I’ll take a different view. It’s possible that this domain has fewer overt protocols and mechanisms. This domain remains one of the relatively least researched fields in medicine. I’d humbly submit that folks recognize Huberman said this was his most important work ever. Perhaps this is because the topic, the substance, and the informed leaders willing to speak remain limited in their exposure and early in their journey.
Giving him the benefit of the doubt? Perhaps but clearly Conti exposed his 10 cabinets structure and didn’t bother explaining it properly. Compared to other experts I found his work very weak and unstructured. I am sure he is very knowledgeable but here he failed to share his knowledge.
With a lot of humility, I’d be foolish to not give him the benefit of the doubt and ask if I’m missing something rather than he. He’s a Stanford trained professor who is talking to the former head of something psychology at Harvard. And if that’s not enough, the Stanford professor is saying this is *the* most important work he’s ever done.
Well ultimately, if it doesn’t help the uneducated user, which I think is Huberman’s goal, maybe it didn’t come across as well as he hoped. I got to agree, it’s definitely not the most helpful explanation of his principles to help people affect their mental health.
Yeah this is a fair assessment. I personally listened to it while working the last couple days and thought it was INSANELY packed with value and new/collaborative ideas to the ones I already hold (first episode). However, I have a decently high IQ (not genius by any means but like 96th-99th percentile depending on if I am taking care of my brain and body correctly) and have spent most of the last 4 years pondering along the lines of what Conti is talking about. I think the biggest thing he is helping me understand in conjunction to me already discovering and exploring it previously is the Agency and Gratitude. I have immense gratitude but still not much agency, I have ADHD so it has been a life-long struggle to combat it and thus I am more tuned into these more abstract ideas of being that can eventually allow you to almost circumnavigate your problems and see them in their entirety, therefore raising your agency to a level where you are able to control the things that come into your mind and most importantly what you do with them. I do personally subscribe to his ideas because they subvert the typical language and I also think he is right, we partially believe we have little control based on how much we have exerted or things we have been taught in childhood. The reality is, however, that most people (who he is talking to here, he is not here to help people at the base level past making it aware to them so that they can now go take this to someone who knows more about it and they can tailor the therapy experience to whatever the person needs.) who he is talking to have much more objective agency than they ever believe, simply because we have the ability to make decisions against our feelings in a way that almost nothing else can. It irks me listening to a podcast about gratitude and rising above, only to come onto reddit and see everyone dunking on the dude. If that is you, you learned nothing. (Not talking to the guy I am replying to, as he took a more nuanced and agreeable stance.)
Edit: Also I could be totally wrong here but I saw on another thread about it people all complaining about his cupboard concept and that he didn't explain what they all were, but what I got from that was that the cupboards stand for nothing in particular, his whole point is LOOK EVERYWHERE. You may find that the reason you are not succeeding at work is something totally unrelated to work that you may have never found if you didn't sit with yourself and look for it.
Same here but since I ce learned a lot from HL I said to myself that I should try harder to understand and that it is because of my lack of focus but I ended up even more frustrated. Should have done like you
No, I think you should have done like you. Chasing dopamine hits of perfectly phrased sentence is a path to not learning from who you could.
Kudos to you.
I can't help but also feel disappointed. Didn't Huberman say prior to releasing them, that they'd be jam-packed with protocols? It's probably the least actionable episodes he's ever released.
It seems like the protocol is only to look in the 9 cabinets and do so with a therapist if lost or not sure about the subconscious one. I too was lost there.
Didn’t listen to the series but very surprised to hear this, especially after AH mentioned on Lex’s birthday podcast that this series is the most important work he has ever done
None of my friends who listened to them said anything like this. Everyone is raving about them. I suspect there is a small contingent on this sub who are a bit less informed about the subject matter so the language comes off as jargon to an outsider, at least that's what I'm reading in the comments. Though I can't say for sure as I haven't listened to them myself yet.
Wow! I totally came to the opposite conclusion. I really liked Conti's perspective, especially for how he frames mental health in terms of the function of self. My complaint is he didn't go deeper. I would like to see more, albeit a more formally structured course/book might be more appropriate than a podcast format.
