This article serves as a glossary or reference for all the useful concepts put forward by Matthew Browne and Chris Kavanagh on their podcast "Decoding The Gurus".
What an unbelievable accurate description of the culture of today - you've managed to put into words what I've been observing and questioning for the past 2 years, adrift in the webs of the internet.
One thing that stood out, this, is the now viral question of what expertise is. To me, the fake guru is the one that unnecessarily over embellishes their speech and speaks in absolutes - unless you're conveying an opinion, to which everyone is entitled to have, absolutes demands that you've done your research and have the proof to back it up. To me, this is when the red flag goes up and the bells ring.
If we're all to study deeply the few concepts that truly boggle our minds, then I'm sure wel end up having lots of different perspectives and emotional reactions, who eventually will lead to an open and humble debate. No adoration of idols, no idolatry of YouTubers, just plain information exchange. Thank you for this piece!! 👌🏻
Thanks for the kind words, but I will have to give the credit to Decoding The Gurus!
Also, you are right in that gurus typically express overconfident and immodest views. They rarely admit that the data is mixed or that they’re uncertain.
Instead, they speak with absolute certainty on topics far beyond their expertise, dismiss critics as acting in bad faith, and claim they’ve been shut out of mainstream discourse by a conspiracy to silence them.
Yes! Indeed, one thing that stands out in all of these people is the disdain for nuance. They almost run away from even speaking on how intricate certain issues can be, because, again, that allows for a clean shot when picking their side of "truth".
I find the discussion around guruism a little ironic. Don‘t get me wrong, this is a well-written article which conveys the point it wants to make succinctly, but I struggle to see the level of „useful knowledge“ I am getting from classifying gurus.
For instance, despite the ten criteria, their tier list may as well be entirely random. From those of the people on the list that I have heard of, I would have no clear idea why they ended up in their particular position. Despite me disliking some of the figures in the upper tiers for their phoniness or whatever, I am not sure if that means they are more like a guru than those below them. It seems to me like a categorization that is very hard to separate from personal agreement/disagreement with their positions.
I could give examples, but they would obviously be biased according to my personal sense of getting a „guru vibe“ from people.
Do you take issue with the archetype of the guru in the absolute or is it more the positions you take issue with? Before the internet era of guru took into full force, I think this archetype of person/entity existed via Bill Maher, Oprah and or Dr Phil however it’s taken on a different shape in the internet epoch of the 10s into the 20s vs the 90s and 00s.
What an unbelievable accurate description of the culture of today - you've managed to put into words what I've been observing and questioning for the past 2 years, adrift in the webs of the internet.
One thing that stood out, this, is the now viral question of what expertise is. To me, the fake guru is the one that unnecessarily over embellishes their speech and speaks in absolutes - unless you're conveying an opinion, to which everyone is entitled to have, absolutes demands that you've done your research and have the proof to back it up. To me, this is when the red flag goes up and the bells ring.
If we're all to study deeply the few concepts that truly boggle our minds, then I'm sure wel end up having lots of different perspectives and emotional reactions, who eventually will lead to an open and humble debate. No adoration of idols, no idolatry of YouTubers, just plain information exchange. Thank you for this piece!! 👌🏻
Thanks for the kind words, but I will have to give the credit to Decoding The Gurus!
Also, you are right in that gurus typically express overconfident and immodest views. They rarely admit that the data is mixed or that they’re uncertain.
Instead, they speak with absolute certainty on topics far beyond their expertise, dismiss critics as acting in bad faith, and claim they’ve been shut out of mainstream discourse by a conspiracy to silence them.
Yes! Indeed, one thing that stands out in all of these people is the disdain for nuance. They almost run away from even speaking on how intricate certain issues can be, because, again, that allows for a clean shot when picking their side of "truth".
I find the discussion around guruism a little ironic. Don‘t get me wrong, this is a well-written article which conveys the point it wants to make succinctly, but I struggle to see the level of „useful knowledge“ I am getting from classifying gurus.
For instance, despite the ten criteria, their tier list may as well be entirely random. From those of the people on the list that I have heard of, I would have no clear idea why they ended up in their particular position. Despite me disliking some of the figures in the upper tiers for their phoniness or whatever, I am not sure if that means they are more like a guru than those below them. It seems to me like a categorization that is very hard to separate from personal agreement/disagreement with their positions.
I could give examples, but they would obviously be biased according to my personal sense of getting a „guru vibe“ from people.
Do you take issue with the archetype of the guru in the absolute or is it more the positions you take issue with? Before the internet era of guru took into full force, I think this archetype of person/entity existed via Bill Maher, Oprah and or Dr Phil however it’s taken on a different shape in the internet epoch of the 10s into the 20s vs the 90s and 00s.
Funny you mentioned this podcast because I stuck into them in my defending yarvin series lol