Criticism & Online Gurus, Chris Kavanagh
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 бер 2022
- Chris Kavanagh is a cognitive anthropologist, and the co-host of the increasingly popular and influential podcast 'Decoding the Gurus'. This is a podcast that critiques many of the new breed of public intellectuals, including some who have been featured on Rebel Wisdom.
Together with co-host, psychologist Matt Browne, they analyse the methods and messages of what they've described as 'secular gurus'.
This is an important conversation, about the necessity of criticism, of what counts as good and bad faith, and how truth seeking gets warped.
It's a controversial project for many, and in this conversation, Rebel Wisdom's David Fuller puts many of those criticisms to Chris directly.
Alongside this video, David Fuller has written a detailed and exhaustive analysis on Substack, highly recommended to read: rebelwisdom.substack.com/p/de...
Also referenced in the conversation are:
An earlier recording with Chris 'Criticising the IDW': • Sensemaking, Lab Leak ...
Chris's presentation of the 'Gurometer' at The Stoa: • The Gurometer w/ Chris...
Peter Limberg's 'Memetic Tribes of Culture War 2.0' piece: / memetic-tribes-and-cul...
I am having a meta crisis about my meta model and I`ve got a hole in my holon. My psychotechnology keeps crashing and my sense-making faculty is so unresilient that I don`t think I could hold the space for an epistemology session in a brewery.
I really want to infuse my emergent conversations with complexity theory in order to impress my dead player friends, but I feel I have been caught up in a Gated Institution Narrative (GIN) and I wonder whether I should hit the RUM (Rebel Unknowingness Meme) instead.
Do any of you thought-leaders out there think that by binge-watching IDW and RW I will be able to up my level of sovereignty by improving my coinage game and becoming a live player in game BS?
Yours sincerely
Jargon Peterson
HA!
Brilliant brother, I’ve experienced the same after traversing the IDW and moving through the heterodoxy.. In the end i went back to resorting to grog. Pretty much got the same result!
Noice!
i totally see this in a Dilbert comic strip
The Snott Adams cult
His point about a person's personality and personal history not being off limits is absolutely correct and absolutely essential.
David please keep these challenging, objective and fascinating interviews going. Love your work.
I really want DTG to cover Vaush or Destiny. Although given the sheer volume of content publicly available, they may not even know where to start.
DTG listener stopping by :) they’re aware of destiny, he’s on the list of gurus they may cover in the future. Vaush would be super interesting too!
Doomermedia already did that to Vaush. Destiny doesn't understand metaphysics, he's a utilitarian, and plenty of people have debunked that already.
@@bigpete14 Who cares about Destiny, Vaush or some other youtube dweller. Robin DAngelos of the world are bagging millions from the biggest corporations and are running intellectually bankrupt cult and the finest grift. DTG wont touch these leftist sacred cows, or just tip-toe around them. But expect daily snarks about freaking Weinsteins.
@@michaljambor7772 they would 100% do diangelo, and have been critical of her in passing before. touch grass man you're in too deep
@@bigpete14 "In passing." That's precisely the point, considering how massively impactful she is. And toxic, I might add. But yeah, enjoy your dose of snark at whatever some 165th IDW-adjacent youtuber put out or had for breakfast that day. And ironically, just using the phrase "touch grass man" should tell you how desperately YOU need to use your own little advise here bigly.
This is a riveting interview! Thank you!
I guess you have to have watched Decoding the Gurus to enjoy this episode but I got to the end of this without having any real insight into what the criticism of 'the Guru's' is, or even what constitutes a Guru for them? Some of the names they mention don't seem to me to be what most people would consider to be a guru. Are we to assume that guru is a pejorative?
Yeh...not what I was expecting also! The term "guru" has definitely been bastardised here. If they are looking towards the likes of Jo Rogan and Jordan Peterson as guru's, the secondary dictionary definition is "influential teacher or popular expert" and may be what they're suggesting are the modern day guru's. I have seldom listened to either and have not even heard of most of the "guru's" they talk about here.
I find I can enjoy Chris Kavanagh when David Fuller talks to him. He should have David with him on every podcast of his!
Excellent job guys.
Same for me. Have found him insufferable previously.
Tried the recommended podcast. Was utter trash and bile. Kavanagh has zero self-awareness
I don`t think we are addressing the central issue of all these so-called gurus.
Attention is addictive.
Ideas like “audience capture” are far too euphemistic. It`s an addiction.
Russell Brand is an absurd extreme, but what about Jordan Peterson , the so-called IDW and bog knows how many other wannabes?
They have all become famous, For what? Who cares. It`s a big needle in the arm.
Like any addict, they start to say anything that will get them more gear....
Rather than an endless merry-go-round of gurus commenting on/discussing or criticising other gurus maybe what needs to happen is for someone to set up a rehab to help these dudes to go cold turkey?
Like all addictions,the problem has to be clearly identified and acknowledged first for healing to take place.
It`s going to be tricky because like any addiction, the addict has built his or her life more and more exclusively around the drug of choice and as "intellectuals", you can be sure that they will have some of the most sophisticated systems of denial and rationalisation ever invented to justify themselves!
Ironically, some of them have tools to identify blindspots in others but [sometimes] don't use them on themselves and their 'peers'. Eric Weinstein's term 'reflexive contrarian' is a good one, for example.
In general, the 'value' of them and these thinkers are undervalued. There is always noise and signal, its not *necessarily* their fault the audiences aren't able to discern them.