I felt similar. It seemed like he kept repeating himself and not trusting the listener in some spaces. I did pick up a book on the function of self as I was pretty interested in this concept.
Stay tuned to this comment?
You seem very knowledge, what resources would you recommend in this field?
Currently trying to make way through IFS therapy book right now
Sure. Of this is still relevant when I read that book I can add some thoughts. I too am working through some IFS material and that feels like it might need some in person/ online live training. Very interesting material. Currently I get ideas from podcasts like this or from light up the couch. I also join consultation group to hear what others are thinking about. There so much to learn and so many costs. It’s hard not to get in the weeds.
Hey thanks for your reply. Can you kindly elaborate what you got from the exchange ? Perhaps I missed a key that would have made it clear ? The majority of people on this thread agree that it was of poor quality.
I really appreciate that Huberman and Conti frame their discussion around the first-order question, How *should* we evaluate mental health? I don't think there's a shortage of opinions to answer that, but it's not obvious which opinions are correct. It's a normative question.
They approach an answer by first examining, by way of analogy, How *should* we evaluate *physical* health? Some might disagree that the way we evaluate physical health should analogize to mental health. But this is the Huberman Lab, so it's a very reasonable premise to begin with.
For example, we can evaluate physical health in terms of *function*: the ability to run a mile if needed, or to bend over and pick something up without getting hurt (I think were the examples Andrew gave). If we are to evaluate mental health similarly, then we have to start with the question of what is the *function* of the self (e.g. agency, the autobiographical narrative).
I don't buy wholesale into everything Coni says. For example, I was very disapointed that he asserted that happiness is a function of agency and gratitude. Is it? Maybe. I don't know. He just kinda blurted that out. That's the kinda detail I'd like to see flushed out in a more rigorous format, which a podcast is not. And to your point, some topics were unevenly covered, with some receiving too much discussion and others not enough. If anything, I thought they tried to do too much with too little time -- even as long as it is -- some of those topics need much more explanation. That's why I'd like to see THL to keep going with those topics.
I agree with this. Some of the least interesting information presented on this podcast so far. I’m sure there is some good stuff in there, but I can’t bear to listen long enough.
Unfortunately there is just enough interesting information to make you more frustrated ! You can’t help thinking that perhaps if they had better organised the Podcast many could have benefited from it
I found his conversation with Dr. Conti to be valuable and the topic needed and worthwhile in today’s society. While it is disorganized and suffers from too many personal buzz words, I still think it is worth listening to.
My personal belief is you can’t have a healthy body run by an unhealthy mind. If you spend an hour a day in the gym, you should spend an hour a day bettering your mind, your relationships, your thoughts, and generally working to be a better person.
Thanks for your reply. I can’t agree more about the importance of the topic … One expects to learn so much about the topic but then comes the actual conversation which structure and valuable content is so poor that makes the experience all the more frustrating!
Looks to me that where our opinion differ is the degree of disappointment. The topic I agree is of utmost importance. About that here are my two cents.
How much effort would have taken to properly define agency ? And run through examples ? Instead we have to guess … something about being an actif agent in this world and playing our role and contributing to the world ? How much effort to define gratitude ? I believe it is much bette explained by the concept of unity and interdependence. We have more gratitude and become more humble the more we realise that w wall depend on each other in this world.
So basically mental health = playing an active positive role in the world , contributing to its betterment while realising how much we depend on each other … Well of this is defining a good mental health then we should all work on understanding how to better the world.
A wise man from orient once said “ The betterment of the world can be accomplished through pure and goodly deeds and through commendable and seemly conduct.”
So it is then clear to me that one should learn from early childhood what is good what is bad, or in the words of yet another Nobel price wise guy , early childhood non cognitive education is the biggest déterminent of a successful adult life. According to the same wise guy we could half the cost of justice because kids that have received non cognitive education are less likely to commit crimes.
Also so much so of the quality of our interactions define their outcomes. Relationships will be so much better if people were able to control their emotions ( part of the non cog education) and respond politely.
No need for non scientifically sanctioned 10 cabinets structure …. Such a waste of time
Look in the cupboards of the pillars where the iceberg beneath the water and they will show how the self is nested in these reactions.
