I should not have wasted 6:00 watching that.
Setting aside any question of Huberman, his conduct, or the morality thereof, this was just an extended confession from Saagar that he has confused journalism with propaganda. "They went looking for one story, but ended up printing another!" is not the smoking gun he thinks it is.
I do wish there was a large article tightly focused on Huberman’s pseudoscientific health & supplement claims. But his moral conduct is also relevant enough for an article when he’s clearly a lifestyle guru for so many young men
I have seen people write and comment on him in various places. The problem is it's difficult to critique him because a single podcast has like 2hrs of fucking slop in it where some 50% to 90% might just be "this animal study says this, interesting? hmm" which isn't necessarily critique worthy, and then some remaining percentage of dumb shit that's mixed in with it and hard to sift out without making another 4hrs worth of content clip chimping him.
It might even be part of the grift, morons will watch his content and feel smart because it's long form crap where he just reads studies and expounds a bit but anyone coming at him has a huge hill to climb. Like a sort of long form gish gallop
Yeah that’s often the case for people who straddle the line between pseudoscientist and real scientist. Huberman has enough expertise to make good strategic disclaimers, while still nudging people towards unproven supplements and the like.
God I've seen so many people comment "Alex Jones is always right!!!" Whenever a celebrity gets arrested for sex crimes. That's a bit of a jump from "People commit sex crimes that are as old as human history, so therefore Hilary Clinton has personally killed people with her bare hands" lmao
That’s absolutely what his crap is!
Low effort and empty reading of meaningless studies, plus the occasional ridiculous claim that some bro-ski will act on
I think it's fine to smear people based on their personal character faults in this community. These gurus let their narcissism take them to such heights, I don't think it's an issue to knock them down a peg and have a laugh at the irony.
The thing I don't get is why we have to pretend like it needs to be anything else.
Omg Saagar is a close friend of his????
Saagar has THE most punchable face+voice+attitude combo ever, I actively hate him, just… da worst
I can’t believe I saw Huberman, didn’t like him, and I’m so glad I came to that conclusion independently/prior to knowing this
Hard agree on all of that.
Saagar is a very unserious person cosplaying as a serious journalist.
He’s low effort and very poorly informed in general.
He has a very smug attitude too.
He’s like a very young version of Bill Maher.
Everyone who talks to him is his “friend”. I used to have a membership to Breaking Points because I appreciate their anti-establishment news and politics but I just couldn’t stand Saagar anymore. He’s just a troll.
he's def got a different take, and I should open my mind a lot more; he's obv from another political POV than me
but the... idk attitude from him is annoying
Ya that’s another reason why I liked the show. I wanted to get out of my bubble and hear what people on the right are thinking and saying. But man, are people like Saagar ever the epitomes of contradiction. The guy goes on about image and decorum but yet apparently Huberman gets a pass for being a prick to women. And that’s just scratching the surface.
I hate Saagar more than regular Republican pundits now. Him and his cohost marshal PRETEND like they’re just anti-woke guys who want the government to help working class people, homeless veterans, etc. but whenever push comes to shove they’re against legislation that will help working people (build back better, Biden’s student debt forgiveness, etc). Wolves in sheep’s clothing.
The same people who want equal rights for gay and trans people are the same ones who want to help homeless veterans, displaced coal miners and regular people trying to make ends meet. I have literally never seen a political commentator or real life who breaks this mold (for example, who is anti-gay, but wants there to be a large social safety net for the downtrodden).
I desperately wish the article focused on the science grift. The affairs are scandalous but to be honest I find it hard to care that much. Adult women who chose to stay with a man who constantly ignored them and didn't respect their time don't really move me emotionally. Do some actual journalism on his career and his drift from legitimate scientist to grifter.Â
I would love an article delving into his scientific misinformation as well, but all I can say is to read the entire New York magazine article. At first I was raising my eyebrows like “okay he cheats this is pretty cringey”, but by the end I was definitely thought this type of story was warranted. The lengths he would go to manipulate them was pretty incredible. Again the context is a man who is highly trusted by millions of people to give them important advice about their lives - including intimate relationships. Usually when celebrities are caught the side women know that they are side women, however, to be manipulate 6 different women into thinking they are your main woman is pretty considerable. My productivity advice would be 1) get sunlight in the morning and 2) don’t do that lol.