There's also a group of thinkers that aren't sucked into the culture war shit, and then there are ones that are. That's a difference too.
@@larsjorgan7964 metaphors are great to deal with jargon. I believe Jordan Hall and some of his group often use metaphors well. Metaphors turn up as multi/trans contextual tools.
In every intellectual endeavour, to do it optimally, you also need the embodied aspect of it. That's where intellectuals often go wrong or get self absorbed. Sometimes embodiment is not possible, that's where metaphors or analogies can give you an approximation.
Genuine question: did Decode the Gurus also do takedowns of Robin di Angelo, Ibrahim X Kendi or other gurus of that kind?
Well just as I was typing this he seems to talk about the fact that they did an Ibrahim X Kendi guru takedown, so then OK.
@@priapulida yeah. Can’t say I’m all that surprised, given that guy’s rationalisations. I guess ill go and listen to it.
Takedown of Kendi? Don't be silly! These are leftists, after all. Hence, they merely just piously proclaimed how Kendi is somewhow consistent within his own terms, and thus supposedly needs not be criticized on those terms too much, you know, because reasons. Utter frauds.
@@priapulida Are you talking about @michal jambor's comment that doesn't display in the replies thread?
I have the same thing: his comment popped up in my notifications, I can read it as a highlighted comment, but when I show all the replies, it's not there.
@@michaljambor7772 It's weird, I can view your comment in my notifications and as the highlighted comment, but it doesn't appear in the thread if I just display the thread.
@@priapulida Well, I get the same thing on this last comment of yours too...
Decoding the "decoding the gurus" gurus
I enjoy listening to discussions of interesting ideas. I can do that without idolizing the figures that discuss them. I find this to be a more useful outlet for my attention than listening to people criticizing other people.
I as well.
But I stop as soon as they start telling me how I think
Mmm. At 1:20:00 when he says that yes, they do the same kinds of disclaimers as Rogan, but the difference is that their goals and motivations are different because they don't want to become influential ror something, that sound a lot like ascribing motive....
Can they survive their own standards?
I've been watching them for a while now and I really think they do.
Also, not to accuse you of this, but the criticism they get the most is "oh well but aren't you just doing the same thing?" and often the argument isn't very well supported and is coming from people who are defending quite extreme ideas. Or they are showing that they're very attached emotionally to public people with increasingly unhinged behaviours or worldviews, and even though they called out the supposed "double standard" they then go ahead to completely ignore the course of their reasoning and apply a double standard themselves.
You don't need to take my word for it of course, I think if you pay attention over a period of time you will see that there's a clear difference between what DTG are doing and what people like Peterson, Lindsay or the Weinsteins are doing (especially these days)
@@tmvk97 Indeed. I don't think DTG is doing much at all to propose solutions (or at least methodologies toward solutions). They are what you could call a 'queer' force. Defined as opposition. Rebel, even.
This doesn't mean they're wrong about anything in particular. Just that they aren't attempting to provide what people need most, and will be extinguished without. Which isn't unfair. Not everyone has to do everything after all.
starts at 8:31.
"Audience capture" affects many podcasters, in particular, as an ex Jordan Peterson fan, I’ve seen that element become pervasive in him, in a subtle way, I don’t think he realizes it and I don't think his audience knows.
Keep the low-profile you Rebel Wisdom guys, never play just for a higher audience, you’ve done terrific so far. Cheers
Why ex Jordan Peterson?
@@doctorcrankyflaps1724 'cause I swallowed and digested all his material for 2 years, realized I swallowed also his shadow and it made me act and think in unskillful ways. I'm enjoying Vervaeke, who is also about meaning, but Vervaeke has resolved many of his anima issues, that's why he interrelates many disciplines in an almost artistic way; Jordan not, that's why he's too confrontative.
I also used to find Peterson interesting but he's just a run-of-the-mill reactionary now.
@@jarletto you'll probably like John Vervaeke's awakening from the meaning crisis series. He doesn't have anima issues like Peterson, and adresses the meaning crisis in an even more profound way as Peterson
That first wave of Jordan Peterson (2017-2019) was addictive, that was for sure, but his critiques he made on the state of the world and the culture really aged well and held up. I don't watch him anywhere near to the degree I used to but that's because you don't need to if you experienced that first wave.
Excellent piece.
I have a difficult time with DTG. They preach about epistemic humility but fail to consider such obvious unknowns like the LabLeak-hypothesis in any way or form. In the last months I found myself in multiple, sometimes heated but always respectful, twitter-arguments with Chris over a variety of topics. What it left behind was this familiar stench of othodoxy-blindness that accentuated most of the arguments. Hard nosed takes on fringe/controversial topics are always a red flag in my book and it doenst really matter from which side of the narrative-spectrum it comes from. It seems to be that the DTG-crew sometimes falls for the same dynamics they accuse the "gurus" of. Coupled with a lot of cynicism and sassy commentary, this is exactly what shovling coal in the tribalism-enigne looks like. Its sad, because some of his/their criticism is spot on!
I've never heard them say the lab leak hypothesis is impossible or 100% untrue. They are quite careful to say that the issue is people claiming it's "been proven" or, like Brett Weinstein, claiming a 95% probability without sufficient evidence.
My thoughts exactly
I was about to comment above but having read this, I think you put it more eloquently than I would have.
I forced myself to listen to their podcast a while ago and found it to be really lacking. I think they do themselves a real disservice with their attitude and lack of rigour.
On the other hand, having got halfway through this interview, I now see their show more like triggernometry raw or maybe z dogg md when he chats with his friends.
