Thank you for this well researched peace. I, too, used to listen to his podcast and learned a lot, but I stopped almost a year ago after doing the fact checks myself. I’m a scientist and a therapist, too, so I like doing the nerdy stuff. I appreciate that it’s not an easy task to help everyone understand scientific findings, and Huberman has done it pretty well for some time. Of course, people with huge audiences and good resources should be more careful.
Hi Selda. Thank you for reading. In fact, I follow you too ☺️. While the tone of my piece is sardonic, I too genuinely have learned a lot and loved the fact that science was getting such an important following and that the podcast was successful. But at some point, I feel that the ratio between the bona fide science findings and informed discussion versus the random approximations (I could state some terrible examples) has become too small for it to be useful tool for gaining knowledge. I don't know what it is at this point. Makes me sad, of course💔. Thank you again for reading Selda 🙏
One huge red flag to me had also always been the pushing of certain products. Supplements, especially.
I understand promoting a product to generate some revenue, but about every episode seemed to lead me to buying some key supplement, that would aid lots in self-improvement and solve all problems in this incredible, revolutionary way!
It’s a true shame to me, his podcasts have great potential that is going fully to waste due to this weird spread of misinformation. :/
I agree, Huberman has clearly stepped out of his lane and into the paid-off section of "scientists". I stopped listening to him as well as Bartlett from Diary of a CEO 2 years ago because of their extreme one-sided nature of topics and them supporting their own opinions and products more than making sure the science behind what the experts talk about was OK. Bartlett has some extremely questionable guests on the podcast and both have shared a lot of wrong information about neurodivergence and a lot of other topics which is not just wrong but also harmful.
Hello! Firstly I just want to say a big thank you for your work. I’ve only just come across your substack and I love that you are trying to bring some clarity and light to psychotherapists understanding how their work operates at the level of the brain. There are so many models out there, and people attached to their way of working - I am a ‘learn them all, subscribe to none’ kind of psychotherapist - and eager to learn more about the brain - through this Substack.
That said! I have a challenge / question for you (a long-winded one 😬😆).
I have have found the work of Allan Schore to be immensely useful in understanding how certain approaches - particular somatic-relational approaches like ‘Somatic Transformation’ or other somatic modalities - appear to work for healing trauma, processing implicit memories, and cultivating emotional regulation and relational capacities.
In particular - it has given me a neurobiological basis for something which I have experienced in the therapy room. That is - there is a way in which we (client + me) can enter a particular kind of relational quality - a synchronisation - a co-regulatory dance of sorts - which can lead to profound experiences of empathy for clients that help them to feel understood and met.
This quality of connection, and the needs that it can meet for a client - does appear to have connections to attachment - and the potential for working through attachment trauma (and other trauma). This mode or quality of connection also does appear to be more ‘embodied’ (for both me and the client).
There does appear to be a pretty strong literature that suggests a right-brain bias in certain functions of the brain - including during dyadic interactions of emotional salience (e.g. see Gainottie, 2020). Some specific examples are included in a list at the bottom of this response.
I tend to think that we fundamentally don’t understand how the brain works- and how it produces a subjective experience of self. Therefore, I would argue that *every* model of brain function is, a kind of ‘neuromyth’, or ‘neurobollocks’ - and there are just ‘more true’ and ‘less true’ neuromyths out there - or more importantly (to me) - more useful ones and less useful ones for helping our patients.
Now - I totally agree with you that the idea that there are two functionally independent systems in the brain - the left analytical brain, and the right emotional brain - is nonsense. Now, to be fair to Schore, I don’t think he is trying to convey that idea - but it has become an oversimplified idea that has been perpetuated by his work.
So - what I’m wondering is … do you have a model or way of understanding these relational dynamics that I mentioned at the beginning that is a better / more truthful / more useful model than the right-left lateralisation conceptualisation?
Some specific examples:
- **Right temporal sulcus and amygdala activation**: fMRI studies show increased activation in the right superior temporal sulcus and right amygdala when subjects process emotional facial expressions compared to the left hemisphere counterparts (Adolphs et al., 2002).
- **Right hemisphere lesion effects**: Patients with right hemisphere damage, particularly to the right prefrontal cortex, demonstrate significantly impaired emotional recognition and regulation, while left hemisphere damage rarely produces comparable deficits (Gainotti, 2012).
- **Infant right hemisphere dominance**: EEG studies demonstrate that the right hemisphere shows greater electrical activity in infants during the first two years of life, coinciding with critical attachment formation periods (Chiron et al., 1997).
- **Autonomic nervous system regulation**: The right hemisphere, specifically the right insula and prefrontal regions, shows preferential involvement in regulating autonomic responses including heart rate variability and stress reactions (Thayer et al., 2012).
- **Right prefrontal cortical dominance in emotional inhibition**: Neuroimaging studies reveal that the right prefrontal cortex is predominantly activated during emotional inhibition tasks and unconscious regulation of negative affect (Davidson et al., 2000).
- **Right hemisphere and implicit emotional memory**: Studies of emotional priming demonstrate that the right hemisphere processes emotional information without conscious awareness, with faster response times for emotional stimuli processed by the right hemisphere (Ley & Bryden, 1979).
---
There is also some evidence that comes from studies completed scanning people’s brains during an interaction - ‘hyperscanning’
- **Concurrent EEG hyperscanning studies:** Research by Dumas et al. (2010) showed that during spontaneous imitation tasks, there was significant interbrain synchronization in the right centroparietal regions between participants, particularly in alpha-mu and gamma bands.
- **Mother-child neural synchrony:** Studies by Reindl et al. (2018) demonstrated that mothers and children show synchronized activity in right frontopolar regions during cooperative problem-solving tasks.
- **fNIRS hyperscanning:** Studies using functional near-infrared spectroscopy by Cui et al. (2012) revealed increased coherence in right superior temporal cortex activity between subjects during cooperative versus competitive tasks.
---
Adolphs, R., Damasio, H. and Tranel, D., 2002. Neural systems for recognition of emotional prosody: a 3-D lesion study. *Emotion*, *2*(1), p.23.
Chiron, C., Jambaque, I., Nabbout, R., Lounes, R., Syrota, A. and Dulac, O., 1997. The right brain hemisphere is dominant in human infants. *Brain: a journal of neurology*, *120*(6), pp.1057-1065.