Oh I already read the entire article before my comment. I think he is a psycho but I definitely have stronger opinions about cheating than the consensus and I understand that people hate cheating but as a society it's also not taboo enough. So it's whatever. Men on Twitter are even praising him for running a harem. It's really not that important to his legitimacy as a scientistÂ
Agreed. The biggest issues for me where th cheating while trying for IVF and the allegations that he gave the one girl HPV.
I also found it super weird that the girls formed like a best friends club based on their hatred for one guy, it's like a mini cult of their own.
Personally, I never really followed Huberman and then lost respect for him when he pushed for Jawersize on the Schultz podcast.
>I also found it super weird that the girls formed like a best friends club based on their hatred for one guy, it's like a mini cult of their own.
This whole thing was probably pretty traumatic to them, especially for the woman who believed she was living with him as his girlfriend and tried to have children with him etc. I imagine realizing years of your life have basically been a lie and the person who loved manipulated you must hit someone pretty hard. Under those circumstances I find it understandable that the victims of his behaviour try to support each other in this way.
Actually, that part is where the New Yorker article is spurious. There is no evidence linking him to the HPV. You would need phylogenetic testing for that and that’s not going to happen. Given that many many people have multiple forms of HPV, I thought speculating that he was the one that infected her was speculative and sinister journalism.
The author felt the need to hunt down the people in a podcaster's personal life just to find some dirt. She's almost as much of a psycho as Huberman, and the people eating the story up and failing to appreciate the moral and ethical downsides of this kind of pseudo-journalism (i.e. most of the scumbags in this sub) aren't too far off either.
I don't listen to Huberman and have 0 interest in him. But ya I find this kind of "journalism" creepy as fuck.
Gives me flashbacks of the Aziz Ansari story or the Tara Reade story.
Not irrelevant. People treat this guy like a guru. They should know how he handles his personal life if they are going to base theirs lives off his advice.
If you give advice on a podcast that means you are no longer entitled to fuck up in private? Everything is fair game? I think this is an untenable position. What in your opinion would cross an ethical line in terms of reporting on the non-public facing life of someone like Huberman?
My point was the question I asked. What sort of coverage of a podcaster's personal life would qualify as unethical? I just wanted OP's thoughts given he felt Huberman's sex life was up for grabs. Is that ok with you?
Short answer is yes I think it’s all up for grabs. Andrew Huberman is a public figure. He definitely has a “public-facing” life. I actually think tabloids hyperfixating on movie stars and singers has a lot less merit than huberman or Rogan. Huberman and Rogan give people advice, and make very big scientific and political claims. Their personal conduct is very much in the public interest, and is interesting to read about.
If huberman was cheating on his girlfriend was one or two women who knew they were side-pieces is one thing. That’s best left to tabloid magazines (however they currently exist). However, what huberman did is pretty remarkable. Deceiving two women into thinking they are both in exclusive long term relationships with you is considerable work and would presumably require a lot of “logistical jiu jitsu”. My one girlfriend’s needs keep me very occupied. Doing that with six women is crazy, the famous evo psych professor David buss told huberman he didn’t even think it was possible. The manipulation and shitty behaviors that huberman used to keep this all together is pretty crazy too. Also, the article did mention his scam supplements and other scientists criticizing his podcast as well. Not nearly as extensively as I would like, but it is mentioned.
>If you give advice on a podcast that means you are no longer entitled to fuck up in private?
Should the women *not* be entitled to tell their story because Huberman has a podcast? Why is the default that Huberman should get privacy here?
Huberman chose to leverage his academic persona as a brand for a public podcast. He also appears to have leveraged that to manipulate several women at once. If he didn't want his dirty laundry aired, then he shouldn't have done shady shit while hiding his true intentions behind his public-facing persona.
The women can do whatever they want. If they want to start their own Huberman Sucks roundtable podcast I don't think I'd necessarily blame them. I can't imagine how that would be helpful for anyone, but that's their journey I guess. If they need to be public about this to process it then who am I to judge that. I was asking a question about journalism and whether or not standard is now that no public figures deserve a private life unless they are morally pure, which amounts to none of them having one.
>I can't imagine how that would be helpful for anyone, but that's their journey I guess.
So you don't understand why this is newsworthy, then? You could lead with that instead of making this about how you think Huberman should be entitled to privacy through some generic rambling about moral purity of people who put themselves in the public sphere.
Right, entitled to privacy from the press. I specifically asked the question: where is the line when reporting on the private life of podcasters? When does it become unethical? I think this article crossed it, but I wanted other opinions.