But I'm still not going to pay attention to them until they produce some grown-up material. It's too much like hard work listening to teenagers bitch and moan.
Omg thank you for saying this. I remember listening to their episode about James Lindsay. Whatever one may think of Lindsay, the way they were trashing the guy made think very low of them. I've seen them get praise and I thought I was going insane.
@@Ajax-wo3gt I see no problem. Lindsay gets trashed because of how insane he is. The more ridiculous a guru is the thrashier it sounds, it's the gurus own fault.
His commentary on Jordan Hall strikes me as somewhat odd. Personally I don't particularly like Jordan Hall. He has an extremely wordy and vague way of talking, a way that never seems to actually arrive at a point. That being said, I see no reason to doubt his earnestness in trying to make sense of the world he's living in. And as for the idea that he's a guru, well - what spiritual awakening is he selling exactly? Where is his tribe? He's not exactly *accessible*.
OK I'm off to listen to their episode with Sam Harris wish me luck.
Sam was a good sport.
On some occasions I'd go as far as scathing, which is a totalising dismissal.
Interesting talk, thank you both
Chris Kavanagh is the best❤
Chris likes to be left alone when he's making snarky comments online. And i get that.
So IDW draw a line around X and say "we're Y" and now these guys draw around Y and say "we're Z"? Infinite recursion no? Is it not impossible to be completely transcendent of any frame?
If the podcast's purpose is to criticize someone in detail, then the editorial decisions of who to criticize will matter a lot. Everyone I imagine uses rhetorical devices to some extent, so everyone is criticizable. In the end, is it objective information or just a reflection of the author's values? I don't know. I haven't listened to decoding the gurus to make a fair assessment (from my own values). I expect to find their assessment too harsh, providing I know their target well enough to counter-consider their view and I have similar concerns to David in any expectation to successfully stand above it all. But good interview.
I love Chris Kavanagh. Count me in as a supporter of biting satire 🥰
Brian Rose de-fi guru ad before this podcast LOL! He is my least favourite guru!!😂
Mmmm. At the same time i consider it an obvious truism that one must be aware of as many aspects of any person trying to convince you from anything (especially anything worth thinking or believing) but I am not convinced about the point of personality being up for "critique", mainly on accounts of practicality and usefulness of the critique exercise (Meaning depends on what you are aiming to get from the critique here whether it is a straight dismantling of someones influence or an honest engagement in ideas that might come to a synthesis later on).
One ( generally speaking here) should not criticize both personality and ideas at the same time firstly if the topic being discussed is complex (as in general such an conversation is difficult enough without exploring the trans-personal ramifications), and secondly it tends to be unproductive, as the easiest way to not have a conversation and get someone (who originally you might actually have had an open conversation with) to a defensive position is to lob an ad-hominem or a commentary on their character at them. Such a thing can happen but it takes two strong honest people to navigate such a conversation.
As much as i do not ulterior motives to DTG I find quite dishonest the fact that this principle seemingly applies only to "others" but i do not see it nor hear it applied to themselves.They criticize "people with influence" that go "unchallenged" that is great, but fail to recognize themselves as the very same within their audience.
Of course is also the issue here we are not talking about a "conversation" with someone but rather having conversations "about someone" but even then this framework of thought to me begs both the question of how wide-spread contrarian-tribalism has shaped the "gurus" needs, wants, drives, and/or behaviors, and how the "information ecosystem" has informed also the interviewers snark and cynicism.
One can bring personality to the table but then only if you are not able to bring yours in it as well i fail to see the value of a criticism beyond being entertaining. But as I said it depends on what we are aiming to get from the criticism...
Do you think he meant "analysiing" personality? Because analysing a persons personality and finding, say a personality disorder, that is scewing their perspective might have some merit.
@@Ajax-wo3gt totally agree, but also i mantain that discussing any important topic where part of the conversation involves any act of critical self reflection as to where your bias lie regarding to the isue being discussed requiere a profound level of trust in whoever you are talking to. And the way they set up critizism is in no manner conductive to that so i see a contradicción there
Just take a look at any of one of their videos' comments section. Their fans seem to be mostly made up of people who hate the figures that DTG are criticizing, as if they've all flocked there just to feel validated in their feelings of resentment rather than coming for the purpose of education. If you look at all the measured responses from people defending Jordan Peterson in particular, the immediate comments in response are all insulting and cruel (things like "aww you here to defend daddy Peterson???").
Seeing that, I think by their own logic they have failed as much as every figure they criticize because, despite their best intentions, they've failed to actually create reasonable dialogue and have instead merely created a place for resentful people to gather and signal boost their own hatred. DTG can hand-wave all they want and say "we're just being academics in public", but, again, if we're applying the same metrics, then they are in fact responsible for the community they've created just as much as Joe Rogan or Jordan Peterson are. If Joe Rogan is NOT allowed to say "I'm just a comedian thinking out loud" and JBP is NOT allowed to say "I'm a psychiatrist trying to help people en masse" then DTG are NOT allowed to say "we're just asking questions, bro." They are one and the same with every single figure they target.
Thanks for this episode.
I have interest in what Decoding the gurus is doing. The issue for me comes from listening or watching their content. I feel like there is not enough exploration of the "gurus", so for me the content sounds more like coding the gurus. Academic style turns layman terms into jargon, or programs into code. For example video "no bad people" is really clear example of coding multiple hidden assumptions and explanations into one word. Coding, not decoding.