Cui, X., Bryant, D.M. and Reiss, A.L., 2012. NIRS-based hyperscanning reveals increased interpersonal coherence in superior frontal cortex during cooperation. *Neuroimage*, *59*(3), pp.2430-2437.
Davidson, R.J., Jackson, D.C. and Kalin, N.H., 2000. Emotion, plasticity, context, and regulation: perspectives from affective neuroscience. *Psychological bulletin*, *126*(6), p.890.
Dumas, G., Nadel, J., Soussignan, R., Martinerie, J. and Garnero, L., 2010. Inter-brain synchronization during social interaction. *PloS one*, *5*(8), p.e12166.
Gainotti, G., 2012. Unconscious processing of emotions and the right hemisphere. *Neuropsychologia*, *50*(2), pp.205-218.
Gainotti, G., 2020. *Emotions and the right side of the brain*(No. 180952). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Ley, R.G. and Bryden, M.P., 1979. Hemispheric differences in processing emotions and faces. *Brain and language*, *7*(1), pp.127-138.
Reindl, V., Gerloff, C., Scharke, W. and Konrad, K., 2018. Brain-to-brain synchrony in parent-child dyads and the relationship with emotion regulation revealed by fNIRS-based hyperscanning. *NeuroImage*, *178*, pp.493-502.
Schore, A.N., 2005. Affect Regulation and the Repair of the Self. *The Permanente Journal*, *9*(2).
Schore, A., 2019. *The Development of the Unconscious Mind (Norton Series on Interpersonal Neurobiology)*. WW Norton & Company.
Thayer, J.F., Åhs, F., Fredrikson, M., Sollers III, J.J. and Wager, T.D., 2012. A meta-analysis of heart rate variability and neuroimaging studies: implications for heart rate variability as a marker of stress and health. *Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews*, *36*(2), pp.747-756.
Hi again Tobias. This is just to say that, because I received several questions on the topic of emotions and the right brain (similar to the title of the paper you single out Gainotti 2020) to do a blog-post where I will invite a neuroscientist working, among other things, on brain synchrony and we will do an in-depth analysis of this topic.
I wanted to ask also whether you are aware of this large scale study that examines brain laterality?
This paper using a large sample finds lateralisation locally but not as a global property.
Re-reading your comment/question: I wonder why you need the right-brain/left-brain framework to explain how somatic therapies might work or why connection in therapy room has to be mediated by the laterality? Both can be explained without using that theory.
I hope this is somewhat useful! And will get the blog-post on this topic out sometimes in the next two moths(ish). Thank you again for making me think again about this topic 💭.
Hey Ana, thank you for getting back to me! Ok I think I'm getting what you're saying - (please correct me if I'm wrong) - which is that: the brain operates globally without a right-left bias (more-or-less), and is constantly being engaged as a whole organ in order to do all the many things.
I agree - its not necessary to use a left-right framework to explain how somatic therapy might work.. and actually I found a paper which suggests a pretty comprehensive framework for understanding this - its called "Synchrony in Psychotherapy: A Review and an Integrative Framework for the Therapeutic Alliance" and suggests an interpersonal neurobiology of therapeutic alliance free from left-right-brain jargon.
That said .. a perhaps broader question that this is bringing up for me is about multiplicity in the brain, and in the mind. Internal Family Systems seems to suggest a kind of multiplicity of mind .. and so I'm wondering if there might also be a multiplicity of the brain which maps onto that multiplicity of mind. Could it be that there is an unconscious mind that is produced by the right brain (and/or other structures), and lives in interaction with a more conscious mind produced by the left brain (and/or other structures such as the default mode network).
Anyway at this point I'm just giving you more and more questions! Some of which you may have already answered in previous posts. Thank you for your engagement so far and look forward to reading more (ps. loved your recent article on cardioception).
Hey Tobias! First of, I have to say that you are such a geek (says a geek) 😂🤓. I know that paper on synchrony - exactly, synchrony in therapy to explain the alliance, so-regulation, maybe some other stuff (parallel process) YES. No need for the right/left brain paradigm to take into account any of that.
You are really throwing me another BIG bone to chew on here! IFS! At this point, I think I can learn from you: do you know any work where Richard Schwartz or somebody working with IFS mixes it with the right brain/left brain lingo?
I just realised he has been on Huberman show too, new episode I think, but having broke off with AH I won't be able to watch it now ...😭 If you do, drop me a line to say if it's any good!
Thank you for engaging with my content, always brings food for thought which is great and conversation to be continued...
I am really grateful for this exchange. I am in a study group with a strong acolyte of Alan Schore and I am naturally argumentative and I struggle. What I am curious about is why is there is such a divide, if there is such a divide, between the Ralph Adolphs school of thought the Lisa Feldman Barrett school?
Here's an article that sets up the debate:
Basic Emotions or Constructed Emotions: Insights From Taking an Evolutionary Perspective
Schore (and his acolytes) use Adolphs, Panskepp, D'Amasio,I think, but are not aware of the Barrett approach (or at least the leader of my group is not). Schore is being used by the psychoanalytic community while Barrett is not.
I'm writing her an email to ask why. We'll see if she answers!
What I like about Tobias's descriptions of his work with clients, is that it sounds like co-regulation in the therapy room. Years ago I read Beatrice Beebe's work Infant Research and Adult Attachment which was where this began for me.
I am looking for ways of working with clients but essentially I am seeking to understand myself. Truth: the essentially deterministic nature of Schore's theory about a critical period and its permanence makes me so sad. The answer for people may be that psychotherapy simply can't help them. I read your post today about working with heart-interoception and the one line about "determined by his environment and history" - well - what if his environment and history means he does not have the mechanical wiring to respond to interventions from you? Schore does seem to believe that temperament, neurotypicality, character, are largely determined by this critical period when self-regulation is achieved through attachment.
Hey Rebecca! ❤️ Yes, that's such an interesting perspective that you bring up - another rabbit hole 😊: basic emotions vs constructed emotions. I think the emotions are such an elusive topic for research that none of them really agrees yet exactly what they are and how and why they are made. There are some strong arguments on both sides, but I don't know even if we can talk about two sides, because there are other major players in the field of affective neuroscience who do not agree with either of those perspectives. Having said that, to say that Ralph Adolphs and Lisa FB are in some huge divide - I am really not sure of that - I have Ralph Adolphs' (and David J. Anderson) excellent (and recent) book on The Neuroscience of Emotion - they talk very highly of Lisa Feldman-Barrett's theory of constructed emotions. They align with many of its tenets and find some points they don't align with but overall give it is one of the most important theories of emotions today. They also don't talk at all about the left brain/right brain, so I doubt that these authors back the right brain/left brain narrative.