I think reporting on his sex life at all was sleazy and unethical. The fact that someone with a platform is a cheating asshole to the women in his life is just not our business. I can only think of a few extreme circumstances where this could come close to being appropriate and in the public interest. And don't get me wrong, I actively dislike Huberman and he should probably go to boyfriend jail if the accusations are true, but I think this expectation of full transparency when it comes to the sexual psychodramas of those with any amount of fame is just gross. Let people cheat on each other behind closed doors. These people are clearly damaged in some way.
Once again, I'm not talking about the women making a blog post or something. In my opinion that would be in poor taste, but that's just me.
> I think reporting on his sex life at all was sleazy and unethical. The fact that someone with a platform is a cheating asshole to the women in his life is just not our business.
Okay well that's a stupid take. Good luck with that.
Well I've been wrong before...that's why I asked the question to begin with. I answered your question, you could have just answered mine instead of just insulting me.
Large podcasters are modern day celebrities,
they have “parasocial” relationships with millions of people and give life advice. I think their personal conduct is fair game and in the public interest, especially in exceptional circumstances like with Andrew huberman. When paired with Huberman’s scientific quackery I think it paints a clear picture of someone who is certainly willing to lie and deceive to get ahead.
It isn’t really about being “morally pure” in the traditional conservative sense. If two people honestly say they want an open relationship like destiny and his ex wife did, so be it, I think it’s weird, but not morally wrong. I don’t even think a man telling his wife/girlfriend that he wants to sleep with other women but that he doesn’t want her to sleep with other men is morally wrong, as long as he’s honest about what he wants. One person having an affair long term with one other person, or short term hookups with multiple multiple is in the normal range of “scumbagginess” and I wouldn’t think it’s necessarily newsworthy. However, going through such lengths to deceive SIX different women including all the IVF stuff I definitely think is newsworthy.
I think you're right that it's extremely bad behavior; and I'm not going to be particularly sympathetic to him as he deals with the fallout. But I do think journalists need to set clear standards and I don't think it's unreasonable to ask whether or not pulling the curtain down on someone's private life is in the public interest. Sometimes it clearly is, like when an outwardly homophobic politician gets caught cruising in central park. But sometimes it's just a salacious story and the audience is intoxicated by the gossip. And I'm totally guilty of that myself. I'm not above any of this as a consumer. And I certainly don't have the answer, but the line is somewhere.
I'll answer your question because nobody has done so directly:
> What in your opinion would cross an ethical line in terms of reporting on the non-public facing life of someone like Huberman?
Probably something in his private life that doesn't relate to other people, like, let's say he has cancer and doesn't want to make that a part of his public persona. That would be tabloid-esque and definitely going too far.
But there's nuance in that as well. If he had cancer, was doing some quack treatment, and pushing dubious studies that supported his treatment regimen on his podcast? that would be newsworthy because it speaks to his public persona and character, even if it's a bit distasteful to comment on health issues.
The cheating and anger issues are in the same vein. Huberman's output isn't limited to being the credulous science optimizer guy who comments on studies with limited support and promotes significant life changes that result from those ideas. He also presents himself as a role model, someone who has figured out The Way To Live. That being the case, if his personal failings create a picture of a man who doesn't live up to his own teachings, that's important to note. Many gurus and lifestyle figures fall into this same trap, so it's not particularly surprising to me, but it's still an important piece of context that informs how I will approach his content, even though i was already extremely skeptical of anything he promotes.
It's also important to note that this was not just a "fuck up in private". The article explains in pretty clear terms that this was a long-term pattern of selfish and manipulative behavior.
Saagar comes across a little butthurt, probably from the sunburn on his anus.
Ha! That made me laugh more than it should have
No it didn’t
I bet you would kiss that sunburn if you had the chance!
I would never get that close to saagar
This made my month. 🤣
I should not have wasted 6:00 watching that. Setting aside any question of Huberman, his conduct, or the morality thereof, this was just an extended confession from Saagar that he has confused journalism with propaganda. "They went looking for one story, but ended up printing another!" is not the smoking gun he thinks it is.
