REACTION: Joe Rogan's Deleted Huberman Footage (I sat through 3 hours so you didn't have to)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 вер 2024
- Joe Rogan talked about Andrew Huberman on his most recent podcast with Andrew Schulz claiming and then promptly deleted the footage. This is the restored clip with some useful commentary.
#joerogan #hubermanlab #andrewhuberman
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @sgcarney
Get Exclusive Updates on Patreon:
/ sgcarney
Substack
sgcarney.subst...
Scott Carney Investigates Podcast
www.scottcarne...
UA-cam / @sgcarney
Books:
The Wedge
www.scottcarne...
What Doesn't Kill Us
www.scottcarne...
The Enlightenment Trap
www.scottcarne...
The Vortex
www.scottcarne...
The Red Market
www.scottcarne...
Listen to the Scott Carney Investigates Podcast on:
UA-cam
• Scott Carney Investigates
Apple:
podcasts.apple...
Spotify:
open.spotify.c...
Anchor:
spotifyanchor-...
Social Media:
Instagram / sgcarney
Facebook / scottcarneyauthor
Twitter / sgcarney
Bluesky staging.bsky.a...
©PokeyBear LLC (2023)
Get Early Access at Patreon: www.patreon.com/posts/101893035?pr=true
Subscribe to my Substack Newsletter: sgcarney.substack.com/
He will sell you something that don’t work and then will say I’m a comedian. I was joking.
From all the Huberman scandal, that started after release of NY article, I am disappointed, that 90 % of the time is being spent on his ladies-affairs. The factual correctness of information’s in his podcasts came like third or fourth topic. Second being his manipulations of friends, colleagues etc. There were people, pointing out, that Huberman is butting incorrect information and faulty protocols based on studies he or his teams poorly studied or did not fully understand at all. But these were losts in the main stream.
So sad, that the voices pointing out, that Huberman is spreading bad advice, came to me just month ago, when he was publishing his podcasts with bad advice for ears.
I was pointing out his bad science two years ago. No one listened until the affairs went public.
“Science” is often for sale and Huberman is no different. Pathetic.
Engaging in affairs means that a person is even dishonest in their private life & relationships
@@JC-jr9hw or, perhaps Huberman isn't conducting accurate science. Or is misinterpreting science, failing to address the nuances behind his claims, whether it be due to ignorance, or obfuscation
I think Carney does a pretty good job identifying how many of these points should have been given more attention
What I like about this video is how it gets right to the point in just a few minutes instead of forcing us to wade through 10s of minutes of entirely unrelated info as you provide nervous, irrelevant commentary. Thanks for not doing that.
Glad you enjoyed it!
I got a different impression. This is one episode I couldn't follow, he kept cutting in and out and jumping around. I was like dude, what are you trying to say?
@@1122redbird I was being ironic.
@@edwardruthazer1849 I figured so because he was all over the place. It was unlistenable and finally I cut it off because he was jumping around, cutting himself off nervously, etc. I was thinking "dude, are you going to make a point or what? " Lol. You nailed it man.
@@edwardruthazer1849you mean sarcastic.
@1:55 is Aaron a twin brother of Andrew Schultz?
No, but he *might* be the twin brother of Andrew "Schulz"...
will the real Andrew please stand up
@@jacqueraspynah
@@haveagreatday6952 😴
hahaha i love how he unintentionally(?) trolled this bozzo
What attracted me to your videos is that you are willing to admit when you have been taken in and fooled but also giving credit when credit is due. It’s much more profitable to tear apart the establishment (which often needs it) only to offer other questionable solutions on which these mega influencers are making millions for themselves. It is such hypocrisy to decry the hostile atmosphere around social media while doing your best to fan the flames While raking in millions.
thanks for being here.
Really? This whole podcast wreaks of narcissism and petty and deliver misinterpretations.
He’s a butt hurt narcissists.
Looks like someone needs to do some digging in this obviously non-covert narcissist.
BTW, isn't that Andrew, not Aaron?
@janicelgo4522 he's a journalist just trust it's Aaron not Andrew lol 😆
@@AmirKhan-lp1tl sorry bro. The dude's name is definitely Andrew Schulz
it's certainly charitable of Scott to call he/him/them a comedian.
@@thor3279 yep
@@AmirKhan-lp1tlhe just mispoke?
Surgeons are consistently included amongst professions with the highest prevalence of psychopaths. This is based on a number of research studies, which consistently demonstrate that surgeons score higher than physicians in other disciplines of medicine, on measures of psychopathic traits.
It might be beneficial, or even crucial, to have some people who do not feel as much empathy and are capable of doing what the majority can’t.
I love my parents but I am unable to imagine, let alone execute, the tiniest incision on them even if it will save their life.
Imagine the long and deep incisions needed for major surgeries and organ transplant. Yes, being high on the psychopath spectrum can come with benefits to society as a whole.
What you are referring to is actually one study, and the conclusion was that *stress immunity*, which surgeons rank very highly on, correlates with scores on the PPI-SF. Not quite the same as traits of true psychopathy.
@@RR-ux8fl
I worked for a Harvard educated OBGYN. He now has the largest malpractice lawsuit in his state.
After I left his practice, I earned a Master's Degree in Counseling. It's my observation that surgeons are anywhere on the "Narcissism Scale", from Narcissistic traits to full blown Malignant Narcissists. They become surgeons because they desire being seen as "godlike".
Dude waht is this be jealous of Joe Rogan podcast u agree w everything he said lol n just repeated it I should just watch joe rogan podcast
Don't let the Hube trolls get you down Scott! 👍
You make many good points, but at the end seem to be throwing some rumors in. Probably better not to do that if you want to seem entirely credible yourself.
What rumors?
Really great deconstruction of self-serving influencer creepiness.
TLDR: Whether or not that stuff (below) is relevant to huberman is debatable, but the narrative you tried to construct of JRE supporting sociopathy, using conspiracy as a screen, and calling for retribution against reporting on a celebrity's character is false.