I want to go back to our conversation from before because I know you told me about that idea that Allan Schore has about the critical period - I can't fully remember what you told me then, so I will find our discussion to refresh my memory. When you work with people, do you feel that some cannot respond to those kinds of interventions?
But also, I'll let Tobias chip in too - I know this question/comment was not only for me! ☺️
Hey Tobias! Love love love this, and thank you for reading! Also I love a constructive and a thoughtful challenge, which is exactly what you did 😊. Can you to allow me for a few days to give you a considered response? I need to go through the list of references properly. Having said that: I see lots of work by Guido Gainotti. Last summer I have presented a workshop called "Psychotherapy vs. Neuroscience: Exploring the Right Brain/Left Brain myth" https://onlinevents.co.uk/event/neuroscience-vs-psychotherapy-exploring-the-right-brain-left-brain-myth/
and with Mike, who is a neuroscientists, we have looked into the literature around brain lateralisation, especially when it comes to emotional processing. Gainotti is clearly very partisan of that narrative of "right brain is emotional" but the papers appear to be of not very good quality. Anyways, I will look into the list and send you a considered response.
And thank you for taking the time to compile it and send it!
When it comes to the therapy room, the bio-behavioural synchrony is likely to be happening and might be one of the main tools we have at our disposal, but what I don't understand is why it needs the right hemisphere stuff or the work of Allan Schore for that to be the case? He is not any kind of expert in that area.
When it comes to therapy, I share your pragmatism I think and do not get attached to one specific school or 'cult', I am a therapy omnivore, so to speak. And probably my philosophy is similar to yours when it comes to neuroscience: I am only interested for the potential it has/or might have when it comes to giving us novel ways of working with clients and transforming, for the better, people's lives. But predominantly the current 'neuroscience' discourse in psychotherapy world is not neuroscience at all, or a very outdates version of it at the best of times. Some notable exceptions to that rule, but I am talking on average. Anyways, thank you for reaching out and I'll get back to you with a more considered response. As I say, always up for a good challenge of my thinking!
Going back some 20 years or so I came across the work of Alain Berthoz a French neurophysiologist, neuroscientist and if I might add, a remarkable humanist too. I found his work both scientifically robust and insightful discussing many aspects of the functional underpinnings of our experience. it really helped me lay resilient foundations to assess and apply neuroscience-based assessments into my practice. Among his works, and later in his writing career he described a process he (along with others) called Simplexity. A book he wrote with this title describes the process as:
‘In a sense, the history of living organisms may be summed up by their remarkable ability to find solutions that avoid the world’s complexity by imposing on it their own rules and functions. Evolution has resolved the problem of complexity not by simplifying but by finding solutions whose processes―though they can sometimes be complex―allow us to act in the midst of complexity and of uncertainty. Nature can inspire us by making us realize that simplification is never simple and requires instead that we choose, refuse, connect, and imagine, in order to act in the best possible manner.’
It seems AH has been applying these principles in service of making neuroscience ‘simple’, a temptation when perhaps we seek to make the task of understanding ’why’ when it just isn’t, simple. I wonder if he’s as transparent as he could be re what end his ‘own rules and functions’ serve ‘in the best possible manner’? Both with himself and his listeners.
I truly defended his work and some level of simplifications that neuroscientist frowned upon. But then I guess it became indefensible even for me. I will check the reference you mention! Happy to learn new stuff!!
He lost me with the Robert Lustig interview, that's when I realized he was teaming up with questionable "experts" to push books and products. It just got worse when he platformed Esther Perel.
I first heard about Huberman recently from my family, who had been taken in by his episode about cell phones causing infertility. Rather obvious bollocks from the start.
I heard he recently had Ellen Langer on as well, which told me everything I needed to know. Like Steven Levitt, it’s all surprising findings and positive psychology mush for him, with only the appearance of rigor.
It seems to me that the more folks get attention, the less they debate and question and push back and the more they agree and sell. This of course is not a broad brushstroke and of course I have no scientific data to back up my comment it’s just a pattern I notice. The more famous someone is in popular culture the more I wonder. The more infamous I might listen more. Just my 2 cents.
For me it was the supplements and the womanising which was off the scale insane. And now also that he has interviewed Mark Zuckerberg. It won’t be critical will it? I’m done with the bros.
Hey Nahid! Thanks for reading ❤️🙏. I did not know about those things. The criticism in this articlecomes really purely from the point of view of quality (or the lack of) of science presented.
This brushes against a larger issue I’m not sure how to reconcile about trustworthiness. The main tool for combatting untrustworthy sources is to fact-check: check the original papers, evaluate the sources on their reliability and accuracy, etc.
That’s fine, but also a huge task. For everything you come across, that becomes exhaustive.
I wonder if there’s a quick way to filter through the noise, or if the solution is to just look at less stuff and fact check all the stuff.
I think ultimate the solution is that the scientists make a greater effort to make their research accessible and for us (the public) to learn to spot quacks - when there is too many sweeping statements (dopamine does this) or someone who claims expertise and easy solutions. It can be hard work but I guess no pain no gain!
Hi Ellie! Thank you for reading, really appreciate it 🙏. I have written on dopamine detox, but not on this platform - I will post it here if it would be useful? I am not a neuroscientist and want to make sure you know that. I do try to talk to neuroscientists whenever possible so that I can get a better understanding. When it comes to dopamine, my understanding is that there is not only one way to understand it because it is implicated into many different processes. But when it comes to learning, and behavioural addictions, some good sources below + also an accessible account in the "Unwinding Anxiety" by Judson Brewer.
Thanks Ana. I used to think that dopamine was a ‘feel good’ chemical because that seems to be the prevalent belief, but then read The Biology of Desire by Marc Lewis - who is a neuroscientist- who explained that dopamine is released to make us want to do something more, so it creates the wanting for something & a sense of reward but doesn’t make us feel calm or happy in itself. However I keep seeing content out there that says that we need to ‘boost dopamine naturally’ and this term ‘dopamine detox’ as if dopamine IS a chemical that makes us feel good, the suggestion being that a drug like alcohol artificially boost dopamine and so we need to naturally boost it - but this doesn’t make sense if it is connected to learning and desire as Marc Lewis argues. In short: I’m confused! Appreciate you don’t have the answer but I wondered whether you know of a book or articles that correctly explain how dopamine works, especially in relation to addiction, in a way that a layman (me!) would understand.