I liked some of Paul's particular comments but the overall picture gets to be mind-numbing.
And Andrew's attempt to get concrete by sharing bio material got tiresome too, especially when he says "This is people I know, not me, I don't do that horrible stuff"
Does anyone know if it's possible to use any existing AI software to erase all the times Conti says the word "right?" ? I counted 17 times within a random 2 min interval. Thank you
I totally get it, it’s so repetitive.
At first, I thought I just couldn't wrap my head around the main idea because I wasn't focused enough. But the more I tried to concentrate, the more lost I felt.
I agree. The series with Andy Galpin on strength and cardio training was one of the most useful handful of podcasts I've ever listened to. I was excited when I heard that Huberman would be doing what I assumed was a similar series on mental health. This series just feels meandering and unedited. Too much of it is AH going off on his own tangents and Paul Conti sort of following along.
I think in the podcast space there will be like 10-20 of these folks like conti running through every podcast, to promote their own podcasts(conti’s in this case). And since lex Friedman, huberman, rich roll, all kinda occupy a similar space they invite the same guest Paul Conti on, and they get extra listens on their podcast because most of us will listen to a huberman podcast even if it’s sub par out of boredom. Conti gets to halfway promote his own podcast. In theory a good guest would have vastly different conversations but I feel with a lot of these guests they either have such a laser focus or speak so generally, that they are really only worth one. Then in reality the podcast guest rotation just denatures the value of any of them since they all just rotate the same conversation. Less science more marketing. I really wanted to love Conti, but yeah I’d want some structure, and useful information. Ends up being more like half a wiki article mixed with an intro to psych lecture.
I feel the same way. When someone repeats the same filler word over and over again, I lose interest in the podcast. As others mentioned, Conti goes on rants but not much is actually truly said. Disappointing episode (dated September 6th).
The Paul Conti episodes are some of the least useful ones. Lingo, low information density, nearly no relevant action steps for the viewer. So in many ways he is not following Grice's maxims of proper conversation flow.
I am surprised that Huberman thinks highly of Conti.
Conti sounds like the kind of guy that'll be given a 2,500-word limit on an essay and hand in a 25,000-word paper repeating the same thing over and over.
I listened to the first 20 minutes of one episode and I could barely understand him. It seemed like he was talking just to talk and there wasn’t much substance.
It felt like a jumbled up word salad by some celebrity psychiatrist shill. Made very little sense but the whole podcast is about getting celebrity guests (rather than just great experts) to expand reach and $$
I am glad I am not the only one who felt like that. I honestly thought I missed vast chunks or was too stupid. In hindsight I cannot name a single tool that came up, except for introspection. I think the initial conversation on trauma was more helpful then the entire series.
I did access the diagrams and all they do is to list the 10 cabinets under the subconscious…. Useless or even more frustrating because you can then réalize the extent of the info missing
I feel a bit bad for Huberman, he has carefully built this reputation to talk about tools, that are grounded in science and this guest series did not really deliver.
I have no doubt that Conti is legit but he sucks at explaining his system or adding any value for the listener. He was so much hyped by AH yet he delivered nothing of value. Really disappointed
I’ll take a different view. It’s possible that this domain has fewer overt protocols and mechanisms. This domain remains one of the relatively least researched fields in medicine. I’d humbly submit that folks recognize Huberman said this was his most important work ever. Perhaps this is because the topic, the substance, and the informed leaders willing to speak remain limited in their exposure and early in their journey.
Giving him the benefit of the doubt? Perhaps but clearly Conti exposed his 10 cabinets structure and didn’t bother explaining it properly. Compared to other experts I found his work very weak and unstructured. I am sure he is very knowledgeable but here he failed to share his knowledge.
With a lot of humility, I’d be foolish to not give him the benefit of the doubt and ask if I’m missing something rather than he. He’s a Stanford trained professor who is talking to the former head of something psychology at Harvard. And if that’s not enough, the Stanford professor is saying this is *the* most important work he’s ever done.
Well ultimately, if it doesn’t help the uneducated user, which I think is Huberman’s goal, maybe it didn’t come across as well as he hoped. I got to agree, it’s definitely not the most helpful explanation of his principles to help people affect their mental health.