They were talking about sociopathy being advantageous for intelligence agents working in national security contexts. Thats much different than lauding sociopathy in every day life.
JRE doesn't advertise himself as a university. He can't control all the people reclipping him and using his likeness without license for their own profit.
He never said that Andrew huberman was not influenced by health companies. He wasnt playing victim either. His assertion is that money influences news coverage, which is just factual. Watch John Oliver's bit about sponsored content on local news stations. There are also plenty of instances of stories across all media being pulled because sponsors did not want negative press. He then asserted famous people can become targets and that time will not look back kindly on people who are revealed to have ulterior motivations for written attacks.. he wasnt calling for people to get them with pitchforks.
In recent history, the twitter files showed government involvement with constructing narratives via social media and In the past, the CIA also had journalists on their payroll, which is not a conspiracy theory:
www.nytimes.com/1976/01/28/archives/cia-ties-to-journalists-wide-concern-is-voiced-in-press-corps-over.html
Is the state and/or pharma interested in huberman? Probably not, but the tone of the show is often bsing and it's not completely unreasonable to speculate given the very real history of it being done
Thank you for writing this out. I was wanting to mention the twitter files as well and think he obviously has a thing against Rogan, so he can’t really be neutral.
This really is a terribly done video. Especially because his whole channel is built around “truth.”
The Twitter files.. You mean when the world's richest man cherry picked information and handed it over to a thirst trap journalist. Matt Taibbi couldn't even do basic math in his reporting lol
@@charizmawolf6490 does that make it untrue?
@rjhgn88 Yes..yes it does. Your inability to think critically or do any basic research is astounding. For example his numbers are highly inflated. One glaring example is Matt Taibbi claims the EIP labeled 22 million tweets as misinformation leading up to the 2020 election. The actual number was 3,000. He was off by 21,997,000. But I guess that's good journalism to you?
@@charizmawolf6490
You really missed the story didn’t you? You believed all the BS about Matt Taibbi that you get fed instead of following his journalism and understanding that he is one of the good, brave ones still left. Your great loss. On the bright side, you can believe the government is not interfering in the information you are allowed to receive. We all need a little denial to help us feel safe.
UA-cam made me aware of the NY mag through your video. I had some doubt about some of his stuff. I don’t have time to read the literature! He is gone from my feed. Got to take information from reliable sources… Huberman is a shame. As a PhD researcher, I can’t believe what I am finding… Thanks Scott for your contribution!
“covid vaccine problems” right, none of those happened…
I'm surprised that ivermectin (yep, i said it!) is not a topic of discussion on this truth seeking channel :))
Critical thinking is a rare faculty nowadays. As a scientist, I facepalm everyday about the trash information people are consuming. The democratization of popularity has many bad effects. If one has not acquired critical thinking, one is an easy target. Thank you for presenting the information on your channel. Keep up with your work. You are a beam of light.
I really appreciate you tuning in!
Humanity is doomed if this dude is "a beam of light".
Do you feel that in the places you work as a scientist that critical thinking is generally a universal standard for those possessing higher education?
Who the hell is Aaron Shulz?
I have never seen him either.
@@Themlpg73 He is joking....meaning his name is not Aaron but Andrew.
This is a great example of how to use critical thinking, which unfortunately will be missed by a lot of these trolls commenting on your vids. Keep at it though. Thanks for dissecting the ill-conceived logic of social influencers.
I'm 66.
I had a logic class in high school.
Do they even offer that now?
Critical Thinking is REQUIRED for conscious living.
Read Immanuel Kant. Better yet, take an online college course in "Critical Thinking" and/ or "Logic" for a better understanding.
Dude I absolutely love your videos man. One of the sanest and most transparent and analytical voices out there right now calling out these absolutely batshit celebrities with massive platforms. We need to get the masses listening to this stuff because I honestly cannot compute how they buy all the Rogan/Peterson/Huberman et al. drivel.
Andrew Shultz style: Baby dictator
Keep investigating. I thought Huberman was weird years ago.
you are not alone. I never listen to Huberman more than 5 minutes.
I’m so glad to find others! I really bought into him for a couple of weeks, but started to feel like there was something off. Then I heard he follows Ben Shapiro and other right wing personalities on social media and things began to make more sense.
you mean Huberman or Hooberman
Him and Ben seem to have something else in common
Scott Carney Thanks for posting this video
Covid conspiracies? You might want to update your databank.
No kidding spend a little time looking at the massive data. What a beast
You might want to proofread before posting.
@@dmacrolens Indeed. Thanks.
:hydrate:
At the beginning of your video, when Schultz is talking about sociopathy, I believe he is quoting Andrew Bustamante, not Huberman.
Yes. He was talking about some CIA guy and how his sociopathy was beneficial.
@@sgcarneybustamente has been on like 10 podcasts. “That guy”
Joe Rogan has a lot of great episodes (Don’t throw the baby out with the ice water) Like Paul Stamets the other day. Who made the documentary ’fantastic fungi’
Bee keepers, Bat experts, regenerative farmers(white oak pastures) I’ve learned a ton about a lot of things from his guests.
This is really the challenge. You have someone with a huge platform and they can introduce their audience to some amazing creators, but then if they’re not careful, some bullshit sneaks in and they end up exposing people to that, too. I found Wim Hof through JRE, and I found Scott through Wim Hof.
You miss the point. Dude is spreading dangerous misinformation to millions. It's not throwing out the baby with the bathwater to say ok, let's ignore this buffoon who is "just asking questions". Did you learn about ivermectin from JR and get some good info from Terrance Howard too?
I'm a fungus cultivator and I can tell you most of Stamets products are bunk. He also fed into the honey bee's being endangered, and that is false, wrong bees.
@@MycoAnthropos lol. I’m a fungus cultivator and can tell you what you imply is false.