Second, I find that listening to the "gurus" feeds my inner critic against them. Listening to decoding the gurus invokes much more intense critique, but only against the decoder's faults. This results it being counter-productive for me to listen into. I want to find truth, but I don't want my inner critic attacking the critique, which too often sounds partial or misrepresented. I have this feeling "oh this is just in bad faith", or "this explanation goes into irrelevant minutia".
The University is almost 100% left
So what he calls "conspiratorial" is actually him defending the institution
Praise to David and Chris for engaging in this exchange. We need a bit of more this in social media.
Almost an hour so far of listening to him talking about what he thinks about what they think about what various other people think about and silently praying something interesting is revealed other than them justifying their existence.
Have you read the accompanying article/essay Dave uploaded to substack yet?
I was hoping for more substance, numbers, and examples. Chris seems do what most do in the public intellectual space, which is making generalized statements about what they see to be a problem in some way. Of course, that is partially a result of the podcast format. But I was hoping he could show a glimpse at a level of analysis that could qualitatively separate him from those who he labels as gurus. David did a good job chasing down that point with him. I'm honestly hoping for someone that can show me a level of analysis in the political/cultural realm that doesn't just succumb to the very same cognitive pitfalls that they project onto others. The closest I've seen to this is Steven Pinker, who seems to try his damnedest to be free of judgement and preference in his speech.
What's a hypothetical example of quantitative data that could persuade you?
Maybe something like changes in no of followers after adopting a controversial talking point?
@@Michelle_Wellbeck That could persuade me of what?
@@snackentity5709 Well you were talking about this video weren't you, where I assume you aren't convinced of the generalized statements made (pertainging to the IDW). For example there's the claim that the IDW (or specific individuals within it) have cultivated an insular viewership and aren't as open to discussion as they claim to be.
@@Michelle_Wellbeck Yes, it wasn't clear to me exactly what your comment was referring to, as there was a lot discussed in the video and multiple points brought up in my comment. I wasn't trying to dismiss your comment, if that was your perception. I think the claim that some percentage of IDW viewers (and members) are not as open to discussion as they might claim to be is correct. It's not clear to me what percentage or magnitude that is, or how significant that statistic is compared against any other community. My original comment wasn't trying to dismiss the idea that there is sloppiness to segments of the IDW communities, it was pointing out that the same sloppiness can be seen from Chris and others who I've seen critical of IDW communities.
I believe I see a lot of psychological tit-for-tat behavior, where generalizations and strawmen are the source of the annoyances that drives the behavior. For example, if I generalize about a community (or the ideas within) that you feel you align with in some way, and I'm not representing *your* views/behaviors exactly, you might feel annoyed and frustrated that I launched criticisms for a couple hours without ever interacting with the nuance of your particular views. You might feel compelled to launch broad criticisms back towards me and the communities that you perceive me to align with. And this tit-for-tat behavior continues until "representatives" of each community can have real-time discussions together in which strawmen/generalizations (intentional or unintentional) can be squashed before they become ingrained into the narratives that each community adopts. I believe this discussion between David and Chris is a great example of the way to break the tit-for-tat loop and I hope to see more like it.
Personally, it appears no level of education/intelligence is immune to this psychological tit-for-tat. The smarter one is, the more/better arguments they can create to justify their frustration (if they choose to do so). This is basically Jonathan Haidt's "elephant and the rider" metaphor. The current political polarization is further isolating all sorts of communities and driving up these frustrations.
There can only be one...
Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji
WHAREGURU.. Ji Khalsa..
The online gurus are all fake..
Wrong
As a fan of *some* of the gurus, with my own experienced decoding, I get irritated by Chris and try to ignore for that reason. I realize now though that while he represents shadow in me (what I suppress), the defense I find myself expressing is defense of the fans, not the guru. For the implication of the ridicule inevitably is that fans are stupid, not really the guru. Now I am happy to be stupid, but I first wish for there to be some understanding and boom: that is the frustration, the fervor in me. Chris's derogatory comments reveal a complete lack of connection to what at least some of the fans experience -and certainly pay no attention to the nuance in it. This is what is the bull to red rag for me. I am joyous that Chris and me and David and everyone are free to make derogatory comments and remain certain that this why Chris occurs to me as rather a blunt instrument.
@Guy Incognito The subtext of a lot of Kavanagh’s comments, as well as those of his sycophants, is that you have to be ‘too far gone’ or must ‘just be an idiot’ or are a ‘lost cause’ if you still think so and so is worth listening to. I tend to disagree with OP’s comment though. People like Kavanagh actually do think many of the ‘gurus’ they talk about are stupid, in so many words. They’ve said as much, at least.
@@Roundlay Your reading of the subtext is pretty bad if you think that's my core message. I actually think lots of the gurus are very persuasive and couch their extreme takes in obfuscatory jargon and strategic disclaimers. That's hard to see through, especially if they are talking about a topic you don't know. On the other hand, if someone is a Rogan fan and hasn't noticed that he has a strong right-wing skew then yeah I think you are either not very observant or share his biases.
Of course after listening to this I went immediately to the Sam Harris podcast that he said not to listen to! Why not? It was pretty great. Chris went toe to toe with Sam and that’s commendable. I think he did argue in good faith and it was respectful and entertaining to listen to. As far as intellectual combat is concerned though, Chris got KO’d pretty decisively. Sam answered every accusation and challenge. He utterly destroyed the idea that he’s tribal. That accusation was ridiculous but he still dismantled the idea with deliberate and surgical reason as he is wont to do. I’ll probably check out more episodes! That was good stuff.