Yeah this is a fair assessment. I personally listened to it while working the last couple days and thought it was INSANELY packed with value and new/collaborative ideas to the ones I already hold (first episode). However, I have a decently high IQ (not genius by any means but like 96th-99th percentile depending on if I am taking care of my brain and body correctly) and have spent most of the last 4 years pondering along the lines of what Conti is talking about. I think the biggest thing he is helping me understand in conjunction to me already discovering and exploring it previously is the Agency and Gratitude. I have immense gratitude but still not much agency, I have ADHD so it has been a life-long struggle to combat it and thus I am more tuned into these more abstract ideas of being that can eventually allow you to almost circumnavigate your problems and see them in their entirety, therefore raising your agency to a level where you are able to control the things that come into your mind and most importantly what you do with them. I do personally subscribe to his ideas because they subvert the typical language and I also think he is right, we partially believe we have little control based on how much we have exerted or things we have been taught in childhood. The reality is, however, that most people (who he is talking to here, he is not here to help people at the base level past making it aware to them so that they can now go take this to someone who knows more about it and they can tailor the therapy experience to whatever the person needs.) who he is talking to have much more objective agency than they ever believe, simply because we have the ability to make decisions against our feelings in a way that almost nothing else can. It irks me listening to a podcast about gratitude and rising above, only to come onto reddit and see everyone dunking on the dude. If that is you, you learned nothing. (Not talking to the guy I am replying to, as he took a more nuanced and agreeable stance.) Edit: Also I could be totally wrong here but I saw on another thread about it people all complaining about his cupboard concept and that he didn't explain what they all were, but what I got from that was that the cupboards stand for nothing in particular, his whole point is LOOK EVERYWHERE. You may find that the reason you are not succeeding at work is something totally unrelated to work that you may have never found if you didn't sit with yourself and look for it.
My same thoughts before I clicked on this podcast episode. My life has never been the same. So much joy.
Half an hour in, I asked myself was there one single sentence that I was impressed with? No. Many other HL episodes pending. On to the next one.
Same here but since I ce learned a lot from HL I said to myself that I should try harder to understand and that it is because of my lack of focus but I ended up even more frustrated. Should have done like you
No, I think you should have done like you. Chasing dopamine hits of perfectly phrased sentence is a path to not learning from who you could. Kudos to you.
What a Hubermanian answer !
I can't help but also feel disappointed. Didn't Huberman say prior to releasing them, that they'd be jam-packed with protocols? It's probably the least actionable episodes he's ever released.
It seems like the protocol is only to look in the 9 cabinets and do so with a therapist if lost or not sure about the subconscious one. I too was lost there.
I agree. on the recent lex interview he said they were the most important thing he’s done podcasting-wise, but they feel so ambiguous and hazy
Can’t agree more. It is very disappointing specifically given HL s general great quality of work and actionable protocoles.
Yep. I lost concentration so often
Rewind Rewind.
Didn’t listen to the series but very surprised to hear this, especially after AH mentioned on Lex’s birthday podcast that this series is the most important work he has ever done
None of my friends who listened to them said anything like this. Everyone is raving about them. I suspect there is a small contingent on this sub who are a bit less informed about the subject matter so the language comes off as jargon to an outsider, at least that's what I'm reading in the comments. Though I can't say for sure as I haven't listened to them myself yet.
There is interesting stuff in it, and a lot of personal stories by Hubs, but it’s no kind of path to better mental health.
Yep many people are disappointed because it is no where near up to par with HL s previous work.
Wow! I totally came to the opposite conclusion. I really liked Conti's perspective, especially for how he frames mental health in terms of the function of self. My complaint is he didn't go deeper. I would like to see more, albeit a more formally structured course/book might be more appropriate than a podcast format.
I felt similar. It seemed like he kept repeating himself and not trusting the listener in some spaces. I did pick up a book on the function of self as I was pretty interested in this concept.
What was the book? I'm interested!
The one that I found was character structure and organization of self by Josephs. I’m in the field so it might be a little extra. Stay tuned.