Hey Ellie, I will get back to you with more in-depth reply but I just realise that in my blog post 'Neurobollocks Bestiary" we talk about dopamine myths - that specific section was co-written by Dr. Mike Tranter who is a neuroscientist who works on dopamine signalling in the brain.
Hey Ellie, getting back to you about dopamine. Dopamine (as other neurotransmitters too) do not have one function - they are always about many things. In fact, it is not the molecule (the dopamine in this case) that creates motivation/reward/etc it is the areas of the brain where the molecule is active (where it binds the receptors). That is why dopamine is involved in motivation/drive when it comes to the VTA of the brain for example (Ventral Tegmental Area) but involved in movement when it comes to the Basal Ganglia for example (Parkinson's disease is also linked to dopamine) and the yet another aspect dopamine's involvement in perception/emotional processing when it comes to the some areas in the prefrontal cortex (linked to schizophrenia). In other words, it is not the dopamine that does something, it is where it is active that determines the function of it, if that makes sense? But when it comes to dopamine's role in motivation and reward processing the good place to start is probably with the person who has been instrumental in elucidating those mechanisms, his talk about dopamine is here:
The idea of motivation is tightly linked to the idea of 'prediction error' and dopamine mediating what we expect to have and signalling when we get something more or different, to put it in layman terms. Here is a paper that you might want to look at that talks about those things from the point of view of therapy:
Wait. There is no lizard brain? Wouldn't that undercut most, if not all, addiction education? I am not a professional. I was suspect when Jordan Peterson appeared. AND isn't one of H's academic credentials something to do with eyes or am I a ninny ?
Hi Chris. There emphatically and absolutely NO lizard brain, sadly a neuro-myth many times debunked yet persistent. I am preparing a post about it at the moment in fact. I was not aware that neuro models for addiction use the lizard brain?? If you could point to some references, I would live to see that. Andrew Huberman is a genuine scientist but it is beyond my understanding why he has embraced increasingly self-help, anything goes, speakers who other than being famous do not have much science facts to contribute to the debate. Really shame. Initially, I thought the episodes were good. The quality dwindled with time, taking a very serious hit in the last year. Thank you for reading!
Absolutely! That indeed is going to be one of my main sources - the title is funny but the paper is actually really going into great detail in meticulously debunking this myth. Thank you Jennifer!
I am sad…and confused is there anyone or anywhere, maybe this is revealing my flaw maybe I dont need a guru or a guide but I thought he was one of the good guys who could help me be my best
Tim! I know, I feel similar. Sadly I cannot think of one author/public figure that talks to the general public on all topics who would fulfil that criteria. But maybe that is the problem. When it comes to neuroscience and psychotherapy one good person is Joseph LeDoux. He is an eminent scientist who tries to speak to the general public. Also Lisa Feldman-Barrett.
AH changed my life, truly. And ignited an interest in science in me, which I’m forever grateful for. Some of the guests he’s had on are brilliant. James Hollis, Samer Hattar, Anna Lemke, to name a few.
Lately, I’ve drifted away too.
I feel a big part of all of this is fame. It’s not natural to be expected to perform at all times. What started out as good intentions could be drifting elsewhere. I’m not sure it does much good to look at people as black-and-white though. AH has character defaults just like the rest of us, which he’s admitted many a-time. All I have to say is if you’ve got millions of eyes on you and an expectation to constantly perform—you’re likely to have an identity problem sooner than later.
Nonetheless I appreciate this view, certainly valid concern here. Business has interrupted good science, with the latter being a big part of his image. And these concerns are a direct contradiction to such. I’m not sure where AH and I stand, but he’s still got a special place in my heart.
Tristan! Thank you for chipping in - I love to hear your perspective, it’s very valuable - and I also appreciate to be challenged in the views I express. While my paper sounds sardonic, what I say in the beginning I truly meant (bar that I was in 💕 with AH 😂). And I was truly amazed by his effort, how he knows all that, and the science wisdom the people he was bringing on the podcast were offering. So I totally respect him for that - while it was still science. The problem is that he claims that it is science yet it is gone totally of the rails - and that is ethically murky territory. Why I call it hubris, is that because they get so close to the sun they start to think that everything they say is a god given truth. There is a few other examples from the current scene of public space ‘gurus’ that have stepped into that category. The power of science is to know your stuff, verify your claims, do not talk about things you know nothing about- he did not have to be under all that pressure - it is his own doing. He could have payed people/post doc scientists/PhD students to read stuff for him and make sure they understand the science before it is blurted out into the public space. These are all choices that have or have not been made. And after that specific episode that I describe where a long debunked brain myth is discussed as truth without any challenge throughout the whole episode, I thought: I am throwing in the towel.
"yet it is gone totally of the rails" -- has it gone 'totally' off the rails?
The point about hubris is valid, I think. Back to the point on fame, it's unnatural to feel that much power. Im sure that's affected his work and life, unfortunately.
anyway I also very much appreciate this type of discussion. Your writing has vigor and conviction. Really refreshing.
🙏 For what's worth, I think we might agree more than what appears - I can understand the man maybe, but I guess from a point of view of reliable source of information, for me, it does not satisfy the criteria - and for me that is important.
End of an era. Although today I saw a teaser of a video of Andrew with the Kardashians of all people, so I already had a bit of an off feeling. No hate to the Kardashians but...nope.
Thank you for this well researched peace. I, too, used to listen to his podcast and learned a lot, but I stopped almost a year ago after doing the fact checks myself. I’m a scientist and a therapist, too, so I like doing the nerdy stuff. I appreciate that it’s not an easy task to help everyone understand scientific findings, and Huberman has done it pretty well for some time. Of course, people with huge audiences and good resources should be more careful.
Hi Selda. Thank you for reading. In fact, I follow you too ☺️. While the tone of my piece is sardonic, I too genuinely have learned a lot and loved the fact that science was getting such an important following and that the podcast was successful. But at some point, I feel that the ratio between the bona fide science findings and informed discussion versus the random approximations (I could state some terrible examples) has become too small for it to be useful tool for gaining knowledge. I don't know what it is at this point. Makes me sad, of course💔. Thank you again for reading Selda 🙏
One huge red flag to me had also always been the pushing of certain products. Supplements, especially.