Glad you enjoyed! If you want to better understand my position and why I don't think most of Sam's objections were relevant, you should check out this article by Robert Wright on Tribalism: nonzero.substack.com/p/what-is-tribalism?s=r
I actually thought Harris did very poorly in that interview!
I’d like to know how you came home with the idea that Sam did in fact pose satisfactory answers to that criticism.
The over the top fighting analogies “KO”, “destroyed” as if this is a playground brawl are too 2015 UA-cam for me
I need to go back to school - or stick to hunting and fishing - I understood maybe 1% of this
1:21:00 he is projecting his own deficencies
Based.
Your dreams tell you everything you need to know about yourself. 😉
From the Gurometer link, "The most concise definition of a guru is “someone who spouts pseudo-profound bullshit”, with bullshit being speech that is persuasive without any regard for the truth." They purport to be capable of analyzing the formal structures of speech, so as to detect rhetorical structures, etc., in common with bullshitters. Why focus on bullshitters instead of truth tellers? Or do they not have analysis of speech structures in common with truth tellers? Wouldn't they already have to have been able to discern the truth tellers (and hence truths) in the first place? It gets more complicated. How about a truth teller who doesn't have especially good rhetorical skills? If the pseudo-profound is to be separated from the truly profound, doesn't this require access to profundity in the first place? In other words, presenting arguments for truth in a positive sense, rather than only critiques. I am much less interested in hearing about purported bullshitters than I am in listening to information about people in good faith looking for truths, which one would think would have to converge eventually. Bullshit can't converge.
It is disingenuous to apply the term "guru" in a metaphorical and pejorative sense to secular speakers with large followings, who do not refer to themselves as gurus. Is guru a bad word? I came here hoping to hear a discussion of criticism of actual self-declared gurus (like Sadhguru) who have amassed a large Internet following. Has the Gurometer been applied to this category of public speakers as well?
This is very good, David - as usual.
Your article on DTG, and other subjects, is really good.
I've always felt a bit uncomfortable about DTG. My sense is that, to a degree, they are both consensus gatekeepers. They like to proclaim themselves as being good-faith actors, neutral observers in culture war topics and fair minded followers of the evidence, but I'm not so convinced.
On the two episodes I've listened to which had guests on who had been traduced previously (Sam Harris and Chris Williamson) I didn't feel their contrition or willingess to learn. I thought, certainly for Sam Harris, they dug in their positions and simply bored listeners to death. Though I take David's point that maybe because I'm a fan of Harris, I saw it that way.
The interview with Williamson I found deeply troubling. I don't follow Chris Williamson's work, though I'm aware of it. I've seen some of his interviews, and I don't particularly like lots of his guests or his ideas - but DTG were awful to him. What was worse was that when he went on their programme they reminded me of 15 year old boys who had been talking behind the back of another boy, a boy who was much fitter and stronger than them, and when confronted gave a fairly pathetic apology/clarification of what they really meant. What they did was snide and underhand. And they did it because they thought there would be no consequence to their behaviour. People who behave in a certain way because they don't fear the consequences? That's cowardice.
In David's piece on Substack he said that DTG have had other people on who they have criticised, and Kavanagh included Stuart Ritchie in this description. I listened to that, and got no sense whatsoever of any disagreement between them. That reference has confused me.
Anyway, David, as always, you're producing great work. There is lots of stuff on Rebel Wisdom which isn't for me, and that's ok. Just because you're producing content I don't like, it doesn't mean I think any less of you or the channel.
This piece, in particular, is really good.
I thought it was a credit to them that they had Williamson on at all so he could say his piece. He basically charmed them into thinking they might have been wrong about him and a lot of the DTG audience thought maybe they'd made a mistake juding him too harshly too quickly. Straight after the interview he decided to interview Sargon of Akkad and James O'Keefe proving that he had manipulated them completely in his appearance and he is just a clout chasing guy and not a thoughtful curator of online content at all. James O'Keefe is even worse than Stefan Molyneux who he claimed he had on because he didn't know who he was. lol.
"they are both consensus gatekeepers" - Bingo my friend
HELL YES! Chris and Matt (Smith) have become my personal anti-gurus. Decoding the Gurus is a seriously great podcast. It's absolutely hilarious, and it takes critical thinking to a place that spans the political spectrum, and along the way you learn how to detect frauds. I've had to seriously reexamine much of my own biases, which really hurt at times, and I'm all the better in doing so, thanks to Chris and Matt. I dare say, Decoding the Gurus is the best podcast out there, it is for me. A place I would recommend starting at is
episode 22. Joe Rogan: Just an Average Joe?
And I loved ep. 23. Robert Malone & Peter McCullogh: A litany of untruths.
One last one, ep. 25 James Lindsey & Michael O'Fallon: Eating bugs for Feminist Glaciology.
Just start listening, and you won't want to stop. The longer the episode, the better!
They have become your anti-guru gurus.
@@yeaown8139 Lol! Yup
@@OrwellsHousecat That was my ironic joke. You got it! Ding ding ding!!!
Galaxy Brain-ness immediately brings to mind the latest incarnation of the streamer Athene.
More evidence that we value silo thinking above that of the polymath. Silo thinkers are the useful idiots of totalitarians.
