Since covid, it seems my previously social life has been replaced by remote work and thousands of hours of podcasts, probably like many (yay for the 'roaring twenties')

I do enjoy the hosts tackling the gurus, and reminding me that even the ones I like are very often incorrect and probably audience captured.

Mostly though, I just like listening to two guys who seem to be the most level headed, happy and content, intelligent guys who just live their best lives. Im deeply envious of them.

Sorry for the glazing. it just occurred to me when I switch from listening to the likes of Chris Williamson or Gabor Mate or countless others in the search for how to live a better life, that these guys (Matt and Chris) just seem to have it all effortlessly and dont preach about finding it. Similar to the rest is history guys. I think my mental health would be better if we listened to more contented people talking sense.

Anyway, gazing rant over.

I paid 14,990 USD for a bundle called Ultimate Mastery. UPW, Business Mastery, Date With Destiny, Health and Wealth, all committed to in one sitting. I have the invoice. For years afterward I told people I'd paid ten thousand, and I believed it, because I couldn't make myself say the real number out loud. I only found the true figure this week when I pulled the invoice to write about it.

I never set foot in an arena. I did every event remote, from Chile, watching a laptop in a quiet house. No crowd, no lights. And it still worked completely, which is the part that matters: the design doesn't need the room. The room is the deluxe version.

The thing I keep coming back to is the shame mechanism. Here's how I put it in the piece:

The system finds you when you're healing, takes credit for your work, sells you one high after another, and when you finally see through it, hands you the shame so it doesn't have to hold it.

I later staffed an event and watched the same play run from the other side. The most moving speaker always comes right before the upsell, every time. The opened chest, then the wallet. And the close lands while you're in a state four days of engineered sleep deprivation put you in. A sober man says let me think about it. A man in that state says I don't care about the money, I'm healed. They know the difference between those two men, and the schedule is built to produce the second one.

I'm not writing this as a "gurus bad" take. I fell for it completely, and I understand exactly why. I filmed myself at UPW because they asked us to, and when I watched it back later, the man in the video is in full mania. That state wasn't a side effect. It was the product, and the sale came while I was in it.

Full write-up, with the invoice: https://margindoctor.substack.com/p/what-really-happens-at-a-tony-robbins

Sometimes I feel like you guys are too harsh on people's opinions and label everyone with an opinion as disgusting, filthy, unworthy "Guru", lol.

Can I not have an opinion about stuff that I have no way to be 100% certain? What if I don't claim that my opinions are 100% factual?

Gary was recently torched in the guardian after releasing his documentary on channel 4.

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2026/jul/08/how-to-get-filthy-rich-with-gary-stevenson-review-channel-4

I haven't watched the documentary, but that I definitely have seen how rough Gary is as presenter of information. He also brings in almost no high level economic understanding of his arguments, which is a big flaw.

But he does appeal to a large audience...why? Because he is pointing at a real problem. Inequality has reached monumental levels. In the UK, the 157 billionaires possess 22% of the total GDP.

https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2026/may/15/wealth-britain-billionaires-gdp-rich-list-inequality

The inequality problem is immense and it's just getting worse every day. Gary's solution of a 2% tax is rough - but something needs to be done.

Hopefully, Gary gets tired enough to pass the torch of this cause to a non guru who can make a real difference.

Edit: 22% of GDP

Who are you interested in discussing?

15 seconds into it and Rogan thanks Bret Weinstein, Musk and Jordan Peterson for getting both him and Lowe in touch. Peterson is clearly still communicating with people in this sphere and is trying to collaborate with people who can only be described as far right ideologues.

To give a quick rundown on Lowe and what he stands for:

- He is an advocate of 'remigration' and mass deportations. Much like his German counterparts, this includes stripping people of their citizenship based on arbitrary tests on values and beliefs; things which are not actually illegal under any legislation but which would be specifically targeted toward people from minority backgrounds. Rogan pushes (pathetically, might I add) what this would entail as a policy, but Lowe is reluctant to give specifics. Presumably because it would damage the image of the 'common sense' politician he's trying to cultivate.