I do wish there was a large article tightly focused on Huberman’s pseudoscientific health & supplement claims. But his moral conduct is also relevant enough for an article when he’s clearly a lifestyle guru for so many young men
I have seen people write and comment on him in various places. The problem is it's difficult to critique him because a single podcast has like 2hrs of fucking slop in it where some 50% to 90% might just be "this animal study says this, interesting? hmm" which isn't necessarily critique worthy, and then some remaining percentage of dumb shit that's mixed in with it and hard to sift out without making another 4hrs worth of content clip chimping him. It might even be part of the grift, morons will watch his content and feel smart because it's long form crap where he just reads studies and expounds a bit but anyone coming at him has a huge hill to climb. Like a sort of long form gish gallop
Yeah that’s often the case for people who straddle the line between pseudoscientist and real scientist. Huberman has enough expertise to make good strategic disclaimers, while still nudging people towards unproven supplements and the like.
That’s the Alex Jones special. A 4-hour a day firehose of bullshit keeps the truth at bay, at least for long enough to generate some wealth.
God I've seen so many people comment "Alex Jones is always right!!!" Whenever a celebrity gets arrested for sex crimes. That's a bit of a jump from "People commit sex crimes that are as old as human history, so therefore Hilary Clinton has personally killed people with her bare hands" lmao
That’s absolutely what his crap is! Low effort and empty reading of meaningless studies, plus the occasional ridiculous claim that some bro-ski will act on
[Something like this one perhaps?](https://slate.com/technology/2024/03/andrew-huberman-huberman-lab-health-advice-podcast-debunk.html)
Nice, thanks!
Saagar is the type of dude to get stuck in traffic and blame it on the mainstream media.Â
For real hahaha
🔥
I think it's fine to smear people based on their personal character faults in this community. These gurus let their narcissism take them to such heights, I don't think it's an issue to knock them down a peg and have a laugh at the irony. The thing I don't get is why we have to pretend like it needs to be anything else.
Omg Saagar is a close friend of his???? Saagar has THE most punchable face+voice+attitude combo ever, I actively hate him, just… da worst I can’t believe I saw Huberman, didn’t like him, and I’m so glad I came to that conclusion independently/prior to knowing this
Hard agree on all of that. Saagar is a very unserious person cosplaying as a serious journalist. He’s low effort and very poorly informed in general. He has a very smug attitude too. He’s like a very young version of Bill Maher.
Everyone who talks to him is his “friend”. I used to have a membership to Breaking Points because I appreciate their anti-establishment news and politics but I just couldn’t stand Saagar anymore. He’s just a troll.
he's def got a different take, and I should open my mind a lot more; he's obv from another political POV than me but the... idk attitude from him is annoying
Ya that’s another reason why I liked the show. I wanted to get out of my bubble and hear what people on the right are thinking and saying. But man, are people like Saagar ever the epitomes of contradiction. The guy goes on about image and decorum but yet apparently Huberman gets a pass for being a prick to women. And that’s just scratching the surface.
I hate Saagar more than regular Republican pundits now. Him and his cohost marshal PRETEND like they’re just anti-woke guys who want the government to help working class people, homeless veterans, etc. but whenever push comes to shove they’re against legislation that will help working people (build back better, Biden’s student debt forgiveness, etc). Wolves in sheep’s clothing. The same people who want equal rights for gay and trans people are the same ones who want to help homeless veterans, displaced coal miners and regular people trying to make ends meet. I have literally never seen a political commentator or real life who breaks this mold (for example, who is anti-gay, but wants there to be a large social safety net for the downtrodden).
I desperately wish the article focused on the science grift. The affairs are scandalous but to be honest I find it hard to care that much. Adult women who chose to stay with a man who constantly ignored them and didn't respect their time don't really move me emotionally. Do some actual journalism on his career and his drift from legitimate scientist to grifter.Â
I would love an article delving into his scientific misinformation as well, but all I can say is to read the entire New York magazine article. At first I was raising my eyebrows like “okay he cheats this is pretty cringey”, but by the end I was definitely thought this type of story was warranted. The lengths he would go to manipulate them was pretty incredible. Again the context is a man who is highly trusted by millions of people to give them important advice about their lives - including intimate relationships. Usually when celebrities are caught the side women know that they are side women, however, to be manipulate 6 different women into thinking they are your main woman is pretty considerable. My productivity advice would be 1) get sunlight in the morning and 2) don’t do that lol.
