Andrew Huberman's authority problem
How (and how not) to balance responsibility, authority, and audience connection during moments of crisis.
TL;DR:
Andrew Huberman’s handling of criticism after the New York Magazine article revealed the challenges of balancing authority with audience trust. His comments lacked curiosity and accountability, projecting blame away from himself and onto his audience. This missed opportunity underscores the need for leaders to develop a shared understanding with their followers following a rupture. Leadership, as Huberman himself often suggests, is a continual process of learning from experience — both others’ and one’s own.
Andrew Huberman recently released a clever ad on social media to promote Huberman Lab Essentials, a condensed version of his popular podcast. The ad’s imagery conjures up criticism he faced after a New York Magazine article accused him of dishonesty and deceptiveness in his personal and professional life.
In the ad, Huberman scrolls through Instagram comments criticizing the length of his episodes. One can easily imagine him scrolling through the attacks about his personal life that followed the article. Intentional or not, this sleight of hand lets him acknowledge the backlash without addressing it directly, all while promoting a new product. It’s a savvy marketing tactic.
From a leadership perspective, Huberman’s strategy might be considered effective. The ad reassures his audience that he’s listening to them while reinforcing his persona as calm, level-headed, and resilient. By setting a clear boundary around his professional role, he conveys his commitment to provide valuable scientific information to listeners — a meaningful offering that benefits many.
But like all human behavior, every leadership decision has a shadow side. To express one thing, something else must be repressed, disowned, or projected elsewhere. Recognizing this shadow side can help leaders anticipate unseen consequences of their decision-making and better understand the unconscious anxieties and desires rumbling beneath the surface of their own psyches and the organizations they lead.
Fighting words
Huberman’s initial response to the article set the tone for what followed. He owned up to some of the allegations but then quickly shifted the focus onto an online landscape he argued thrives on tearing down influential leaders. He also offered an armchair diagnosis of social media as a whole, describing the feedback public figures receive on the internet as “borderline.”
On a Huberman Lab episode featuring psychoanalyst James Hollis, he said:
"You need to be prepared to be told, sometimes subtly and sometimes overtly, that you're terrible. You also need to be prepared for immense reward and being told you're spectacular. That’s what it is to interact with a borderline person. There’s no predicting their flips."
A few weeks later, on the Jocko Podcast, he expanded:
“Borderline means going back and forth from healthy and sane to psychotic. It’s projecting either love or hate, and you can’t control which one it’ll be…The larger the group, the lower the level of consciousness.”
Before going any further, it’s important to note that, on a technical level, Huberman’s use of “borderline” is problematic for at least two reasons:
“Borderline” (short for borderline personality disorder) is a clinical diagnosis that gets assigned to individuals, not groups. Audiences are not individuals with a personality disorder, but instead are a dynamic, diverse collection of people with varying reactions and behaviors. Therefore, Huberman’s application of the term to social media is fundamentally misguided.
Using “borderline” in this way risks stigmatizing mental health issues and downplaying the real and legitimate struggles of people with BPD and other personality disorders. (Important note: I do not believe this was Huberman’s intention.)
It’s true that social media interactions are often extreme and polarized, which on the surface seems to fit the “borderline” description. But is it possible that even the most seemingly irrational reactions represent valid emotional responses that deserve to be taken seriously?
If so, we need start by recognizing Huberman isn’t just anyone on the internet: he’s widely regarded as an authority figure. And this makes all the difference.
“Do figures of authority just shoot you down?”
Huberman’s authority comes from both his academic credentials and his public presence. He earned his PhD in Neuroscience from UC Davis and is a faculty member at Stanford University. His research on vision, brain plasticity, and stress has been published in peer-reviewed journals, and his ability to explain complex science in simple terms has made him a trusted communicator to those who don’t share the same advanced training. His openness about his struggles with anxiety and personal growth adds to his emotional relatability, further inspiring a dedicated followership.
In short, his authority is legitimate, despite what his critics might say. And people’s feelings and attitudes about authority figures are often highly complex.
For most of us, the first authority figures we encounter are our parents. We encounter them within our family, the first institution to which we belong. Early experiences of our families shape who we become as adults and influence how we interact with other institutions, from schools and workplaces to politics and society. It’s from our family life that we learn how trustworthy the world is and decide how we relate to authority — whether we follow it because we expect it to lead us well, submit to it out of fear, or resist it because we believe it’s corrupt.
By now, it’s no news that trust in many American institutions is at a low point. Rapid social change, globalization, the breakdown of traditional family structures, exponential pace of technology, and growing threat of climate change have strained our mental reserves and eroded confidence in core institutions.
During the COVID-19 lockdowns, social media influencers and podcasters like Huberman stepped in to fill this gap, positioning themselves as a ragtag rebel army dedicated to exploring truths that conventional wisdom overlooks or actively seeks to suppress. Along the way, they offered new ways of engaging with the world, providing a sense of empowerment for many who felt stressed, lost, and adrift.
Yet many of the most successful podcasters have tried to walk a fine line between resisting and owning their authority as influential communicators. For example, Dax Shepard named his podcast Armchair Expert, and Joe Rogan refused to own the charge completely during a 2021 episode of The Joe Rogan Experience when he said, “I'm not a respected source of information, even for me.” As much as they enjoy the benefits of influence, they seem to balk at the notion their platforms entail actual responsibility.
Unlike many of his peers in the podcasting community, however, Huberman’s academic credentials and the scientific nature of his content make this tightrope walk trickier. It’s more glaring when his behavior seems to deviate from the already high expectations people place on authority figures — and more important for him to take the feedback seriously.