Rebel wisdom generally does a much better job of decoding the gurus
Please tell me you’re joking. Rebel wisdom is the PR machine for grifters
22“How long will you inexperienced ones love inexperience? How long will you ridiculers take pleasure in ridicule? And how long will you foolish ones hate knowledge?23Respond to my reproof. Then I will pour out my spirit for you; I will make my words known to you.24Because I called out, but you kept refusing, I stretched out my hand, but no one was paying attention,25You kept neglecting all my advice And rejecting my reproof,26I also will laugh when disaster strikes you; I will mock when what you dread comes,27When what you dread comes like a storm, And your disaster arrives like a storm wind, When distress and trouble come upon you.
Prov 1 22-27
The first example of “ I told you so”
The music is not necessary
Epic collaboration
Shout out to that CRT Cult Leader, James Lindsay! We all have our conspiracy theories. We need to understand how we think about thinking and thinking how everyone else thinks to and then go take a nap, listen to some good tunes, go outside and enjoy the moment. Everyone thinks everyone else has a personality disorder. But what if the person think that has one. Whose perspective do we listen to? How do we make sense?
I’d never heard of Chris. He mused about why certain individuals don’t engage with him. Watching Chris I can see why he’s not in the same room. Sorry to say.
But what Kavanagh dislikes most is that JBP sasses the far left, for whom Kavanagh has a definite soft spot (judging from his Twitter). We need a podcast called Decoding the Decoders Decoding the Gurus. Who watches the Watchmen? Etc. CK is also a politically interested actor.
Peterson has a thick thick shadow on green. Checkout Jonathan Rowson piece on JBP, it is spot on.
@@yoganandavalle Looks good. I'll do that.
JBP breaks down in tears nearly everytime he speaks. Seriously unstable loon. How he has such a following bewilders me!?
@@yoganandavalle What do you mean by thick shadow on green? I keep reading you talk about his shadow (mind you I understand the concept of shadow but it seems that Jordan's shadow has stuck to you inordinately so I am curious...)
@@firefootable green is from integral theory.
I liked what these guys are doing up to a point. Labeling everyone a guru who is to the right of them and with a certain internet following is wrong
Irony being that was always the IDW's move.... labelling everyone to the left of them as wrong.
@@ally11488 yeah that's my exact point. Don't pretend to be "meta" when you're simply playing a part in the culture wars. The "guru decoding" thing is a great example of this.
@@multiks2200 To be honest though they've done good work on the Weinstein's.
..Robert Reich, who we like...." say no more. Perhaps it should be "Encoding" or "Recoding the Gurus. " The problems they have with someone's personality, or the logical approach to a point or two does not necessarily invalidate somone's body of thought. They assume that many who engage some segments of the IDW (likely among a wide range of other podcasts/writings) accept everything unchallenged and are captured. Very simplistic presumption. Might as well use the established labels as well ("deplorables" "unwashed masses" "rednecks" "right wingers") They seem to be rather uncritically regarded by those with an academic tilt and/or shared politics simply because they are taking on the boogeymen. It is clear that they come from the same mileau which loves to self flagelate and critique, with a facade and pretense of objectivity to the approving nods of a certain part of the establishment when their feathers get ruffled and "sophisticated academic" ethos challenged.
I think he was talking about Robert Wright, not Reich.
@@Poecilia1963 Thanks for clarification 👍. Who is that. I'll have to look, not familiar.
I've listened to these guys and they certainly made some good points, but mostly very surface level point scoring. I have myriad issues with IDW folks, but these guys are just blah. Not a podcast i will go back to because i can glean the good from people myself as well as level more substantive critiques myself. Ankle biting hall monitors is definitely the vibe.
That is the impression I got without ever having listened to them before or knowing who this guest was. This guy just didn't come off as having anything really interesting to say and kind of trailed off too often. I heard decent IDW criticism on RW and smaller channels and felt satisfied. The snark vibe was felt too much with this guy.
Sweety you just sound like you had your feelings hurt by these guys. Sorry they burst your bubble.
@@labtechtech I'm no idw stooge and i don't need help critiquing them either, certainly not from those turkeys.
@@SladeOb It's ok baby, run back to your parasocial father/cult leaders, you will find comfort there for only a small monthly price of Patreon membership.
Chris should try to decode Iain McGilChrist though he will probably end up decoding himself 😛
Is that because you think Ian McGilChrist is the real deal???, I think he's great, have you listen the conversation of Ian with John Vervaeke in Rebel Wisdom?, it is a masterpiece.
@@yoganandavalle yes indeed. I am reading his new book. Amazing stuff 🙂
Wow! Great guest
In the case of Brett W, I was interested in what he had to say at first because I am a biologist and he seemed to be a very careful natural philosopher. But then it seemed that his tendency to be a contrarian merged wiith the audience capture by right wing conspiratort types. That moved him sharply to into the anti-vac, anti-mask camp as he was selectively voicing concerns about government Covid policy without balancing it with the great good the vaccines were accomplishing. He got bought by his followers and I stopped listening. I am not so sure that Peterson took a similar route--his thumb nails seemlike click bait recently.
Great good? Absolutely no evidence supports that today.
@@priapulida Yes, noble and virtuous essentially speaking. Yet, as with all activism, the personal ego or shadow can hijack even the most noble intentions and acts. One should never rest assure believing one´s motives are of the healing kind just because the words and outer story is 100% correct.