@@Dad-yu7tb Whatever bro
Scott you’re starting to lose me. When you try to act like journalism doesn’t get influenced by money and power because of some obscure “firewall” or ethics class is not helpful. I understand the extreme threat that journalism is facing right now, and that there are some true history making heroes within journalism. We need to protect journalism at all costs, but please don’t act like bad actors don’t exist. Unfortunately, money, greed and power have penetrated every industry. Denying this only feeds the monster.
Bad actors of course exist. Indeed, the MSM has been getting worse every successive year. Which is why I left it. But there are guide-rails on newsrooms. Huberman and Rogan never had guidelines. And their financial motivations are obvious. While a reporter who makes $40-100k a year on sallary might have pressure from bosses to get clicks, an influencer who makes $20,000,000 selling supplements has a lot more reason to compromise their ethics.
@@sgcarney great point! Thank you for your response and clarification.
Only putting this at the top to say that it's a mistake to defend people when you lack a fuller understanding of their backgrounds. I'd be ignoring your coverage on Huberman had I not known you personally known him. I also know as a matter of fact, due to the court records available to me, that you're highly unaware of what's going on in respects to one of your sources. Don't let her be the source that causes you to appear incredulous. I'm in no manner of speaking, speaking of anyone other than the former co-founder of Belcampo Meat Co.
---
Didn't realize Rogan and him are both lost in their Alter-Egos until today. Another way to say that, is that they're lost in their personas. Suppose Rogan has come a long way seemingly in his decades to becoming humbler, however, it's also important to remember his job is that the show must go on. By default, all entertainers are court jesters. They lie by default that is. Playing a kid's game of make believe with the audience. Only there's no king or queen at play ordering a loss of their head if they go too far with the show.
This is just "...bread and circuses..." to me; Juvenal (Roman Poet).
Joe's an entertainer, not my educator.
---
As far as [Redacted] goes. Belcampo Meat Co has since closed it's doors. They were violating worker rights, false advertising, selling contaminated meat products, etc... I'm not speaking at all about the DOJ investigation, rather previous settlements, lawsuits and complaints filed against the company. Sure, she may be being honest and forthright with what she stated about Huberman. One can't take her claims to heart as she has a demonstrated record of outright lying. Worse, whilst I get why people have a problem with Huberman's reported character, we're talking about her messing with people's food.
Side Note: The records exist to the US general public outside of at least 1 of the settlement agreements; I'm not sure if any of this is legally publishable, however, it will come up on records searches. Probably ought to take what Huberman was doing more serious, however, we're talking about a company here that was violating both its worker's and client's rights. As in, what she was doing is outright illegal in the US.
---
Generally, agree with the rest of what you said. Generally, don't agree with the bulk of what I've heard Rogan say. Again, he's just an entertainer. He has no duty to be correct and gets to cop out on any of the claims he makes because he's a "professional comedian" as he says.
---
Last thought is the first thought during the opening of the video: It's a waste of my time to hear people out. Don't get this crossed, if they have a relevant opinion, that's also weighed on a subject, then listen to them. The rest of the time, they're just running their mouths. It's a bit subjective, however, it's a real waste of my time.
Thanks for being here. Good points.
Great video Scott, keeping it honest I like it a lot.
Just let the video play… you just keep pausing and pausing I didn’t even finish the video like bro if your going to show a video footage, talk after we have heard EVERYTHING. Not just TWO SENTENCES.
Go watch the original if you want the original.
For god's sake, please stop saying Hooberman. 😂
I love that he says it that way.
And it's Andrew Schultz.
@@TrueWalker88 That's the correct European pronunciation of this European (usually Jewish) name
@@jhoang3671, dude... if you're going to come into the comments section to correct someone... his last name is S-C-H-U-L-Z
@@jacqueraspy my apologies!
Scott : “who cares what Joe Rogan say?”
Answer: 11 million listeners per episode
This answer is hilarious. 1) because it’s not what I said. 2) because it’s what a lot of commenters who hate me are saying.
11 million followers mean he's popular not reliable
@@sgcarney It’s ANDREW Schultz, not Aaron.
@@sgcarney "Well, I wanted to just like ignore it, because who cares what Joe Rogan says..." - Scott Carney 2024 (@0:15). It's wild how that's exactly what you said.
@@ArduousPun touché
It's also really bizarre how obsessed Huberman is with facial-cranial structure, as he has mentioned in the past. He seems like an extremely vain person with shallow endeavors. I mean, the Jawsercizer, really?
It’s weird.
Also overly obsessed with personal fitness. Interest in fitness is perfectly fine but he really takes it to the extreme.
@@lyinbobbycottonseedtrue, especially the fact so much of the obsession seems to be for aesthetic reasons. He's almost like the American Psycho of science lol
@@underthecrevice547 haha yea that’s true. I don’t ever hear him talk about any specific reasons to build muscle or stay in shape, it all just seems to be about aesthetics. Weird dude.
Having a natural cranial bone structure ensures proper nasal breathing by significantly opening the airways, which is critical for sleep-particularly in remedying sleep apnea-proper immune function, and overall body posture/structure. Improving your physical appearance will almost certainly, to some significant degree, compensate for any lacking self-confidence, resulting in undoubtedly improved overall quality of life. That being said, physical appearance pales in comparison to the incredible and unparalleled health benefits of naturally straightening and strengthening your body. Is that really so weird? Just because dude is big pimpin' on the side and is smart enough to use advertisements for reputable and vertifiably quality products to fund his channel, doesn't mean his health and science content is inaccurate or disingenuous.
Andrew* Shultz spoke about sociopathy as a benefit of you’re in the intelligence field. Not everyday life.
Yes, that was the context as I noted. Then they talked about aliens, bigfoot, Hillary Clinton, Covid, Fauci and ultimately Huberman...before talking about how it was a Big Pharma conspiracy.
