's the thing; his whole brand is built around how you can "optimize your health", which is really code for "buy our supplements". Of course, Huberman is smart and makes deals with other supplement companies rather than overtly slap his face on pill bottles.

I can’t be bothered to watch a long, rambling video. But… if they’re just saying that Wikipedia has some negative takes on Huberman— that doesn’t count as “cancellation” in my book.

Huberman talks authoritavely on things he does not understand for a living. Too bad its being done with guilt by assocciation, but good riddance.

Oh is this because of poly?