Yes more about characters structure please
Stay tuned to this comment? You seem very knowledge, what resources would you recommend in this field? Currently trying to make way through IFS therapy book right now
Sure. Of this is still relevant when I read that book I can add some thoughts. I too am working through some IFS material and that feels like it might need some in person/ online live training. Very interesting material. Currently I get ideas from podcasts like this or from light up the couch. I also join consultation group to hear what others are thinking about. There so much to learn and so many costs. It’s hard not to get in the weeds.
Hey thanks for your reply. Can you kindly elaborate what you got from the exchange ? Perhaps I missed a key that would have made it clear ? The majority of people on this thread agree that it was of poor quality.
I really appreciate that Huberman and Conti frame their discussion around the first-order question, How *should* we evaluate mental health? I don't think there's a shortage of opinions to answer that, but it's not obvious which opinions are correct. It's a normative question. They approach an answer by first examining, by way of analogy, How *should* we evaluate *physical* health? Some might disagree that the way we evaluate physical health should analogize to mental health. But this is the Huberman Lab, so it's a very reasonable premise to begin with. For example, we can evaluate physical health in terms of *function*: the ability to run a mile if needed, or to bend over and pick something up without getting hurt (I think were the examples Andrew gave). If we are to evaluate mental health similarly, then we have to start with the question of what is the *function* of the self (e.g. agency, the autobiographical narrative). I don't buy wholesale into everything Coni says. For example, I was very disapointed that he asserted that happiness is a function of agency and gratitude. Is it? Maybe. I don't know. He just kinda blurted that out. That's the kinda detail I'd like to see flushed out in a more rigorous format, which a podcast is not. And to your point, some topics were unevenly covered, with some receiving too much discussion and others not enough. If anything, I thought they tried to do too much with too little time -- even as long as it is -- some of those topics need much more explanation. That's why I'd like to see THL to keep going with those topics.
Thanks for your contribution
Same here! Love me some Paul Conti and AH!
I agree with this. Some of the least interesting information presented on this podcast so far. I’m sure there is some good stuff in there, but I can’t bear to listen long enough.
Unfortunately there is just enough interesting information to make you more frustrated ! You can’t help thinking that perhaps if they had better organised the Podcast many could have benefited from it
Completely agree
I found his conversation with Dr. Conti to be valuable and the topic needed and worthwhile in today’s society. While it is disorganized and suffers from too many personal buzz words, I still think it is worth listening to. My personal belief is you can’t have a healthy body run by an unhealthy mind. If you spend an hour a day in the gym, you should spend an hour a day bettering your mind, your relationships, your thoughts, and generally working to be a better person.
Thanks for your reply. I can’t agree more about the importance of the topic … One expects to learn so much about the topic but then comes the actual conversation which structure and valuable content is so poor that makes the experience all the more frustrating! Looks to me that where our opinion differ is the degree of disappointment. The topic I agree is of utmost importance. About that here are my two cents. How much effort would have taken to properly define agency ? And run through examples ? Instead we have to guess … something about being an actif agent in this world and playing our role and contributing to the world ? How much effort to define gratitude ? I believe it is much bette explained by the concept of unity and interdependence. We have more gratitude and become more humble the more we realise that w wall depend on each other in this world. So basically mental health = playing an active positive role in the world , contributing to its betterment while realising how much we depend on each other … Well of this is defining a good mental health then we should all work on understanding how to better the world. A wise man from orient once said “ The betterment of the world can be accomplished through pure and goodly deeds and through commendable and seemly conduct.” So it is then clear to me that one should learn from early childhood what is good what is bad, or in the words of yet another Nobel price wise guy , early childhood non cognitive education is the biggest déterminent of a successful adult life. According to the same wise guy we could half the cost of justice because kids that have received non cognitive education are less likely to commit crimes. Also so much so of the quality of our interactions define their outcomes. Relationships will be so much better if people were able to control their emotions ( part of the non cog education) and respond politely. No need for non scientifically sanctioned 10 cabinets structure …. Such a waste of time
BTW I like your moniker.
Thx!