I understand promoting a product to generate some revenue, but about every episode seemed to lead me to buying some key supplement, that would aid lots in self-improvement and solve all problems in this incredible, revolutionary way!
It’s a true shame to me, his podcasts have great potential that is going fully to waste due to this weird spread of misinformation. :/
Totally 😔
I agree, Huberman has clearly stepped out of his lane and into the paid-off section of "scientists". I stopped listening to him as well as Bartlett from Diary of a CEO 2 years ago because of their extreme one-sided nature of topics and them supporting their own opinions and products more than making sure the science behind what the experts talk about was OK. Bartlett has some extremely questionable guests on the podcast and both have shared a lot of wrong information about neurodivergence and a lot of other topics which is not just wrong but also harmful.
Monique, agreed.
Hello! Firstly I just want to say a big thank you for your work. I’ve only just come across your substack and I love that you are trying to bring some clarity and light to psychotherapists understanding how their work operates at the level of the brain. There are so many models out there, and people attached to their way of working - I am a ‘learn them all, subscribe to none’ kind of psychotherapist - and eager to learn more about the brain - through this Substack.
That said! I have a challenge / question for you (a long-winded one 😬😆).
I have have found the work of Allan Schore to be immensely useful in understanding how certain approaches - particular somatic-relational approaches like ‘Somatic Transformation’ or other somatic modalities - appear to work for healing trauma, processing implicit memories, and cultivating emotional regulation and relational capacities.
In particular - it has given me a neurobiological basis for something which I have experienced in the therapy room. That is - there is a way in which we (client + me) can enter a particular kind of relational quality - a synchronisation - a co-regulatory dance of sorts - which can lead to profound experiences of empathy for clients that help them to feel understood and met.
This quality of connection, and the needs that it can meet for a client - does appear to have connections to attachment - and the potential for working through attachment trauma (and other trauma). This mode or quality of connection also does appear to be more ‘embodied’ (for both me and the client).
There does appear to be a pretty strong literature that suggests a right-brain bias in certain functions of the brain - including during dyadic interactions of emotional salience (e.g. see Gainottie, 2020). Some specific examples are included in a list at the bottom of this response.
I tend to think that we fundamentally don’t understand how the brain works- and how it produces a subjective experience of self. Therefore, I would argue that *every* model of brain function is, a kind of ‘neuromyth’, or ‘neurobollocks’ - and there are just ‘more true’ and ‘less true’ neuromyths out there - or more importantly (to me) - more useful ones and less useful ones for helping our patients.
Now - I totally agree with you that the idea that there are two functionally independent systems in the brain - the left analytical brain, and the right emotional brain - is nonsense. Now, to be fair to Schore, I don’t think he is trying to convey that idea - but it has become an oversimplified idea that has been perpetuated by his work.
So - what I’m wondering is … do you have a model or way of understanding these relational dynamics that I mentioned at the beginning that is a better / more truthful / more useful model than the right-left lateralisation conceptualisation?
Some specific examples:
- **Right temporal sulcus and amygdala activation**: fMRI studies show increased activation in the right superior temporal sulcus and right amygdala when subjects process emotional facial expressions compared to the left hemisphere counterparts (Adolphs et al., 2002).
- **Right hemisphere lesion effects**: Patients with right hemisphere damage, particularly to the right prefrontal cortex, demonstrate significantly impaired emotional recognition and regulation, while left hemisphere damage rarely produces comparable deficits (Gainotti, 2012).
- **Infant right hemisphere dominance**: EEG studies demonstrate that the right hemisphere shows greater electrical activity in infants during the first two years of life, coinciding with critical attachment formation periods (Chiron et al., 1997).
- **Autonomic nervous system regulation**: The right hemisphere, specifically the right insula and prefrontal regions, shows preferential involvement in regulating autonomic responses including heart rate variability and stress reactions (Thayer et al., 2012).
- **Right prefrontal cortical dominance in emotional inhibition**: Neuroimaging studies reveal that the right prefrontal cortex is predominantly activated during emotional inhibition tasks and unconscious regulation of negative affect (Davidson et al., 2000).
- **Right hemisphere and implicit emotional memory**: Studies of emotional priming demonstrate that the right hemisphere processes emotional information without conscious awareness, with faster response times for emotional stimuli processed by the right hemisphere (Ley & Bryden, 1979).
---
There is also some evidence that comes from studies completed scanning people’s brains during an interaction - ‘hyperscanning’
- **Concurrent EEG hyperscanning studies:** Research by Dumas et al. (2010) showed that during spontaneous imitation tasks, there was significant interbrain synchronization in the right centroparietal regions between participants, particularly in alpha-mu and gamma bands.
- **Mother-child neural synchrony:** Studies by Reindl et al. (2018) demonstrated that mothers and children show synchronized activity in right frontopolar regions during cooperative problem-solving tasks.
- **fNIRS hyperscanning:** Studies using functional near-infrared spectroscopy by Cui et al. (2012) revealed increased coherence in right superior temporal cortex activity between subjects during cooperative versus competitive tasks.
---
Adolphs, R., Damasio, H. and Tranel, D., 2002. Neural systems for recognition of emotional prosody: a 3-D lesion study. *Emotion*, *2*(1), p.23.
Chiron, C., Jambaque, I., Nabbout, R., Lounes, R., Syrota, A. and Dulac, O., 1997. The right brain hemisphere is dominant in human infants. *Brain: a journal of neurology*, *120*(6), pp.1057-1065.
Cui, X., Bryant, D.M. and Reiss, A.L., 2012. NIRS-based hyperscanning reveals increased interpersonal coherence in superior frontal cortex during cooperation. *Neuroimage*, *59*(3), pp.2430-2437.
Davidson, R.J., Jackson, D.C. and Kalin, N.H., 2000. Emotion, plasticity, context, and regulation: perspectives from affective neuroscience. *Psychological bulletin*, *126*(6), p.890.
Dumas, G., Nadel, J., Soussignan, R., Martinerie, J. and Garnero, L., 2010. Inter-brain synchronization during social interaction. *PloS one*, *5*(8), p.e12166.