JRE is crazy… I did not realized by how much… 🤦 Bloody Hell! People listen to this crap! 😕
What does a comedian know about the intelligence field???
@@JamesToupin I have heard good clips from him. Just there are many that are wild. Either making it up for his audience or delusional… He seems like a good dude otherwise. I think that many comedians have a good dose of common sense…
@truchonj Really? How many comedians are you personally friends with? Also, how does does being a "good dude" with "common sense" teach one about the intelligence field? I did stand for about 20 years, I am also a good dude with common sense, but if I started talking about the intelligence field, I would be talking out of my a$$ just like Andrew is...
I wish people that review another content creator would let the person complete their sentence before you break in and make a comment. It's very hard to follow and maybe that's the point.
I agree With rogan that journalists do need to be called out. Sometimes bias comes into what real journalism is (gamer-gate). They have the platform to lie and drive a narrative.
However when theyre wrong, they arent always the same ones that publish original article dont come out to say they were originally wrong. Theyd rather die on their sword of the original incorrect words.
(eg. Covid vaccines are Safe and effective and stop transmission).
I however agree with you with the Huberman case.
Rogan needs to be called out.
Rogan is a pseudo journalist. He spews ignorant nonsense to 12 million fools each week, while ranting that mass media is hiding the truth.
Btw the media did paint rogan to be a misinformation type character. He certainly was victimized by the news media that is for certain....all for having a different perspective.
This is also a podcast of speculation and conversation. To suggest there was tactical planning and mapping of the conversation before the conversation was started is laughable. You yourself are conspiring that these two dudes had a plan before they sat down.
Ive listened to 2 of your videos and i want to appreciate you for your work (because i know you work hard to put these videos together), however its hard to support somebody that jumps from one thing to the next with no relevance to the actual title of the video.
JOE, YOU LITERALLY STIR THE POT AND NEVER CHECK NONSENSE 💀 I'm about to throw my damn phone across the room holy ish
Funny, both these guys are paid by similar sponsors - AG, cold dip, etc.
Possibly some people enjoy hearing about products that support our health and just don’t want to hear about products manufactured by big pharmaceutical companies who have our continued sickness and dying horribly awful deaths targeted……. Idk;
Just guessing here….,…💖🌟💖
"firewall between advertising and editorial"
"Ethics class"
You just displayed your naivete, Scott.
I have actually worked in newsrooms. Have you? Not all are perfect, of course, but the idea of a separation is a core principle. There is no such ideal among influencers. There isn't even a gesture towards it.
@@sgcarneyyes, I have. Still have friends who do.
There are enough good reasons to question what influencers do, without pretending that mainstream media is holier than them. In fact, it is the loss of trust in mainstream media that is greatly helping create a space for the very person who you are calling out.
Do you seriously believe that taking a mandatory ethics class (most of which is actually good old honesty; if one needed to be taught that formally without intuiting, there's a different problem, but let me not digress) is somehow supposed to make the journalist morally better ? Do you actually believe that? If not, what was the point of bringing it up?
You don't need to exhaust NYT in order to call out Huberman. And no, am not a fan of Huberman. Even before I became aware of the scale of the Ag1 promotion from your video, I always felt there was something fake about him. His entirely interview seems click bait. And his binary positions on health - if you don't do IF, you will literally develop all diseases tomorrow or next week. Anyway.
Sir, I’m not certain what you are channeling. This feels like you are spreading darkness to me and during a time on this planet does not have the need for it. Personally I don’t appreciate spreading of BS and magnetizing it within our humanity. You seem very intelligent and skilled. Could you please consider doing something with your art that actually supports us and spreads some light? Jeez! Please stop this man. You are off your own track . How do I know? I’m observing your behavior and feeling your energy. I love you brother!!!!!
Please Please spread some light for us !!!!💙🦋💙🦋💙
2:13 not to be pedantic but the guests name is Andrew Schulz , and he is talking about a podcast guest that he had in his show called flagrant. The podcast guests name is Andrew Bustamante who is a (supposedly) retired CIA agent. I think you should have added this correct info to give context to the point Schulz was bringing up. That psychopathy is an advantage in being a CIA agent
This cracked me up . Joe Rogan 17 million listeners not a coincidence.
I used to be a fan when he had people more intelligent than him who he would let speak. Too often he interjects his own opinion, fact based or not, usually politically motivated which he still has not learned to stay the fuck away from. 17 million people follow many influencers who do absolutely nothing for the world. Rogan to me is worse by claiming to be informative when it is primarily a small circle of people cross promoting each other for the sake of greed. He started with good intentions and let the money corrupt the show. Ask Redban.
Tells you how many sheep are out there - speaks to a failure of the education system
You mean that there are 17 million fools?
I think this is probably the longest I've ever listened to Rogan. Huberman was someone I tried to listen to, but found different things he was saying that didn't sound right. I found myself fact checking him wondering if he was gaslighting his audience. In the end I just stopped listening.
Cheesus. This video took forever for you to make your point bud.
Rogan takes 3 hours to make zero points. This video was a bargain.
30 minutes, versus the 4+hr jre podcast. Ok...
In certain circumstances, it most certainly can be an advantage to be a sociopath.
Why do you say it is deleted from the original episode? I just checked and it isn’t deleted. They talk about huberman at the 20 min mark. Episode #2132 with Andrew Schulz.
From the clips channel.
You might want to get to the point quicker bro.
Quicker than the 3 hours that it took Rogan to get to his?
20:20 By that logic CNN wouldn't have done a hit piece on Joe Rogan.
Rogan deserved every word in that "hit piece"
@@cmosarch5285 Which is weird since the guy participating in it ended up taking Ivermectin. Also, they lied and modified photos.
If I could, let's be honest, I would 1000pc shill for AG1. The biggest tie I see between Rogan and the Hube is AG1 money. Always follow the money. If he doesn't defend the Hube, that can trigger a chain of events where people question the validity of the Hube s podcasts, and pretty quickly both their podcasts are exposed as massive referral schemes for green powder.