Also in the episode of the Very Bad Wizards episode referenced by Kavanagh (We Don’t Love Them Hoax), Pizarro says, “Just don’t be an asshole.” Say what you will about Lindsay as of late, but describing his back and forth in that episode as ‘narcissistic’ is the kind of Sophist’s U-turn that Kavanagh thrives on: superficially plausible, hedged just enough to give him an out, vague such that most people won’t go and verify for themselves, and ultimately unsound or trivial. But that’s Kavanagh in a nutshell. He’ll fall back on his NoRn IrIsH HuMoUr and BiTiNg SaRcAsM, make reference to Civility Porn, or cite the importance of pushing back against irrationality and bad science as justification for his demeanour, but ultimately he engages with the world in a way that actively discourages a productive exchange of ideas and makes half the world unreceptive to his own. First impressions are important because second impressions rarely follow. Kavanagh should take Pizarro’s advice.
It's not only plausible it is also the reading of Dave and Tamler, as they've stated before. Dave's a reasonable sort and I've yet to find much we disagree with when it comes to the gurus and we've talked about them quite a lot.
Just read the comments.....I guess it's a load of bollocks?
Nice scarf
Isn't this video itself an example of what it critiques?
Good people, go for a quiet walk in the woods.
Now that is a good thing to do. Peace.
Trying to put the genie back in the bottle i see.
The hubr
Daijinz comment below is spot on! Orthodoxy Blindness is a perfect description for so much of the trust the experts and follow the science consensus clinging I see these days parading as wisdom, intellect and critical thinking.
Oh MY**My Dog and I love Walks..So much Mental oration and As a Bird is known By its Singing So is a Human by Her conversation* for me all the Academic thoughtforms spoken by Chris my mind does not find lands in any substantial soil. Take Care
I really liked how you pressed this guy. I get the feeling this was a much more fleshed-out conversation with him than I would otherwise get on his podcast. This is the first time I've heard of him and he comes off as having a far too low-resolution view of complex thinkers. The "guru" label is thrown around carelessly. Gurus don't really help people in the long haul. Jordan Peterson helped millions of people with his wisdom and insights and it stuck.
Also, he's not really riding that wave anymore. His "guru" wave was in the late teens and the status rocket that followed. He's strictly doing interviews now which is nice to see since it's something different.
I'm giving a pass on exploring this guy's podcast because he isn't really offering any intellectual contribution other than cheap remarks and outdated critiques.
Edit: After reading further comments, this guy does not come off as practicing what he preaches. At around the 1:20:00 mark he almost seems to outline that his podcast isn't there to take anything seriously which renders listening to it pointless. We are living in a world where things need to be taken seriously and juvenile, immature banter and cheap shots is all downstream.
Also anyone still involved in academia that uses that as a means for credibility is an instant red flag.
you guys have installed an artifical age minimum
And I was hoping that the chronically over-educated egg heads would keep their snark and condescension relegated to The faculty lunch room... Rebel wisdom always had a tendency to go down this path as well so maybe David is just jealous that they don't even have to pretend.
After listening to this good interview, I took Chris's advice and listened to his Robert Malone episode. I think there's plenty to question in McCullough and Malone's claims, but there are also significant, legitimate concerns about the covid response that they, as well as Weinstein, John campbell, and the flccc raise that don't get adequately addressed by the mainstream narrative, or by Chris and Matt's criticism.
I felt that Chris and Matt are a bit snide, and offer their opinion, tainted by bias, with no meaty, detailed evidence to rebut the real, legitimate concerns. I doubt that I'll listen to further episodes, there's just not enough substance. I don't believe they live up to their own Guru standards.
"Anti guru" guru's
We humans can’t solve our own problems. If we could we would have done it already. We better put out a SOS for a higher life form to help us. Out of the total mess of a confusion we have created for ourselves. I suspect it is because of how narcissistic we have all been trained to be.
I think this guy has a very good point, this 'sense-making', goddamit thats not sense, this community is much too credulous, so much fluff and bullshit flying around. If you could say it in a paragraph, you definitely will write a book!.. plus psychological problems all over the show, of course, influences thinking.
Rebel wisdom sounds redundant and mentally inundated, thinking in terms of orthodoxy versus heterodoxy. This channel linguistically psychologically is cultish, you speak your own language the rest of humanity just doesn't recognise, thats why your numbers are the way they are.
seethe
thank you, king is clearly naked. again
"I'm not saying that Jordan Hall is Hitler..." My good man, if you're worked your way into making that statement in any context whatsoever, you should probably re-examine your entire career. I'm just sayin.
On the topic of criticism the decoding the gurus podcast is virtually unlistenable, it’s probably due to their superior glib tone and voices that grate at the eardrums. I imagine that even if their arguments were written down and simplified for easier consumption that they would amount to a whole lot of nothing. I remember checking them out a while back and immediately passed on their work, after listening to some of this video I checked them out more. Yikes! 🤮
You don't have to imagine. It's written down in the Substack article ;)
Just checking back on this channel, still controlled opposition
At 1 hour 30 it became apparent this bloke has never had a real job. He talked about other’s use of rhetoric, strewth, he’s a world beater..
David looks particularly unsmart in this one. Telling Chris that making fun of Peterson for wearing a tuxedo was "a little bit below the belt" sums up exactly what is wrong here. Sometimes the lighthearted funny observation is a great stand in for larger more lengthy sober critique. Noticing that the guy wears a tuxedo to a podcast in earnest is the joke and the critique all wrapped up in one place. To have a problem with this is to be so far up your own ass as to have lost all perspective on humor. Seriously, people have no ability anymore to sense what makes something funny. Humor intermingled with critique and debate is exactly one of the hallmarks of a great intellect. Christopher Hitchens, Gore Vidal, Mark Twain, Shakespeare, come on people.
