Talk:Andrew Huberman

Broken edit sat in lead for a long time

Someone should review this:

• This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Brianbounds (talk | contribs) at 11:43, 11 February 2019.

I'm going to take out the period, assuming this was all meant to belong to a single list, but it's really not clear this is good or accurate information to begin with. — MaxEnt 01:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC) .

Who is "Brianbounds"?

Most of the contributions to this Andrew D. Huberma n article is by someone who seems to have contributed to nothing else on Wikipedia and who has no page of his/her/their own. Curious. /Myron (talk) 00:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

This page reads like a commercial

Although its speculative, one contributor-editor and the tone of the page hints that the content is the result of paid promotion by the subject. That and the web search results prominence of this wikipedia page suggest a promotional campaign that potentially conflicts with the objective notability of the individual's bio. I'm not familiar with a wikipedia standard for article length vs. individual notability, but this page looks to me like it goes to far in the direction of personal / commercial promotion with resulting excessive length. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:285:8280:C8B0:9002:2F5B:BB9F:19C2 (talk) 17:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree probably for similar reasons. Lead needs trimming, minor awards needn't be mentioned (twice), and we should have selected works rather than exhaustive bibliography. Solipsism 101 (talk) 22:23, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Agree. The number of items on the list of pubs is currently standing at over sixty-five, and a note at the top suggests there’s more coming. That’s really quite ridiculous. For a quick comparison, I had a look at Stephen Hawking’s page. His academic pubs list is “selected” items only, and stands at a mere nine.12.219.111.130 (talk) 04:34, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Also agree. Someone is representing his funding sources as "awards". Almost all funding in science is in the form of "awards". Also someone is representing his research as "his". In fact, hes not the primary author on a lot of those papers. Other scientists on wikipedia don't list their papers b/c they are very academic and not meant for a general audience. I think this page is hyping him up way more than he deserves. He's a scientist trying to be a influencer. Wikipedia should not be a platform to promote this type of behavior IMHO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:CF01:59FF:0:0:0:385 (talk) 17:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

can we do something about this article?

Ugh... this is obviously a promotion and the guy pushes not so scientific claims in his podcasts, and Wikipedia is giving him an air of credibility. I suggested removing the article and the proposal was dismissed. Wikipedia is perpetuating a bro-science podcast and helping it gain credibility and make money spreading bad information. Worth noting the guy does seem very scientific when describing how the body works. But when it comes for his tips then he makes unsubstantiated pseudoscientific or yet not fully established advice.-- 109.253.183.222 (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Your wording is kind of hilarious, namely "air of credibility". He is a neuroscientist and tenured professor at Stanford. Maybe he sounds "pseudoscientific" on podcasts because he's not giving a formal academic talk? 128.12.122.142 (talk) 16:38, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I was wondering the same and that’s why I came to Wikipedia. But if it’s pseudoscience surely there is evidence of that, and that should be added to the article? A Friendly Nerd (talk) 18:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

This is a BLP, so everything of note needs to go through reliable sources. If you have sources that talk about other aspects of this person or their research, please add them to the article (or add them here, and help another editor out) --Molochmeditates (talk) 03:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I lack the competency in statistics (as well as the domain knowledge) to competently critique Andrew Huberman, but if he really does sell supplements via his podcast, that is a big of a red flag. It pattern matches with fringe science. Unfortunately, the standard of Wikipedia isn't "looks suspicious." Would it be reasonable to include a phrase along the lines of "some writers have critiqued views promoted by Huberman due to small sample size and p-hacking," and citing Stuart J Ritchie's criticism?

https://twitter.com/StuartJRitchie/status/1632360272710062080 NeoChrono Ryu (talk) 03:46, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Advert/SPA editing going on

The page does read like an advert as echoed in the comments above. Many of the sources are primary sources (e.g. stanford profile). There is an attempt to re-add lists like list of podcast guests that may not be appropriate in the article lead. There are also heavy edits and additions by several SPAs. While the author seems notable and likely should have a biography page in Main, the article needs to become much more neutral. I will not recommend the article for deletion, but I think the article needs a lot of cleanup. --Molochmeditates (talk) 03:43, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand the 5th source in the article. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7337233/ This is about sleep, it has no apparent link to do with this unique non-sleep term introduced by the article subject. It doesn't mention this author. Or his alleged research. Gamma1138 (talk) 16:07, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

In 3rd and 4th quoted sources we have https://www.inc.com/jeff-steen/i-tried-sundar-pichais-non-meditation-technique-to-curb-my-stress-its-10x-better-than-a-morning-routine.html and https://www.businessinsider.com/google-ceo-sundar-pichai-non-sleep-deep-rest-nsdr-relax-2022-3

How are these posted along with https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7337233/ ?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7337233/ is unclear how it relates to Huberman.

If I am to do my own analysis I don't need this encyclopedia. This has to be clear and to the point. Gamma1138 (talk) 16:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)