Honesty is a paramount no matter the cost of doing "business", I wish it wasn't Business, in which case we might have better indicators to decide if a person on a podcast or videocasr, big or small, is pushed to tell the truth. The other indicator which is easier to critique, is how famous the people are, and how fast that fame came about. Obviously if one is both famous, and running what is initially portrayed as "truth", as a business, they are extremely likely to fall into the trap that somehow because they make lots of money and are famous, they're exempt from the same criticism they instill in people who threaten their existence. Like Journalists, critical thinkers, investigators, indeed anyone who dares question their truth.
ARON SCHULZ. I think you made a mistake here my friend. Undermining yourself
c r e d i b i l i t y d e s t r o y e d
This is off topic, but i just started the video so I feel it’s okay to say, you look just like 90s Micheal Keaton. On with the video, wooo….
In the Batman suit or three men and a baby?
@@sgcarneydefinitely a Batman vibe, but without the suit and with a lighter shade of hair
@@TristanRogersInPittsburgh I second that comment ☝️
It's not 3 hours a week, its 2-4 hours an EPISODE usually 3-4 times per week.
Scott looks and sounds a little like Michael Keaton. I mean that as a compliment.
I'm batman.
Great Video, really good points and how you point out the hypocrisy.
Yes! Thank you!
I'm sure you've never been a hypocrite in your entire life.
I really try not to be, it's an important part of inner work for me. Putting what I say or believe to practice is part of that.
I don't see your point though? The JR podcast has a huge following and hypocrisy is something that is valuable to point out because it shows that we need to have scepticism and think for ourselves and not just follow whatever a Joe Rogan or a Huberman says.
Noticing hypocrisy is an important skill and really good teachers and mentors practice to not be hypocritical.
Thanks for the video, Scott but I can't watch any more Rogan. It's hurting my brain.
4:30 Dude, the phrase is not “wax lackadaisical” it is “wax lyrical”. 😂
Both work.
Isn't it fun to hear people change up cliches though? I always kind of enjoy it. ;-)
Aaron Schulz and Hooberman lolol
Shultz got the 1920s bartender look on point
What a great breakdown. Seriously....
After watching a few of your videos, I've come to the conclusion that you just have some personal vendetta to work out.
I actually saw this podcast when it first dropped and this scene was in it. I had no idea it was removed which is crazy.
Your Ego and Emotions Are every where,
Kinda sounds like someone is jealous of Rogan…..
This guy Scott Carney could use the jawzersizer good product for today’s superficial world
I don't trust any of them, not even your good self (great channel BTW)... I'd also like to point out that there is never an inappropriate time to talk about Clinton et al. and the Goldman Sachs speaker circuit circle jerk, it should never be allowed to disappear from the public consciousness.
Politicians have been corrupt for a long long time.
The only people i really want to listen to regarding hubernan are other neuroscientists and experts. so far I haven't heard anything from them.
My main takeaways from being a Huberman watcher for years, reading the full article and watching many (different) reactions to it:
1) You probably don't want to date Huberman or be his friend, since he just doesn't seem to care.
2) You shouldn't blindly trust what he says in his podcast. I believe he gets most of the things right but some episodes truly sucked (looking at you, Robert Lustig, I've seen so many scientists debunk bullshit from this episode and Huberman didn't take it down or anything - that really undermines Hubermans credibility for me).
3) On the other hand, I believe his podcast overall still brings immense value and many episodes are worth to be watched. As with Wim Hof - make use of what he brings to the table but don't put the man on pedestal.
4) Also the article was in my view way too biased towards Huberman in its tone. I appreciate fair criticism and believe information in the article are true, but the article seemed very scornful against Huberman and great value that his podcast brings. That approach made me want to side with Huberman and I believe it might be the reason why some people just ignore the facts and attack the authors instead.
P. S. God damn, it's so scary how detached Rogan is from reality. I've also watched some of his episodes before, since he really did have some brilliant guests, but he seems to be more and more out of it. How is this man the most watched podcaster is beyond me. Yes, he has insane charisma but that's about it.
Ok, I am a Huberman watcher from the start. I did not care about his love life, that’s his world. I also realize this whole thing is to sell products, and make money. Huberman enjoys manipulating his audience, I think that is the part I struggle with now ? Yes, I used to listen to Joe, but he is drugged out now.
I agree with a lot of what you say. @ondrejhlavacek5874
Besides being dark triad guys they are also on Tren and whatever else and it makes you testy. They enjoy being bros and Lex Fridman sees it as a hit piece and nothing to be concerned about because it is a common behavior in their world. Same thing when Seinfeld was asked about Cosby, Harvey Weinstein. Louis Ck is annoyed that he is the one who got exposed.
@@markcampbell8158drugged out on what?
I enjoy your episodes and books, Scott. Though, I wonder how many hours you have spent researching the UFO/UAP phenomenon or the covid vaccine net harm hypothesis? You seem to dismiss them with a hand-wavy conspiracy theory bias. I would enjoy you diving deep into these subjects, and would be surprised if you came out from the other side with an unchanged attitude.
My wife wrote a book on UAPs and interviewed most of the same people Rogan has had on the show. I feel pretty up to date with the added advantage that I have some opinions of where their statements and biographies fall apart. Bob Lazar is not credible.
@@sgcarneyhaha Lazar's story looks enticing from twenty feet away but as you get closer it's all falling apart
@@sgcarney Fair enough. What's the name of the book, maybe I'll check it out. I would not put too much faith in Lazar either, but the UAP phenomenon doesn't stand and fall with him.
@@Peace_of_Mind no mention of the vax conspiracy portion of the question...
@@craigslist6988like every Rogan guest these days lmao.