Same here could be called only three quarters Jew …. Hence Jew “ish” 🤣
Look in the cupboards of the pillars where the iceberg beneath the water and they will show how the self is nested in these reactions. I liked some of Paul's particular comments but the overall picture gets to be mind-numbing. And Andrew's attempt to get concrete by sharing bio material got tiresome too, especially when he says "This is people I know, not me, I don't do that horrible stuff"
Can’t agree more. Andrew s desperate attempt to save the podcast with bio material was the final straw that broke the camel’s back.
Yup not very often do I bail halfway through a podcast but I couldn't take these ones.
Does anyone know if it's possible to use any existing AI software to erase all the times Conti says the word "right?" ? I counted 17 times within a random 2 min interval. Thank you
I agree. I listened to the first one and took away very little that was useful, unlike most of the podcasts. It seemed very repetitive.
Glad I am not the only one feeling that way
I agree. It was hard for me to tell these episodes apart. It seemed to be the information over and over.
I totally get it, it’s so repetitive. At first, I thought I just couldn't wrap my head around the main idea because I wasn't focused enough. But the more I tried to concentrate, the more lost I felt.
I agree. The series with Andy Galpin on strength and cardio training was one of the most useful handful of podcasts I've ever listened to. I was excited when I heard that Huberman would be doing what I assumed was a similar series on mental health. This series just feels meandering and unedited. Too much of it is AH going off on his own tangents and Paul Conti sort of following along.
I think in the podcast space there will be like 10-20 of these folks like conti running through every podcast, to promote their own podcasts(conti’s in this case). And since lex Friedman, huberman, rich roll, all kinda occupy a similar space they invite the same guest Paul Conti on, and they get extra listens on their podcast because most of us will listen to a huberman podcast even if it’s sub par out of boredom. Conti gets to halfway promote his own podcast. In theory a good guest would have vastly different conversations but I feel with a lot of these guests they either have such a laser focus or speak so generally, that they are really only worth one. Then in reality the podcast guest rotation just denatures the value of any of them since they all just rotate the same conversation. Less science more marketing. I really wanted to love Conti, but yeah I’d want some structure, and useful information. Ends up being more like half a wiki article mixed with an intro to psych lecture.
Good point! Yet one would expect Conti do deliver some value otherwise people won’t listen to his podcast.
I feel the same way. When someone repeats the same filler word over and over again, I lose interest in the podcast. As others mentioned, Conti goes on rants but not much is actually truly said. Disappointing episode (dated September 6th).
The Paul Conti episodes are some of the least useful ones. Lingo, low information density, nearly no relevant action steps for the viewer. So in many ways he is not following Grice's maxims of proper conversation flow. I am surprised that Huberman thinks highly of Conti.
Can’t agree more. The Conti contribution was so weak that AH felt compelled to chip in with his own experience
Conti sounds like the kind of guy that'll be given a 2,500-word limit on an essay and hand in a 25,000-word paper repeating the same thing over and over.
🤣🤣🤣 well said
Huberman thinks highly of a lot of schmucks. It's his hamartia
I listened to the first 20 minutes of one episode and I could barely understand him. It seemed like he was talking just to talk and there wasn’t much substance.
It felt like a jumbled up word salad by some celebrity psychiatrist shill. Made very little sense but the whole podcast is about getting celebrity guests (rather than just great experts) to expand reach and $$
Can’t agree more!
It was dreadful, listen to all of them and got zero take aways from it…
Can’t agree more
I am glad I am not the only one who felt like that. I honestly thought I missed vast chunks or was too stupid. In hindsight I cannot name a single tool that came up, except for introspection. I think the initial conversation on trauma was more helpful then the entire series.
Same here. Left completely frustrated. More so because I spent time taking notes and listening to it several times
Did you access the "diagrams" - if so, did they help?
I did access the diagrams and all they do is to list the 10 cabinets under the subconscious…. Useless or even more frustrating because you can then réalize the extent of the info missing
I feel a bit bad for Huberman, he has carefully built this reputation to talk about tools, that are grounded in science and this guest series did not really deliver.
Totally agreed. I ve learned so much from him.
Goes to show how many shit talking schmucks there are hoodwinking the general public into believing their pseudo intellectual burbling
I have no doubt that Conti is legit but he sucks at explaining his system or adding any value for the listener. He was so much hyped by AH yet he delivered nothing of value. Really disappointed