In general David comes of as being deeply uncomfortable with the basic mechanics effective criticism. He really doesn't want to accept many of Chris' extremely valid and historically well founded positions on discourse. I mean, what he's saying about where he's coming from should not need so much explaining. This is sad.
Try harder.
"Most of all, their podcast is fun to listen to, and brings a much needed levity to the conversation. Perhaps it's because they are not based in the US that they are able to take a bit of a healthy distance and perspective on the topics and personalities they cover. I've found that the American "galaxy brains" in particular tend to take themselves extremely seriously. The ability to laugh at oneself was sorely lacking among many heterodox figures, and the Northern Irish and Australian love of "taking the piss" is a refreshing and necessary injection into the cultural conversation, to puncture the seriousness and pomposity."
rebelwisdom.substack.com/p/decoding-the-gurus-and-the-necessity?s=w
@@RebelWisdom Honestly, I thought Chris and Matt's 'levity' was often mean spirited. For academics in psychology, their understanding of the 'personalities' they were criticizing struck me as oddly limited and harsh which is genuinely sad. They also seem to be obsessed with the Weinsteins. After sampling a handful of the DTG podcasts, I can't say I was impressed.
I looked at the guruometer and about half of the items could be as easily applied to someone actually pushing truth in a pre-truth society as to someone acting as an unwarranted guru-fraud, making it a benchmark that is about as accurate as pure chance.
"I don't have this pathology that other people have" ..this guy is guilty of the things he's accusing other gurus of. He seems narcissistic and a bit attention-seeking to me.
Yeah it's not about not having it. Instead, it's about realizing that we all have it, that it will be inclined to grow, and that there are specific strategies to help mitigate these tendencies. You can't get rid of cognitive biases, you merely learn to manage them.
Heh, no... The Gurus he tackles are pretty deserving of the criticism.
This is good, but disappointing to see Chris seem to stoop down to David’s level of grating and exasperating earnestness 😂
David’s apparent non-negotiable commitment to “steel manning” and taking gravely seriously a collection of clown show narcissistic buffoons and objecting to any sign of jokey irreverence when dealing with them is so fucking tiresome
Please never stop taking the piss out of these agonizingly self-serious grifters, Chris
@@ulee2010 But you know, if someone is never earnest then you never find out what they actually stand for. Is the goal to make everything a joke? Do you find you like people who appear to have nothing at their core apart from the ability to take the p?
I agree with Chris that personality traits, past experiences and character can’t be cleanly separated from subject matter but we’re left here waiting for him to hold the mirror up.
He fancies himself as the smartest man in the room having assumed rather than asked what people think. What is narcissism if not that?
Above all else though, the way in which he perceives his take to be especially edgy is painful. His sarcastic snark and willingness to be rude is novel, but the substance is as mainstream as it gets. The mainstream media and academy are trustworthy on the whole. 🤷♂️
Knowing how to read and critique a social science paper is such a mundane skill but it’s being presented as a super power.
Having so much conviction at a time like this is very suspect.
I am a fan of James Lindsey.
Sorry for your loss...
...of brain cells.
good. he is doing 1 thing right, what makes him head above many, that is focusing 1 problem at a time.
I don't hear many specific critiques of any specific arguments here. Clearly, this speaker does not have the charisma or articulation to attract a meaningful following, so he has made a side hobby out of mocking those who do. If the "gurus" are so wrong, then why can't he muster up some real evidence? Why must he reach for generalities?
Rebel Wisdom seems to be descending into carping and criticizing the very people it has parasitized for years. This won't drive your success. It's time for you to figure out what your real values and message are and pursue those boldly, instead of waffling and shooting arrows blindly. If you're a Lefty who just resents the IDW on a visceral level, then quit trying to couch it in pseudo-intellectualism. At least James Lindsay has some real intellectual arguments. His listeners are free to reject his conclusions, but he backs them up with hard evidence.
There's plenty of evidence on their podcast. James Lindsay "real intellectual arguments" 😂
@@juancsmix More generalities.. Ask yourself why you are incapable of marshalling evidence against the arguments you criticize..
@@gdonegan03237 it's not me, it's them. They do have evidence. If you don't want to listen to it or accept it that's alright... You don't have to
Isn’t it cowardly though for Chris not to take a position on the trans issue? For all Jordan Peterson’s faults, he took action and risked his career to speak up for a principals and values he believes in. Seems like Chris is happy to be a backseat driver and just criticise and “stay safe”. The trans issue is a big one ... it particularly negatively affects 50% of the population and is clearly Orwellian in the crazy double speak society it’s engendering. Our politicians in the two primary parties in the UK no longer feel confident saying what a woman is. If Chris and even rebel wisdom doesn’t feel it’s the right time to comment, I don’t know when they will? It’s neither intellectually honest or a position of integrity as it’s a big enough topic to warrant comment.
When you have nothing to say and go criticize who has…. Freud fraud.
Jesus Christ this was a bore. At least Alex Jones is entertaining.
You caught me in a receptive mood, have a Like :)
Chris clearly knows little about Eric Weinstein’s position. It’s his brother who’s deluded. Not ‘Eric.
The scientific consensus has led to an economic and social disaster.
i had my fari share of twitter arguments with ChrissyK. Can't stand the guy to be honest. So convinced of his own POV very annoying.
Hmmm, why would anyone listen to this guy, just another guy looking to make a buck from criticizing others.
Boring and vacuous