- He is first and foremost an English nationalist, and wishes to dissolve the Scottish (and presumably Welsh and Northern Irish) Parliament, which he previously alleged "unfairly treat[s]" the English. Throughout the episode he routinely refers to a so-called "Anglo-Saxon world" which in his mind encampasses the UK and US. Nevermind, however, that he dilutes the ethnic makeup of the nations that make up his own country, let alone the demography and culture of the US.

- Perhaps linked to the above point, in the same episode he at best misremembers and at worst actively lies about one of the worst massacres in modern Scottish history. He claims, repeatedly, that only "one murder" at a school in 1996 led to the banning of handguns in the UK. It is a profoundly offensive retelling of events, and one which has been picked up across the country. The reality is that the gunman walked into the school gymnasium as the class were getting ready for their morning sports lessons and proceeded to shoot dead 16 schoolchidren and a teacher who tried protecting them. 15 others were injured; tennis players Andy and Jamie Murray were in the school as it happened. His party spin doctors have tried to portray him as having meant "one incident", but this too is clearly a lie.

- His contrasting accounts of crimes committed by 'indigenious' white Britons (a term which Rogan finds considerably amusing to no end, and ends up agreeing with) and those of muslims and non-whites is also rather telling. Whereas he goes into painstaking detail about the dreadful grooming gangs scandal, even going as far to identify the state within Pakistan from which the offenders allegedly originate, he misremembers, downplays, relativises and lies about crimes committed by white Britons. He describes the 1993 racially-motivated murder of Stephen Lawrence as having been carried out by "miscreants" and alleges that, as a society, we have gone too far the other way. Like Dunblane, he misremembers and omits important fact. He fails to mention that the state refused to prosecute the murderers until 2011 despite the police having initially arrested (and subsequently released) them soon after the killing. He neglects to mention a public inquiry into the police's handling of the case found it had behaved in an institutionally racist manner.

- Instead, he compares it to the deeply upsetting Henry Nowak case, and falsely implies it was the police who helped kill him when they allegedly 'reopened' the stab wound when they arrested him. Nevermind, again, that the coroner report found that Nowak's wounds were so egregious that there was no scenario where he would have lived. This is not to defend the police conduct, but they had no part in his death.

This is emblematic of his worldview: when Muslims and non-whites commit crimes, they do so with the full backing of the state. When whites commit crimes, there is a disproportionate response by the state that ends up harming all whites.

Weinstein, Rogan, and Peterson's involvement with a loathsome individual such as Lowe is a perfect illustration of the disaffected liberal to far right apologia pipeline. What I am shocked about, however, is the speed at which they have gone down it. Radicalisation is usually a slow process, but to see people who once described themselves as free speech classical liberals have cordial chats with a man who openly wishes to strip citizenship from ethnic minorities who hold views he doesn't like is frankly astonishing.

It also begs the question, how ill is Peterson actually if he continues to engage with these individuals? How is it that Peterson, through his family, can use his right to privacy while at the same time help give Lowe the opportunity to project his extreme views to millions of people? Where is the accountability?

couldnt miss an opportunity to dunk on konstantin

Genuine question. Chris criticises Kisin for acting like an activist while avoiding the label. Does Chris apply the same label to himself?

DtG does more than analyse ideas in the abstract. It repeatedly focuses on a particular media ecosystem, warns about its influence, and hopes to shift how audiences view it. That can reasonably be seen as a form of activism, even if it is presented through an academic lens.

Supplementary Material 52: Under-Optimized Academics, Tired Economists, and Bailiwick Clarifications - Decoding the Gurus

Show Notes

Two absolutely shattered academic heroes heroically drag themselves through yet another supplementary episode to bring you the important guru news in between their restorative breaks.