When (and why) leaders become defensive
Leaders are held to higher standards because, on a very deep level, people want to believe in them. Our emotional security depends on our ability to trust the people who lead us. When that trust is broken, it can feel like yet another piece of an already fragile world is falling apart.
While it can be uncomfortable to accept the reality of negative projections, being able to tolerate them — and even explore how they might be valid — is an essential leadership skill. Leadership isn’t about being perfect, but about engaging criticism thoughtfully, even when it stings.
Most leaders know that negative projections come with the territory. But when complaints touch unresolved emotional wounds — many of which are rooted in childhood experience — they can trigger defensiveness. This defensiveness points to vulnerabilities in the leader’s self-concept that yearn for protection or strengthening. While self-protection is natural, defensiveness risks rupturing the leader-follower relationship. And what shields the leader’s ego often amplifies the follower’s anxiety, creating a cycle of mistrust.
Defensiveness may provide quick relief, but it doesn’t foster long-term growth in the leader-follower relationship. A more productive approach involves honest self-reflection, ideally done in dialogue with others — not just with trusted confidants, but also with those who feel harmed by the leader’s actions. This type of engagement requires humility and courage, but it can transform vulnerabilities into opportunities for growth and repair.
Yet how many leaders, in the rush of professional life, really pause to explore why criticism may feel threatening or examine the discomfort caused by complaints? These moments of inquiry are where real leadership begins. Without them, leaders risk alienating their most important relationships and reinforcing their own insecurities. Those who lean into curiosity and accountability model a form of authority that is adaptive, resilient, and truly worthy of our trust.
When certainty itself is “pathological”
In his 1982 paper, On Curiosity: Intrapsychic and Interpersonal Boundary Formation in Family Life, Ed Shapiro examined how “pathological certainty” often appears in families of adolescents diagnosed with BPD. He wrote:
[I]n families where individuals manifest severe personality difficulties, [there is] a striking lack of curiosity between family members about each other. Instead, they are often extraordinarily certain that they know, understand, and can speak for the experience of other family members without further discussion or question…The resultant lack of openness and curiosity contributes to feelings of isolation, emptiness and futility within the family group.
In other words, when authority figures tell people who they are, how they feel, and what they believe — without showing genuine curiosity or openness to learning something new — the result is both suffocating and infuriating. People can start to act…well, sort of borderline.
While self-protective, Huberman’s armchair diagnosis of social media as borderline demonstrated a lack of curiosity about his audience’s experiences. Instead of exploring why some fans may have responded harshly, he essentially dismissed them as “crazy.” In doing so, messy or conflicted aspects of his own inner world — including those that may have been reflected in past problematic relationship behaviors — were projected onto the very people who trusted and supported him. It was kind of a crazy-making thing to do.
And yet, his strategy seems to have worked!
At the end of the day, it may have been the most appropriate action for him to have taken, given the nature of his podcast and culture of his listenership. Sometimes, the best move is to dismiss criticism from people who dislike you.
But it won’t work in every situation. Ultimately, leaders who refuse to engage with their followers in a shared understanding of complex experiences discredit their ability to lead effectively. Worse, they risk fostering a culture of denial about things that really matter. All forms of “othering” — racism, misogyny, homophobia, and the like — can often be traced back to one group’s need to idealize itself while avoiding uncomfortable truths about its actual character. When we cannot tolerate the shadow within us, we end up projecting it elsewhere in the world — usually into the most vulnerable among us.
“No input, no output”
A punk rocker at heart, Huberman is fond of quoting so-called “Strummer’s Law,” a principle attributed to the late, great Joe Strummer that emphasizes the need for continuous inspiration and learning to fuel creativity and productivity. Why not simply apply this principle to his relationship with his audience? Here’s how to do it:
Self-reflect
When a leader feels unfairly attacked, slowing down to explore what’s being triggered — through identifying what they're defending, understanding the origins of this vulnerability, and determining which skills are needed to strengthen this aspect of their personality — is never a bad place to start.
Lead with curiosity
After a leader breaks trust, expressing genuine curiosity and soliciting feedback about their followers’ experiences can help repair the relationship. This approach should be authentic, not performative. All members of an organization have a valuable perspective that's worth learning from and considering.
Acknowledge complexity without defensiveness
Relationship ruptures always involve multiple perspectives shaped by incomplete information. Leaders should accept the reality of negative projections without assuming blame for things they didn’t do. Acknowledging followers’ perceptions while staying true to themselves helps maintain psychological boundaries while promoting understanding and dialogue.
Share what they’re learning
Sharing what they’ve learned from mistakes — and how they plan to improve — demonstrates a leader’s resilience and fosters a culture of accountability. Transparent self-reflection signals strength, not weakness, and promotes learning and growth at all levels.
Recommit to shared values and mission
Refocusing on an organization’s mission realigns working relationships around a shared task and reminds everyone of the bigger picture, providing vital emotional containment. A clear recommitment to core values helps move the conversation toward constructive engagement and acts as a buffer against regression.
Leadership is hard. And there’s no single correct way to handle a crisis. To his credit, Huberman has repeatedly made clear that he views himself as a work in progress and is open to engaging in honest dialogue with people who feel harmed by his actions. I believe him. But I also believe this was a missed opportunity to model the very curiosity that has made him such a wild success in the first place.
Thanks for reading! What are your thoughts? I’d love to hear them and appreciate any and all feedback at this early stage in my newsletter.