Gainotti, G., 2012. Unconscious processing of emotions and the right hemisphere. *Neuropsychologia*, *50*(2), pp.205-218.
Gainotti, G., 2020. *Emotions and the right side of the brain*(No. 180952). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Ley, R.G. and Bryden, M.P., 1979. Hemispheric differences in processing emotions and faces. *Brain and language*, *7*(1), pp.127-138.
Reindl, V., Gerloff, C., Scharke, W. and Konrad, K., 2018. Brain-to-brain synchrony in parent-child dyads and the relationship with emotion regulation revealed by fNIRS-based hyperscanning. *NeuroImage*, *178*, pp.493-502.
Schore, A.N., 2005. Affect Regulation and the Repair of the Self. *The Permanente Journal*, *9*(2).
Schore, A., 2019. *The Development of the Unconscious Mind (Norton Series on Interpersonal Neurobiology)*. WW Norton & Company.
Thayer, J.F., Åhs, F., Fredrikson, M., Sollers III, J.J. and Wager, T.D., 2012. A meta-analysis of heart rate variability and neuroimaging studies: implications for heart rate variability as a marker of stress and health. *Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews*, *36*(2), pp.747-756.
Hi again Tobias. This is just to say that, because I received several questions on the topic of emotions and the right brain (similar to the title of the paper you single out Gainotti 2020) to do a blog-post where I will invite a neuroscientist working, among other things, on brain synchrony and we will do an in-depth analysis of this topic.
I wanted to ask also whether you are aware of this large scale study that examines brain laterality?
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0071275&type=printable
This paper using a large sample finds lateralisation locally but not as a global property.
Re-reading your comment/question: I wonder why you need the right-brain/left-brain framework to explain how somatic therapies might work or why connection in therapy room has to be mediated by the laterality? Both can be explained without using that theory.
I hope this is somewhat useful! And will get the blog-post on this topic out sometimes in the next two moths(ish). Thank you again for making me think again about this topic 💭.
Hey Ana, thank you for getting back to me! Ok I think I'm getting what you're saying - (please correct me if I'm wrong) - which is that: the brain operates globally without a right-left bias (more-or-less), and is constantly being engaged as a whole organ in order to do all the many things.
I agree - its not necessary to use a left-right framework to explain how somatic therapy might work.. and actually I found a paper which suggests a pretty comprehensive framework for understanding this - its called "Synchrony in Psychotherapy: A Review and an Integrative Framework for the Therapeutic Alliance" and suggests an interpersonal neurobiology of therapeutic alliance free from left-right-brain jargon.
That said .. a perhaps broader question that this is bringing up for me is about multiplicity in the brain, and in the mind. Internal Family Systems seems to suggest a kind of multiplicity of mind .. and so I'm wondering if there might also be a multiplicity of the brain which maps onto that multiplicity of mind. Could it be that there is an unconscious mind that is produced by the right brain (and/or other structures), and lives in interaction with a more conscious mind produced by the left brain (and/or other structures such as the default mode network).
Anyway at this point I'm just giving you more and more questions! Some of which you may have already answered in previous posts. Thank you for your engagement so far and look forward to reading more (ps. loved your recent article on cardioception).
🙏
Hey Tobias! First of, I have to say that you are such a geek (says a geek) 😂🤓. I know that paper on synchrony - exactly, synchrony in therapy to explain the alliance, so-regulation, maybe some other stuff (parallel process) YES. No need for the right/left brain paradigm to take into account any of that.
You are really throwing me another BIG bone to chew on here! IFS! At this point, I think I can learn from you: do you know any work where Richard Schwartz or somebody working with IFS mixes it with the right brain/left brain lingo?
I just realised he has been on Huberman show too, new episode I think, but having broke off with AH I won't be able to watch it now ...😭 If you do, drop me a line to say if it's any good!
Thank you for engaging with my content, always brings food for thought which is great and conversation to be continued...
I am really grateful for this exchange. I am in a study group with a strong acolyte of Alan Schore and I am naturally argumentative and I struggle. What I am curious about is why is there is such a divide, if there is such a divide, between the Ralph Adolphs school of thought the Lisa Feldman Barrett school?
Here's an article that sets up the debate:
Basic Emotions or Constructed Emotions: Insights From Taking an Evolutionary Perspective
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/17456916231205186
Schore (and his acolytes) use Adolphs, Panskepp, D'Amasio,I think, but are not aware of the Barrett approach (or at least the leader of my group is not). Schore is being used by the psychoanalytic community while Barrett is not.
I'm writing her an email to ask why. We'll see if she answers!
What I like about Tobias's descriptions of his work with clients, is that it sounds like co-regulation in the therapy room. Years ago I read Beatrice Beebe's work Infant Research and Adult Attachment which was where this began for me.
I am looking for ways of working with clients but essentially I am seeking to understand myself. Truth: the essentially deterministic nature of Schore's theory about a critical period and its permanence makes me so sad. The answer for people may be that psychotherapy simply can't help them. I read your post today about working with heart-interoception and the one line about "determined by his environment and history" - well - what if his environment and history means he does not have the mechanical wiring to respond to interventions from you? Schore does seem to believe that temperament, neurotypicality, character, are largely determined by this critical period when self-regulation is achieved through attachment.
Thanks for this discussion Tobias.
Hey Rebecca! ❤️ Yes, that's such an interesting perspective that you bring up - another rabbit hole 😊: basic emotions vs constructed emotions. I think the emotions are such an elusive topic for research that none of them really agrees yet exactly what they are and how and why they are made. There are some strong arguments on both sides, but I don't know even if we can talk about two sides, because there are other major players in the field of affective neuroscience who do not agree with either of those perspectives. Having said that, to say that Ralph Adolphs and Lisa FB are in some huge divide - I am really not sure of that - I have Ralph Adolphs' (and David J. Anderson) excellent (and recent) book on The Neuroscience of Emotion - they talk very highly of Lisa Feldman-Barrett's theory of constructed emotions. They align with many of its tenets and find some points they don't align with but overall give it is one of the most important theories of emotions today. They also don't talk at all about the left brain/right brain, so I doubt that these authors back the right brain/left brain narrative.
I want to go back to our conversation from before because I know you told me about that idea that Allan Schore has about the critical period - I can't fully remember what you told me then, so I will find our discussion to refresh my memory. When you work with people, do you feel that some cannot respond to those kinds of interventions?