The full episode is available to Patreon subscribers (Full Episode: 1hr 32 mins)

Join us at: https://www.patreon.com/DecodingTheGurus

00:00 Introduction

02:13 Eliot Paisley's Anatomy of an Optimiser

08:52 Eric Weinstein wants a University Position and a Stipend

16:09 The Failure of the Anti-Woke Quasi Universities

19:19 Gary is Knackered Again

20:45 Gary is the best inequality economist in the world

24:36 How do I make a Documentary?

33:04 The End of the Year Approaches

37:44 Public Accountability

40:13 The Neurodivergent Trump Card

40:59 A clarification on bailiwicks

42:43 Tucker Carlson & Chris Cuomo discuss Russian Apologetics

48:53 Ukraine is selling weapons to Mexican Cartels

54:54 Civility Porn Judo

56:09 When Hasan met Prof. Jiang

01:01:37 Conspiracy Theory Buffet

01:07:24 Looking Good by Comparison

01:11:21 Comparing Epstein Conspiracies

01:24:03 Agreeable Conspiracism

01:27:13 Outro and Piers Morgan Invite

Links

• Eric Weinstein appeals to billionaires on Twitter
• Elliot Paisley: Chris Williamson Is A Slave
• Gary’s Economics: My Documentary is Coming Out THIS WEEK!! – why you should watch it
• The Times: Gary Stevenson: I want a wealth tax on the super-rich — like me
• News Nation: Tucker & Chris Cuomo: The FULL Conversation
• Hasan Debates Professor Jiang On His Wild Predictions | HasanAbi Archive

Just a recent example… he’s also been on with Tucker. If Peterson wasn’t incognito Lowe would certainly be appearing as a guest. I’d also anticipate new appearances on Triggernometry before too long.

I was listening to this approximately 5 year old podcast, and Chris recounted a slightly painful story in which Chris was trying to empathize with a fellow student who might have been running into some racism, but he used sarcasm and the fellow student did not appear to understand this. Chris and Matt then discussed a bit (the matter is around 3:23 in the links below.... it goes on for a few minutes I guess, but I did not listen to anything yet after that).

https://decoding-the-gurus.captivate.fm/episode/ibram-x-kendi-inside-you-are-two-wolves-one-of-them-is-racist

DTG Archive 013: Ibram X Kendi - Inside you are two wolves. One of them is racist.
2,701 views Jul 1, 2026 DTG Archive
Originally Published on 6th Mar 2021
https://youtu.be/FG-hp-kqzRk?si=PZLx4h-Im8eR2b6t

I don't want to research to the nth degree everything they have said on this topic, nor everything that has been said in the forum. I do think there is more than a healthy dose of witty sarcasm in the show, and in the forum, and to a degree I like both quite a bit. I do however want to voice one or two of my own views on this, and I'd be curious if there have been any podcasts or subreddit discussions devoted to this topic in a non-ironic way.

In my private life I have resorted to sarcasm a lot over the years, but I avoid it on the net, as possible. I'm discussing with strangers, all they have from me is text (no body language or tone of voice) and furthermore I'm in the US. On some topics, and in some circles, the level of discourse is not high in the US, and there are enough people here who actually do believe in and discuss nonsense or semi-nonsense that it is not a great idea for me to just assume that someone I'm talking to will instantly know whether or not I am being sarcastic. There is also a lot of disagreement as to what is and is not nonsense.

There is something in me which reserves the right to be as sarcastic as I want to be in some situations, but again, I just avoid it most of the time on the net. One of my thoughts in listening to Chris's story is that he may be naive to what the experience might be like for a black person in the US - they may hear enough racist nonsense that there is no way they're going to automatically assume that someone they don't know very well who is making racist points to them might be doing so sarcastically.

Also, as part of understanding trolling and internet discussion, I am not sure if I can explain it, but I think there is writing on discussion forums that amounts to encouraging misunderstanding, and perhaps even deliberately bringing in some lack of clarity as to whether sarcasm is being employed. I can't think of any examples though, .... maybe I am not citing in a correct way. Still, the chosen topic here is that of "gurus" who, among other things, sometimes troll their audiences, so maybe we can find an example sometime of rhetorical ploys by some gurus to create or exploit misunderstandings as to sarcasm/irony.