But hey let the smooth brains buy into whatever they want and waste all their money. It’s certainly not hurting in the general election 😂😂😂
And I mean if they want to believe covid doesn’t exist or cancer can be cured with some goofy supplement.. 🤷🏼
😂 let them go for it
Not to mention the way they all think we’re still in some crazy economic recession and that inflation is still crazy is making my portfolio skyrocket LOL
It's pitiful how those psychopathological types make their lack of empathy look like it's a virtue or a skill. It's not. Everyone can switch off their empathy, just not everyone wants to. In fact it's empathy that's a skill and a virtue that needs to be learnt and practiced to be maintained. People CHOOSE empathy despite realising that it would be more advantageous to not be empathetic, because they can see a higher value in being empathetic. A gain that's above material or immediate gratification. So you're not special for not experiencing empathy, you're deficient.
This guy is kinda hard to listen to. Why algorithm? 😢
16:55 I’m having difficulty following this video. It could be because I’m not sufficiently familiar with many of the characters discussed. I followed Huberman for a while, his phase when some people expressed surprise at the speed he became so popular. I believe they ignored the fact that he is amazingly handsome and sexy. He has a beautiful voice and his presentation reinforces his claimed achievements. I mention this only because it seemed to be ignored by everyone. I stopped when Huberman talked about areas I had little interest in. Joe Rogan is a blight on America. He is a celebration of ignorance masked by his “I’m just asking questions” behavior. Joe seems willing to “listen to everyone” because it frees him from doing real research. He pretends that his mind’s lack of discrimination and emptiness is a virtue, not a manifestation of laziness. It also gives him a patina of enlightenment and frees him from responsibility for what people take from his podcasts. In other words, Joe doesn’t need to research anything, absolving him from not calling out bullshit. And people confuse that with realness and open mindedness. I don’t know the comedian, so I cannot judge if he’s speaking sincerely. The short clips and commentary don’t give me the information I would need to understand the him. So I’m having difficulty following the assertions in this video. Not a criticism but just an explanation of why I’m finding it difficult.
4:35 Joe going on about the questionable influence of social media is meta AF! The irony is thiiiiick.
so meta. Next video I have coming out about him will talk about how he loves dumping on Big Pharma...at the same time he also took $400M from them.
"...this is the information that is considered credible, because he is telling you the truth..." Why is that information considered credible and what makes his, or anyone's, words the "truth"? You have wrapped yourself an assumption inside a presumption. Nobody is stating anything in those types of conversations as "factual" or "true", it's the opinion of each individual. You are caught in a type of circular logic called 'motivated reasoning'.
You obviously don't care what Joe Rogan says. You stated so. 00:16 So, anything that may challenge your existing belief will result in a natural defense we all have, where you seek a way to counter the stated information, even if it is unintentionally biased. The reason it's the #1 podcast in the world is the honest attempt at authenticity. It doesn't exist any longer, nowhere. People know that there's two sides to every story and they WANT to hear it.
Yourself and many others, for reasons I cannot understand or even attempt to explain, cannot handle something to the contrary of your opinion being stated. It's extremely fundamentalist like behavior. It's all just a stones throw away from the Salem witch trials.
When I was a kid in the 90's, they taught us implicitly that anyone trying to tell you not to listen to someone or believe them, "only listen to us", that's a red flag and that person is dangerous. It wasn't discussed, it was just common knowledge. You've been trained to not even listen to the other side of the story, and what you are doing here, is whining about it even being allowed to be spoken.
To put it blunt, it's fucking creepy and extremely unattractive.
Sheep defending wolves.
@@sgcarney It's an axiom that, "truth can take care of itself, it is only error that needs protection.”
I’m not a Rogan’s fan, but your efforts to manipulate the very same thing you’re showing are too clumsy to even bother exposing them.
I LOVE YOU SCOTT!
Good Morning 🙏
VIDEO STARTS @ 11:30
I’m not sure this guy is worth listening to…
Which guy?
@@JohnMoseley Hit the Home key, you will see him...
21:00 You intentionally obfuscate what he says here. He is saying when people go on national news networks, they get talked over, shut down, have their mics muted and get rushed off to commercial. He's clearly talking about that happening to guests on news networks--and it does happen, regularly.
Yet you change the point to "no one is shutting Rogan down, millions are watching him."
But he wasn't talking about himself or other podcasters being shut down on their own shows. He was talking about mainstream channels doing it to guests and interviewees. You totally changed the metric to prove your own point.
This is akin to if you went on Rogan's show and he repeatedly talked over you, shut you down, and refused to let you voice your opinion, then you made a video on your channel calling him out for it, and people responded "he never shut you down, you made a video on your own channel and thousands have viewed it!"
That wouldn't change the fact that on his show, you indeed got shut down.
I have to wonder if you've got huge blindspots when you make these points, or if you're intentionally omitting to make your position seem stronger.
Learning about flawed people from a flawed channel... What do i make of this? :)))
With all due respect, this video is hard to follow because you are constantly stopping the video to tell us what we are listening to and to give your opinion on the 4-10 words they just spoke and if you agree with the sentence fragment you allowed them to say.
That's fair. Reaction videos are not a great genre, to be honest.
Keep digging. It may be interesting to see how honest huberman really is. I dont believe alot of what he says.
I don't care about huberman. He single handed helped me to see alcohol for the poison it is, and gave advice on basically all other aspects of health and fitness. For this he's awesome. Even if he goes of the rails on some issues. I give zero fs about people's calendar or love life. Is the guy a criminal? Nope. End of story.