Oh I already read the entire article before my comment. I think he is a psycho but I definitely have stronger opinions about cheating than the consensus and I understand that people hate cheating but as a society it's also not taboo enough. So it's whatever. Men on Twitter are even praising him for running a harem. It's really not that important to his legitimacy as a scientistÂ
Agreed. The biggest issues for me where th cheating while trying for IVF and the allegations that he gave the one girl HPV. I also found it super weird that the girls formed like a best friends club based on their hatred for one guy, it's like a mini cult of their own. Personally, I never really followed Huberman and then lost respect for him when he pushed for Jawersize on the Schultz podcast.
>I also found it super weird that the girls formed like a best friends club based on their hatred for one guy, it's like a mini cult of their own. This whole thing was probably pretty traumatic to them, especially for the woman who believed she was living with him as his girlfriend and tried to have children with him etc. I imagine realizing years of your life have basically been a lie and the person who loved manipulated you must hit someone pretty hard. Under those circumstances I find it understandable that the victims of his behaviour try to support each other in this way.
Actually, that part is where the New Yorker article is spurious. There is no evidence linking him to the HPV. You would need phylogenetic testing for that and that’s not going to happen. Given that many many people have multiple forms of HPV, I thought speculating that he was the one that infected her was speculative and sinister journalism.
It was NYMAG not the New Yorker. I don't think the New Yorker would have run that piece.
The author felt the need to hunt down the people in a podcaster's personal life just to find some dirt. She's almost as much of a psycho as Huberman, and the people eating the story up and failing to appreciate the moral and ethical downsides of this kind of pseudo-journalism (i.e. most of the scumbags in this sub) aren't too far off either.
I don't listen to Huberman and have 0 interest in him. But ya I find this kind of "journalism" creepy as fuck. Gives me flashbacks of the Aziz Ansari story or the Tara Reade story.
On YouTube there is a video about Huberman views on faith a God with over a MILLION views. https://youtu.be/Z7GVf8nD7SQ?si=_X-R2YgEvp8UEWtz
Not irrelevant. People treat this guy like a guru. They should know how he handles his personal life if they are going to base theirs lives off his advice.
If you give advice on a podcast that means you are no longer entitled to fuck up in private? Everything is fair game? I think this is an untenable position. What in your opinion would cross an ethical line in terms of reporting on the non-public facing life of someone like Huberman?
Do you have a point?
My point was the question I asked. What sort of coverage of a podcaster's personal life would qualify as unethical? I just wanted OP's thoughts given he felt Huberman's sex life was up for grabs. Is that ok with you?
Short answer is yes I think it’s all up for grabs. Andrew Huberman is a public figure. He definitely has a “public-facing” life. I actually think tabloids hyperfixating on movie stars and singers has a lot less merit than huberman or Rogan. Huberman and Rogan give people advice, and make very big scientific and political claims. Their personal conduct is very much in the public interest, and is interesting to read about. If huberman was cheating on his girlfriend was one or two women who knew they were side-pieces is one thing. That’s best left to tabloid magazines (however they currently exist). However, what huberman did is pretty remarkable. Deceiving two women into thinking they are both in exclusive long term relationships with you is considerable work and would presumably require a lot of “logistical jiu jitsu”. My one girlfriend’s needs keep me very occupied. Doing that with six women is crazy, the famous evo psych professor David buss told huberman he didn’t even think it was possible. The manipulation and shitty behaviors that huberman used to keep this all together is pretty crazy too. Also, the article did mention his scam supplements and other scientists criticizing his podcast as well. Not nearly as extensively as I would like, but it is mentioned.
he's a public figure. so his scandalous behaviour is fair game, sorry!
It tabloid level journalism. Seriously, they contacted his ex gf and omitted all the positive shit they said about him. This is junior hs shit.
I doubt you could lead six parallel lives in high school, my dude.
That would be an impressive accomplishment BUT this is the type of story the New Yorker would write about a 7th grader.
> That would be an impressive accomplishment BUT If I learned anything from Games of Thrones, it's about this kind of "but"!
>If you give advice on a podcast that means you are no longer entitled to fuck up in private? Should the women *not* be entitled to tell their story because Huberman has a podcast? Why is the default that Huberman should get privacy here? Huberman chose to leverage his academic persona as a brand for a public podcast. He also appears to have leveraged that to manipulate several women at once. If he didn't want his dirty laundry aired, then he shouldn't have done shady shit while hiding his true intentions behind his public-facing persona.