But also, I'll let Tobias chip in too - I know this question/comment was not only for me! ☺️
Hey Tobias! Love love love this, and thank you for reading! Also I love a constructive and a thoughtful challenge, which is exactly what you did 😊. Can you to allow me for a few days to give you a considered response? I need to go through the list of references properly. Having said that: I see lots of work by Guido Gainotti. Last summer I have presented a workshop called "Psychotherapy vs. Neuroscience: Exploring the Right Brain/Left Brain myth" https://onlinevents.co.uk/event/neuroscience-vs-psychotherapy-exploring-the-right-brain-left-brain-myth/
and with Mike, who is a neuroscientists, we have looked into the literature around brain lateralisation, especially when it comes to emotional processing. Gainotti is clearly very partisan of that narrative of "right brain is emotional" but the papers appear to be of not very good quality. Anyways, I will look into the list and send you a considered response.
And thank you for taking the time to compile it and send it!
When it comes to the therapy room, the bio-behavioural synchrony is likely to be happening and might be one of the main tools we have at our disposal, but what I don't understand is why it needs the right hemisphere stuff or the work of Allan Schore for that to be the case? He is not any kind of expert in that area.
When it comes to therapy, I share your pragmatism I think and do not get attached to one specific school or 'cult', I am a therapy omnivore, so to speak. And probably my philosophy is similar to yours when it comes to neuroscience: I am only interested for the potential it has/or might have when it comes to giving us novel ways of working with clients and transforming, for the better, people's lives. But predominantly the current 'neuroscience' discourse in psychotherapy world is not neuroscience at all, or a very outdates version of it at the best of times. Some notable exceptions to that rule, but I am talking on average. Anyways, thank you for reaching out and I'll get back to you with a more considered response. As I say, always up for a good challenge of my thinking!
Going back some 20 years or so I came across the work of Alain Berthoz a French neurophysiologist, neuroscientist and if I might add, a remarkable humanist too. I found his work both scientifically robust and insightful discussing many aspects of the functional underpinnings of our experience. it really helped me lay resilient foundations to assess and apply neuroscience-based assessments into my practice. Among his works, and later in his writing career he described a process he (along with others) called Simplexity. A book he wrote with this title describes the process as:
‘In a sense, the history of living organisms may be summed up by their remarkable ability to find solutions that avoid the world’s complexity by imposing on it their own rules and functions. Evolution has resolved the problem of complexity not by simplifying but by finding solutions whose processes―though they can sometimes be complex―allow us to act in the midst of complexity and of uncertainty. Nature can inspire us by making us realize that simplification is never simple and requires instead that we choose, refuse, connect, and imagine, in order to act in the best possible manner.’
It seems AH has been applying these principles in service of making neuroscience ‘simple’, a temptation when perhaps we seek to make the task of understanding ’why’ when it just isn’t, simple. I wonder if he’s as transparent as he could be re what end his ‘own rules and functions’ serve ‘in the best possible manner’? Both with himself and his listeners.
I truly defended his work and some level of simplifications that neuroscientist frowned upon. But then I guess it became indefensible even for me. I will check the reference you mention! Happy to learn new stuff!!
He lost me with the Robert Lustig interview, that's when I realized he was teaming up with questionable "experts" to push books and products. It just got worse when he platformed Esther Perel.
Sadly, have to agree...
I first heard about Huberman recently from my family, who had been taken in by his episode about cell phones causing infertility. Rather obvious bollocks from the start.
I heard he recently had Ellen Langer on as well, which told me everything I needed to know. Like Steven Levitt, it’s all surprising findings and positive psychology mush for him, with only the appearance of rigor.
It seems to me that the more folks get attention, the less they debate and question and push back and the more they agree and sell. This of course is not a broad brushstroke and of course I have no scientific data to back up my comment it’s just a pattern I notice. The more famous someone is in popular culture the more I wonder. The more infamous I might listen more. Just my 2 cents.
The ‘guru’ complex.
For me it was the supplements and the womanising which was off the scale insane. And now also that he has interviewed Mark Zuckerberg. It won’t be critical will it? I’m done with the bros.
Hey Nahid! Thanks for reading ❤️🙏. I did not know about those things. The criticism in this articlecomes really purely from the point of view of quality (or the lack of) of science presented.
You are much more wholesome than me(!) But worth looking up…
Maybe not wholesome, maybe that I just can’t bear to have my heart 💔 by A. Huberman once more…
I said Hubs was a grifter and got dragged on the internet. People love to give their power away to online punditry
This brushes against a larger issue I’m not sure how to reconcile about trustworthiness. The main tool for combatting untrustworthy sources is to fact-check: check the original papers, evaluate the sources on their reliability and accuracy, etc.
That’s fine, but also a huge task. For everything you come across, that becomes exhaustive.
I wonder if there’s a quick way to filter through the noise, or if the solution is to just look at less stuff and fact check all the stuff.
I think ultimate the solution is that the scientists make a greater effort to make their research accessible and for us (the public) to learn to spot quacks - when there is too many sweeping statements (dopamine does this) or someone who claims expertise and easy solutions. It can be hard work but I guess no pain no gain!
Hi Ana, where can I find accurate information on how dopamine works? Have you written about it before?
Hi Ellie! Thank you for reading, really appreciate it 🙏. I have written on dopamine detox, but not on this platform - I will post it here if it would be useful? I am not a neuroscientist and want to make sure you know that. I do try to talk to neuroscientists whenever possible so that I can get a better understanding. When it comes to dopamine, my understanding is that there is not only one way to understand it because it is implicated into many different processes. But when it comes to learning, and behavioural addictions, some good sources below + also an accessible account in the "Unwinding Anxiety" by Judson Brewer.
https://www.thetransmitter.org/learning/dopamine-gas-pedal-and-serotonin-brake-team-up-to-accelerate-learning/
https://www.thetransmitter.org/dopamine/reconstructing-dopamines-link-to-reward/
Thanks Ana. I used to think that dopamine was a ‘feel good’ chemical because that seems to be the prevalent belief, but then read The Biology of Desire by Marc Lewis - who is a neuroscientist- who explained that dopamine is released to make us want to do something more, so it creates the wanting for something & a sense of reward but doesn’t make us feel calm or happy in itself. However I keep seeing content out there that says that we need to ‘boost dopamine naturally’ and this term ‘dopamine detox’ as if dopamine IS a chemical that makes us feel good, the suggestion being that a drug like alcohol artificially boost dopamine and so we need to naturally boost it - but this doesn’t make sense if it is connected to learning and desire as Marc Lewis argues. In short: I’m confused! Appreciate you don’t have the answer but I wondered whether you know of a book or articles that correctly explain how dopamine works, especially in relation to addiction, in a way that a layman (me!) would understand.