Look, I was a fan of his too and the episode about alcohol helped me to quit as well.... but the article simple shattered the illusion and its undeniable. The positive impact he's had on people isn't negated by how badly he treats people in his , that he is a proven fraud, a liar, and a sociopath. It is simple delusional to take the weight of the evidence, sweep it under the rug and keep on worshipping this dude like he's the paragon of virtue. Rogan, Lex, Peterson, Huberman... they all built a huge following off the internet and they are rich/powerful because they influence people and control how they think. They are not the wise benevolent father figure you're missing in your life, they don't care about you
@@nikolaim4274 Yes, agreed, but like I said, I really don't care if people make and break friendships every 2 hours, or rotate 10 bed partners. It's none of my business. Also, such character killing hit pieces are printed every week to get readers agitated. I'm not impressed. I do agree he should be more scientifically rigorous and cautious in his podcast.
The problem is that you can’t trust his advice. Too many are made up!
@@nikolaim4274 I usually don't comment, but I wanted to respond to your thoughts. Sorry for the length.
I think it's cynical to assume that the people you listed don't care about the people in their audience. What evidence is there to support this conclusion? Perhaps naively I feel I've gotten an intuitive sense of these people from listening to their podcasts/interviews over the last few years, and, without having ever seen them in person, I think they each desire to make the world a better place (whatever that means to each of them). That comes across from their "activism" on the issues they find important, etc. In some cases, they are deeply mistaken and are hurting the world more than helping it. But I think it's hard to deny that they're trying to use their public influence for good. Sometimes, famous people are not secretly power-hungry monsters. Sometimes, a pipe is just a pipe.
Lex, Peterson, Rogan, Huberman sometimes say and do dumb, nearsighted things, like all people. The difference is that millions of people are watching them, so we're able to pass our judgement.
From what I understand, and maybe you can clarify what I'm missing, is that the accusations against Andrew Huberman are: a) that his advertising is a bit aggressive for academia (like that one lady in the article said, he doesn't remind his audience that he's only an *associate professor). Okay, big deal. Also his lab may not be a physical lab? Well, it has an official Stanford url website that's still up:
hubermanlab.stanford.edu/
Sidenote: it almost feels like the university is scared that the recent backlash against Huberman will pass onto them (we saw recently with the Israel/Palestine conflict how vulnerable it turns out university politics are to public opinion). Finally, Huberman is accused of acting "manipulatively" (??) in relationships and perhaps even dating several people at once. Seriously? Is that really something deserving of an expose article? I guess maybe if he was the pope or His Holiness the Dalai lama, I would understand why that's a concern. But not when he's a professor and blogger. Do those roles presume perfect moral righteousness? That is not to say I have no issues with Huberman -- I am not sure whether the supplements he promotes are genuinely what his expertise in neurobiology leads him to recommend, or whether these are just the companies agreeing to sponsor him. The same applies to Rogan, but then he doesn't claim to have any expertise in this area. Nonetheless, this is an obvious conflict of interests that should make a person reasonably skeptical.
The last thing I will say, if you've made it this far, is that another reason I think people listen to these influencers other than idolizing them as father figures (which btw I think is true for a significant part of the audience, especially among younger people) is that as the listener "what you see is what you get". When Rogan has a guest on to talk about the War in Ukraine or Vaccines I don't feel that I am being courted and duped by some multibillion dollar lobby. When somebody is a crank or a bullshit artist, it is way easier to recognize that. The same is not true for mainstream American media, where I often feel I am being propagandized to in ways that are professional, subtle and easy to miss. I don't think this is a controversial take. Consider how effective the campaign to invade Iraq was, and how quickly public opinion on this issue was swayed. It takes great care and effort, at least for me, when reading the Atlantic or NY Times to correctly identify this veil of vested interests and propaganda. Stupidly, I fell for it with the War in Ukraine, thinking a war could have "good guys". Now I think there are actually two monoliths, the US and Russia, and an unfortunate victim being torn to shreds between them, namely Ukraine. It's just that the US has significantly better international PR than Russia, especially in the Northern hemisphere. Russian propaganda is effective in its own right, but it mostly caters to a domestic audience.
I think Rogan and Lex especially are actually quite healthy for US democracy. Their influence might seem great but it pales in comparison to that of the lobbies I've mentioned. They serve as a check on the information monopoly that the American political establishment would otherwise enjoy. To me, that seems like the much greater danger.
It's always strange when the people who say they don't care end up writing a paragraph on why they don't care, under a video that they clicked on but supposedly don't care about.
It’s not “Aaron “, it’s Andrew Schulz
Yep. Sorry. I hate his haircut.
@@sgcarney curious what does his name have to do with his haircut?
Nothing. I just hate Andrew Schulz's haircut.
@@sgcarney also he was LITERALLY talking about the former cia agent he had on his show who said that he was able to be a better agent bcuz of his sociopathic traits… or psychopathic whatever he said… it wasn’t about Huberman in any way….? And Rogan doesn’t take any of the cospiracy stuff seriously he is a comedian. He laughs about it all, believes some I’m sure, but recognizes it’s crazy and often not the whole story. 🫤
Thank you. I also hate the haircut. It’s distracting.
I honestly feel quite lonely in this world. I have never listened to Joe Rogan, but even listening him on here tires me. I don't understand how he can get this many views.
The case was in 2021 not 2001 wasn’t it?
Yes
This did not age well... You do not come across well in this video. Wow. You had me as a subscriber for a few days...lol
What exactly didn’t age well?
you wasted 3 hours of your life and 30 min of mine. find something else to dedicate your time to, ffs
Thank you for bringing this eubject into some light. Gery informative. Joe and his friends , really come across as guenuine, i almost think they really believe wll the things they put out there.
Keep on fighting these wealthy people crazy people.
And this section of the podcast was not deleted you might want to amend the video you can go and watch it right now I just watched it after watching yours go to 21 minutes and 30 seconds not deleted
I'm not seeing it: ua-cam.com/video/B75H_HkJQvE/v-deo.html Also, the section seems to be deleted somewhere between 3:00:00 and 3:07:00
That’s weird I’m watching it right now. Where are you watching it from? I’m using Spotify.
UA-cam. See the link to the timestamp above.