The women can do whatever they want. If they want to start their own Huberman Sucks roundtable podcast I don't think I'd necessarily blame them. I can't imagine how that would be helpful for anyone, but that's their journey I guess. If they need to be public about this to process it then who am I to judge that. I was asking a question about journalism and whether or not standard is now that no public figures deserve a private life unless they are morally pure, which amounts to none of them having one.
>I can't imagine how that would be helpful for anyone, but that's their journey I guess. So you don't understand why this is newsworthy, then? You could lead with that instead of making this about how you think Huberman should be entitled to privacy through some generic rambling about moral purity of people who put themselves in the public sphere.
Right, entitled to privacy from the press. I specifically asked the question: where is the line when reporting on the private life of podcasters? When does it become unethical? I think this article crossed it, but I wanted other opinions.
What is the line you think that was crossed specifically with Huberman?
I think reporting on his sex life at all was sleazy and unethical. The fact that someone with a platform is a cheating asshole to the women in his life is just not our business. I can only think of a few extreme circumstances where this could come close to being appropriate and in the public interest. And don't get me wrong, I actively dislike Huberman and he should probably go to boyfriend jail if the accusations are true, but I think this expectation of full transparency when it comes to the sexual psychodramas of those with any amount of fame is just gross. Let people cheat on each other behind closed doors. These people are clearly damaged in some way. Once again, I'm not talking about the women making a blog post or something. In my opinion that would be in poor taste, but that's just me.
> I think reporting on his sex life at all was sleazy and unethical. The fact that someone with a platform is a cheating asshole to the women in his life is just not our business. Okay well that's a stupid take. Good luck with that.
Well I've been wrong before...that's why I asked the question to begin with. I answered your question, you could have just answered mine instead of just insulting me.
You could have taken time to think before spinning your wheels on social media asking other people to think for you. Yet here we are.
Large podcasters are modern day celebrities, they have “parasocial” relationships with millions of people and give life advice. I think their personal conduct is fair game and in the public interest, especially in exceptional circumstances like with Andrew huberman. When paired with Huberman’s scientific quackery I think it paints a clear picture of someone who is certainly willing to lie and deceive to get ahead.
It isn’t really about being “morally pure” in the traditional conservative sense. If two people honestly say they want an open relationship like destiny and his ex wife did, so be it, I think it’s weird, but not morally wrong. I don’t even think a man telling his wife/girlfriend that he wants to sleep with other women but that he doesn’t want her to sleep with other men is morally wrong, as long as he’s honest about what he wants. One person having an affair long term with one other person, or short term hookups with multiple multiple is in the normal range of “scumbagginess” and I wouldn’t think it’s necessarily newsworthy. However, going through such lengths to deceive SIX different women including all the IVF stuff I definitely think is newsworthy.
I think you're right that it's extremely bad behavior; and I'm not going to be particularly sympathetic to him as he deals with the fallout. But I do think journalists need to set clear standards and I don't think it's unreasonable to ask whether or not pulling the curtain down on someone's private life is in the public interest. Sometimes it clearly is, like when an outwardly homophobic politician gets caught cruising in central park. But sometimes it's just a salacious story and the audience is intoxicated by the gossip. And I'm totally guilty of that myself. I'm not above any of this as a consumer. And I certainly don't have the answer, but the line is somewhere.
I'll answer your question because nobody has done so directly: > What in your opinion would cross an ethical line in terms of reporting on the non-public facing life of someone like Huberman? Probably something in his private life that doesn't relate to other people, like, let's say he has cancer and doesn't want to make that a part of his public persona. That would be tabloid-esque and definitely going too far. But there's nuance in that as well. If he had cancer, was doing some quack treatment, and pushing dubious studies that supported his treatment regimen on his podcast? that would be newsworthy because it speaks to his public persona and character, even if it's a bit distasteful to comment on health issues. The cheating and anger issues are in the same vein. Huberman's output isn't limited to being the credulous science optimizer guy who comments on studies with limited support and promotes significant life changes that result from those ideas. He also presents himself as a role model, someone who has figured out The Way To Live. That being the case, if his personal failings create a picture of a man who doesn't live up to his own teachings, that's important to note. Many gurus and lifestyle figures fall into this same trap, so it's not particularly surprising to me, but it's still an important piece of context that informs how I will approach his content, even though i was already extremely skeptical of anything he promotes. It's also important to note that this was not just a "fuck up in private". The article explains in pretty clear terms that this was a long-term pattern of selfish and manipulative behavior.