Hey Ellie, I will get back to you with more in-depth reply but I just realise that in my blog post 'Neurobollocks Bestiary" we talk about dopamine myths - that specific section was co-written by Dr. Mike Tranter who is a neuroscientist who works on dopamine signalling in the brain.
https://neuroscienceandpsy.substack.com/p/the-neurobollocks-bestiary-the-best
Your critical engagement with the content. is much appreciated!
Thanks so much - I’ll have a read!
Hey Ellie, getting back to you about dopamine. Dopamine (as other neurotransmitters too) do not have one function - they are always about many things. In fact, it is not the molecule (the dopamine in this case) that creates motivation/reward/etc it is the areas of the brain where the molecule is active (where it binds the receptors). That is why dopamine is involved in motivation/drive when it comes to the VTA of the brain for example (Ventral Tegmental Area) but involved in movement when it comes to the Basal Ganglia for example (Parkinson's disease is also linked to dopamine) and the yet another aspect dopamine's involvement in perception/emotional processing when it comes to the some areas in the prefrontal cortex (linked to schizophrenia). In other words, it is not the dopamine that does something, it is where it is active that determines the function of it, if that makes sense? But when it comes to dopamine's role in motivation and reward processing the good place to start is probably with the person who has been instrumental in elucidating those mechanisms, his talk about dopamine is here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouv-J_iYYG0
The idea of motivation is tightly linked to the idea of 'prediction error' and dopamine mediating what we expect to have and signalling when we get something more or different, to put it in layman terms. Here is a paper that you might want to look at that talks about those things from the point of view of therapy:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41398-020-0814-x
I hope this helps somewhat!
Ana
Amazing, thank you so much for taking the time to reply and find these links for me. Really appreciate it Ana!
Wait. There is no lizard brain? Wouldn't that undercut most, if not all, addiction education? I am not a professional. I was suspect when Jordan Peterson appeared. AND isn't one of H's academic credentials something to do with eyes or am I a ninny ?
Hi Chris. There emphatically and absolutely NO lizard brain, sadly a neuro-myth many times debunked yet persistent. I am preparing a post about it at the moment in fact. I was not aware that neuro models for addiction use the lizard brain?? If you could point to some references, I would live to see that. Andrew Huberman is a genuine scientist but it is beyond my understanding why he has embraced increasingly self-help, anything goes, speakers who other than being famous do not have much science facts to contribute to the debate. Really shame. Initially, I thought the episodes were good. The quality dwindled with time, taking a very serious hit in the last year. Thank you for reading!
While you're waiting for Ana's post about this you can check out this open access article with the best name, "Your brain is not an onion with a tiny reptile inside" https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0963721420917687
Absolutely! That indeed is going to be one of my main sources - the title is funny but the paper is actually really going into great detail in meticulously debunking this myth. Thank you Jennifer!
I am heart broken, Huberman seemed to be my great hope, someone I could trust
Sounds like another bad breakup 💔😭
I am sad…and confused is there anyone or anywhere, maybe this is revealing my flaw maybe I dont need a guru or a guide but I thought he was one of the good guys who could help me be my best
Tim! I know, I feel similar. Sadly I cannot think of one author/public figure that talks to the general public on all topics who would fulfil that criteria. But maybe that is the problem. When it comes to neuroscience and psychotherapy one good person is Joseph LeDoux. He is an eminent scientist who tries to speak to the general public. Also Lisa Feldman-Barrett.
Thanks!!
AH changed my life, truly. And ignited an interest in science in me, which I’m forever grateful for. Some of the guests he’s had on are brilliant. James Hollis, Samer Hattar, Anna Lemke, to name a few.
Lately, I’ve drifted away too.
I feel a big part of all of this is fame. It’s not natural to be expected to perform at all times. What started out as good intentions could be drifting elsewhere. I’m not sure it does much good to look at people as black-and-white though. AH has character defaults just like the rest of us, which he’s admitted many a-time. All I have to say is if you’ve got millions of eyes on you and an expectation to constantly perform—you’re likely to have an identity problem sooner than later.
Nonetheless I appreciate this view, certainly valid concern here. Business has interrupted good science, with the latter being a big part of his image. And these concerns are a direct contradiction to such. I’m not sure where AH and I stand, but he’s still got a special place in my heart.
Tristan! Thank you for chipping in - I love to hear your perspective, it’s very valuable - and I also appreciate to be challenged in the views I express. While my paper sounds sardonic, what I say in the beginning I truly meant (bar that I was in 💕 with AH 😂). And I was truly amazed by his effort, how he knows all that, and the science wisdom the people he was bringing on the podcast were offering. So I totally respect him for that - while it was still science. The problem is that he claims that it is science yet it is gone totally of the rails - and that is ethically murky territory. Why I call it hubris, is that because they get so close to the sun they start to think that everything they say is a god given truth. There is a few other examples from the current scene of public space ‘gurus’ that have stepped into that category. The power of science is to know your stuff, verify your claims, do not talk about things you know nothing about- he did not have to be under all that pressure - it is his own doing. He could have payed people/post doc scientists/PhD students to read stuff for him and make sure they understand the science before it is blurted out into the public space. These are all choices that have or have not been made. And after that specific episode that I describe where a long debunked brain myth is discussed as truth without any challenge throughout the whole episode, I thought: I am throwing in the towel.
"yet it is gone totally of the rails" -- has it gone 'totally' off the rails?
The point about hubris is valid, I think. Back to the point on fame, it's unnatural to feel that much power. Im sure that's affected his work and life, unfortunately.
anyway I also very much appreciate this type of discussion. Your writing has vigor and conviction. Really refreshing.
🙏 For what's worth, I think we might agree more than what appears - I can understand the man maybe, but I guess from a point of view of reliable source of information, for me, it does not satisfy the criteria - and for me that is important.
End of an era. Although today I saw a teaser of a video of Andrew with the Kardashians of all people, so I already had a bit of an off feeling. No hate to the Kardashians but...nope.
No way....sigh...