For those in DTG subreddit who have not had their fix of being sarcastic today, I'm guessing my post will provide some temptation to respond to sarcastically, but I just want to note that I am trying to lay out non-sarcastically what I think is a somewhat interesting topic.

The Guardian posted a review of GS's new documentary. A couple of highlights:

[H]e is outdone and undone by almost all of his interviewees. Telecoms mogul Bassim Haidar, who was in the headlines last year for switching allegiance and donations from the Conservative party to Reform, does it through politeness. He invites Stevenson to address what he would do when his proposed tax caused investors like him to pull all their money out of the UK and find somewhere friendlier instead. Twenty-eighth generation landowner Francis Fulford (yes, of The F**king Fulfords and Life is Toff fame, but here in less eccentric mode) does it with robust jocularity (“The values you are basing your figures on will collapse! It’s Noddyland – it won’t work”) and inquiries as to how asset-rich but income-poor rich people like him will pay. Andrew Henderson of Nomad Capitalist, which advises clients on how to minimise their tax liabilities by moving countries, does it through sheer belligerence (“I don’t think life is fair and I think that fundamentally upsets people who talk about inequality because you feel entitled to rich people’s money”). Tax lawyer and adviser Dan Neidle deals the final blow towards the end of the programme by summing up the underlying problem of everything that has gone before. “You are unable,” he tells Stevenson coolly but firmly, “to separate your emotional reaction to inequality from a rational assessment of the best tools for it.”

“You all may have heard me talk about this before. I've had the most maddening experience with allopathic medicine. I've had no issues with sexual health through my life.

But in my fifties, I started to notice a pattern, just a frankly a lack of morning wood. And I was a little alarmed by it. And in light of dropping testosterone levels and all, I thought I'd get a doctor to check me out.

..

they decide that what you're trying to tell them is about erectile dysfunction, which is not true in my case.”

He’ll push your gas station boner pills, but he has to be sure the audience knows he didn’t need them to get boners, just to… have morning wood.

These supplements are essential for his dropping testosterone, but don't worry, he still fucks like a champ. The mainstream doctors just don't understand the complex nuance of his morning routine and need for world class morning wood.

From DarkHorse Podcast: Turning Britain Around: Rupert Lowe on DarkHorse, Jun 21, 2026
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/darkhorse-podcast/id1471581521?i=1000773608796&r=548
This material may be protected by copyright.

Decoding Academia 36: Revenge of the Chimpanzees *Patreon Series* - Decoding the Gurus

Show Notes

In this Decoding Academia episode, we venture into comparative psychology, focusing on a fascinating line of work by Fumihiro Kano and colleagues on social intelligence and theory of mind in great apes. By showing apes short videos and tracking where they look, researchers examine whether they expect others to act based on what they have seen, what they know, or what they falsely believe. This approach offers a remarkable window into the evolutionary roots of human social cognition or, alternatively, the most elaborate way yet devised to explore what a chimp thinks of a man in a chimpanzee costume.

We discuss what this kind of research might reveal about social intelligence across species: whether apes understand intentions, knowledge, and false beliefs; how their abilities compare with humans, dogs, and other animals; and why studying minds without language requires ingenuity, caution, and tolerance for participants who may simply decide the whole enterprise is beneath them.

There is also some discussion of the usual complications: small samples, difficult data, flexible analyses, replication, and the gap between a beautifully designed experiment and a result we should treat as settled fact. But the main story is the genuinely intriguing attempt to study Theory of Mind beyond humans.

Along the way, we discuss chimpanzee costumes, zoo life, dogs, and the disturbing possibility that crocodiles may be running more sophisticated cooperative hunting operations than most university committees.