OK it must be a UA-cam related thing. UA-cam must’ve said no remove it. Spotify allows a lot more freedom
This video is very frustrating to sit through. Can somebody give me a timestamp of when he makes his point?
"Andrew" Schulz. Deleted from UA-cam, not Spotify. The issues with this take are too numerous to count. There are serious journalistic lapses here. I've been giving you the benefit of the doubt for a while. I'm always looking for different points of view, but I no longer trust your intellectual honesty. I can criticize Rogan on so many issues, but you'd have to be a regular listener to really understand. You are guilty of similar bias. His guest list runs the gamut of intellectuals, musicians, comedians. artists, and everyone in between. of course he gets things wrong, as does everyone, as do you. But to dismiss Rogan without really trying to get a picture of who he is and what he stands for is a something I can't overlook. But hey, a Rogan reaction video should get you a ton of views and more subscribers. Vaya con dios.
IT's true I got his name wrong. It's Andrew Schulz. Rogan is still misrepresenting the article about Huberman.
I'm ok with people being biased towards those that aren't horrible people. there are way worse things than that type of bias. I, for example, pride myself on being disliked by people who are horrible people. that's a badge of honor for me.
you have a lot of good points but suggesting there's a firewall between the editorial side of newspapers and management is clearly not true. The biggest for instance is the NY Times coverage of Gaza which has been absurdly biased towards Isreali interests. Where that bias is coming from probably remains to be seen but I don't think that the writers are all falling in line to do a crappy job.
And yes there has been some good reporting from the NY Times on Gaza, just enough to varnish the absolutely insane garbage that they generally put out (or the stuff they just don't report on).
I just think that's a dangerous suggestion. Newspapers clearly have their own biases. If you want to say that's not because of advertisers, I think that would be difficult to prove, but they definitely aren't immune to printing biased garbage, and this is at the highest level.
And if you want to argue that Ny times Gaza reporting is less than garbage (you shouldn't), it goes back and back (Judith Miller being a very notable but not exclusive example).
You are right in a lot of cases, unfortunately. The proudest moments of the NYT are behind it. Many papers are failing. But at least some people who work there--the reporters in the field--usually still have a sense of duty in the profession.
I fail to see the point of this video. Two dudes smoking weed and yapping on for 3 hours end up saying some wacky stuff and suddenly we should care about that? I enjoy this channel's perspective on the health influencers sphere and the quality guests, but this video seems a little petty to be honest. I know this was brought up in chats, but at one point any small channel needs to chose which audience to feed.
You can see it, but there are people who wait to hear what joe has to say and act on it.
You seem to care and feel the need to defend your man crush.
@@juicebox853everything is so simple for the simple minded
Lol I love how Joe perfectly describes himself with his rant about echo chambers, confirmation bias etc. I used to listen to his podcast regularly for years and I cannpt for the life of me remember him ever steelmanning a position he did not agree with
He said who cares what Rogan says 🤣
Unfortunately a lot of people do. That EP already has 1.3 million downloads on UA-cam in just a week. Who knows how many more on all his other platforms.
Keep in mind, many people are passively watching and listening. I just watched a Hulu Korean show called 'Moving'. It was entertaining as it gets for me, but did I learn anything from it? Nope. Also, wasn't watching the show thinking it had anything to do with the real world. Ultimately, this is where I think some people get crossed when judging other people. They think viewership means agreement with. It simply doesn't.
I know people who like him a lot… he is influential, to say the least.
No they don't agree with everything he says. But the consume it which means they are NOT consuming other things. And a lot of what they are consuming on the JRE is garbage. While I'm sure not everyone takes everything he says and commits it to their soul...I'm also sure that some--rather lonely--people do.
@@sgcarney there was a time where the guest on JRE was good back to back. But it’s been off for years 🤷🏽♂️. Katt Williams on JRE was pretty good though in my view 😆
It's Andrew Schulz not Aaron. Lol
yeah they did tryed to cancel joe, dont forget to say that, if you truly like saying the truth.
You are obviously not very knowldegebale about the Joe Rogan show, you only have the few bits that main street media have blown up. there has been an enormous variety in people and views on this show. Rogan rarely states a firmly held belief that he forces on whomever is the guest of the day. There is more nuance than you seem to be aware of. And you misinterpret a couple of the things said here to fit your narrative, wether you are aware of it or not. Actually, at 10.47 into your video, you seem to be the more prejudiced person so far. Just saying.
EDIT at 20.53: You seem to be under the impression that your audience consists of a bunch of 8-year olds. Are you seriously not aware that at the early stages of different vaccines being tried out there were several deaths? In Denmark 5 women died from blodclots right after recieving the vaccine. More nuance you don't have... And your comments are manipulative in adding context that is not there. Also, there is obviously a reason this part has been cut from the show, so most likely Rogan and his team or Spotify were made aware of factual mistakes after the show went live.
EDIT at 22.50: You keep saying "they" when it is the guest of the day who is being the ignorant minded comspiracy-theorist. Rogan is doing his job as a host going "Yeah.", "Yeah." And you keep babbeling so much all the time that we haven't yet goten to the point of the video yet....
"In Denmark 5 women died from blodclots right after recieving the vaccine. "
This is why Rogan and his fan base has the reputation of being nitwits. There was 1 woman in Denmark who died, and it was from a completely different vaccine: the AstraZeneca vaccine. That is not, and has never been available in the US.
Your crowd is terrified of mRNA (which every cell in every living organism on Earth uses): the AstraZeneca vaccine does not use mRNA.
Rogan does not have a wide variety of guests on his show. If he did, he'd actually have credentialed immunologist and virologists on the show. Like Peter Hotez, who he had on at the very beginning of the pandemic, and was literally the last legitimate scientist on the show during the pandemic. Because real scientists don't fit the narrative: have to have pseudo science types like Robert Malone, Pierre Kory (selling Ivermectin)...
I’m so glad that I’ve never watched Rogan or Huberman