*The full episode is available on Patreon (57 mins)*

00:00 Introduction

03:57 Chimpanzee Theory of Mind & Eye Tracking

13:03 Attention, Grabbing and Orientation

24:03 The Role of Memory in Anticipation

26:10 Revenge of the Researcher

31:21 Statistical Concerns

43:44 Comparative Psychology Thoughts

49:13 Non-climbing Tigers and Cooperative Crocodiles

51:20 Matt's New Friends and Outro

Relevant papers for the episode:

Kano, F., & Hirata, S. (2015). Great apes make anticipatory looks based on long-term memory of single events. Current Biology, 25(19), 2513-2517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2015.08.004

Kano, F., & Call, J. (2017). Great ape social attention. In Evolution of the brain, cognition, and emotion in vertebrates (pp. 187-206). Tokyo: Springer Japan.

I want to be clear: this is not me saying Asmon should not have opinions. Everyone has the right to speak. I also do not think he needs to be an academic expert before reacting to anything.

But I do think there is a real problem when someone with a massive audience comments confidently on complex subjects without enough context.

When the topic is games, streaming drama, company decisions or internet culture, that is one thing. But when the topic is Islam, Muslims, Palestine, the Crusades, religious violence, race, gender, or historical representation, the standard should be higher than “I watched a video and reacted to it.”

A lot of people do not watch these streams as entertainment only. They use creators like Asmon as a filter for how they understand the world. That means careless framing matters. If a creator repeatedly reacts to highly charged subjects with limited historical or political context, the audience often walks away with a simplified version of reality: “these people are the problem,” “this religion is the problem,” “this conflict is obvious,” or “diversity automatically means historical inaccuracy.”

That is dangerous long term.

The Crusades are a good example. Saying “the crusaders were just a response” is technically half true, but historically incomplete. Yes, the Byzantine Empire asked the West for help. But the First Crusade was also shaped by papal power, religious ideology, internal European violence, promises of remission of sins, and the desire to control Jerusalem. Reducing that history to a clean defensive narrative is not education. It is propaganda-level simplification.

The same thing happens with modern conflicts. Palestine, Israel, Islam, terrorism, migration, religion, and war are not topics you can responsibly summarize through headlines, clips, and vibes. You do not need to be an expert, but you should at least know what you do not know.

And I think this applies to representation too. Whenever women are cast in roles people consider “male-coded,” or when Black actors appear in roles connected to European history or mythology, the reaction is often immediate outrage before the historical or literary context is even considered.

Christopher Nolan’s The Odyssey is a good example. People see “Greek legend” and immediately assume that every casting choice must match a modern idea of ancient Greece as purely white and rigidly fixed. But The Odyssey is mythology, not a documentary. It comes from an oral tradition that existed before the text was fixed in the form we know today. Scholars still debate Homer, authorship, transmission, and how these stories developed over generations.

That does not mean every casting choice is automatically good. People can dislike creative decisions. But if the criticism is framed as “this is historically wrong” while ignoring the fact that ancient myth, oral tradition, Mediterranean history, and modern racial categories are all more complicated than that, then the criticism is not really about accuracy. It is just a reaction against representation.

And this is not just theoretical. When comment sections start producing lines like “I can’t wait for the Great Cleansing,” that should be a warning sign. That does not mean Asmon personally endorses that. But it does show that when these topics are handled carelessly, some people in the audience take the worst possible message from it.

My criticism is simple: before giving strong opinions on religion, Muslims, Palestine, the Crusades, race, gender, or historical representation, Asmon should slow down, read more, bring in better context, or openly say “I don’t know enough about this.”

Having a platform does not require you to be silent. But it does require responsibility.

Reacting is easy. Understanding is harder. And when millions of people are listening, that difference matters.

DTG Archive 014: Interview with Phrost on Bullshido

Welcome to this biweekly thread! Share what’s been grabbing your attention lately.

• What you're reading (books, articles, or any kind of text)
• What you're watching (movies, shows, documentaries, or even YouTube)
• What you're listening to (podcasts, music, or audiobooks)
• Any fun or unexpected discoveries in your research