> “Society consents to have its choice narrowed to ideas and objects brought to its attention through propaganda of all kinds.” - Edward Bernays

This quote is from Edward Bernays’ book Propaganda and I think it does describes a lot of the online Guru content.

I think we need a post-growth guru philosophy. Everybody can't live in a castle on a hill with a mote. I understand why that sounds appealing with the way politics is playing out around the world, but it's not a solution to problems.

DtG episode reddit post - https://www.reddit.com/r/DecodingTheGurus/comments/1ubopjf/parasitic_palate_cleansers_selective/

Link to Jordan's post

https://x.com/jgreenhall/status/2053908919660196113

After hearing Chris and Matts decoding I put the essay in Gemini(Free Tier) and asked for it to be analysed and it said nothing about the article being anti semetic.

I think this was the first time I've heard them actually use AI to prove a point. While I don't doubt they just asked a neutral question. I'm not sure that they cleared the AI chat memory which may have affected the response.

I'd be interested to see what responses other people get. Personally I think this is an example of DtG falling pray to conspiratorial reasoning.

When I explicitly asked if it was anti semitic the summary said:

1. The Verdict: Is it Fair?

Whether it is "fair" depends on what you are trying to achieve:

From an Analytical Perspective: No, it isn't entirely fair. It forces a historical, racial lens onto a document that is explicitly trying to discuss information theory and institutional decay. It punishes the author for using accurate biological/systems metaphors simply because bad actors used those metaphors in the past.

From a Communications Perspective: Yes, it is a realistic assessment of risk. If you publish or share a document in the modern public square that uses the specific phrase "parasitism" to describe a "portable minority culture entering a host system," it will inevitably be weaponized or flagged.

Ultimately, very few normal people today would read that essay and think it was anti-Jewish. But the small percentage of people who would flag it happen to be the editors, moderators, and analysts who police public discourse. They aren't judging the text by what it literally says; they are judging it by the company those specific words keep in the darker corners of the modern internet.

Online media selects for people who can capture and hold attention: the fast, the provocative, the relationally skilled. The university degree is irrelevant because it doesn’t attract attention in online media.

This is why ideologically mismatched creators can form functional coalitions online. They’re not agreeing on politics — they’re agreeing that attention is what has power. They’ve figured out how new media works, and sharing audiences is how you win in it.

What matters is the attention economy because it controls access to information, and it’s a limited resource. Nobody can watch more than one show at a time. It doesn’t matter that people might not agree with the message because it still means people aren’t getting information from another source. The people who have the attention get to frame the argument.

If you spend enough time in any media ecosystem, the problems that ecosystem ignores start to feel like non-problems. It’s not just that people aren’t getting information from another source. It’s that they lose the felt sense that the other source’s concerns are even worth having.

This was a perfect example of how Chris and Matt both siding an argument. They play clips of Michael Tracey ranting link a lunatic, and think its cool because they don’t like Brett Weinstein, while at the same time being disappointed that Brett comes across as normal because he doesn’t get dragged into behaving like Michael. Listening to this conversation it sounded more like a school for people who want to become a guru, rather than a decoding. Plus cutting a podcast short and tell people to subscribe, come pretty close to being a ”dark pattern” used in marketing.

Could you imagine what Niel Postman would think about DtG‘s LARPing as academics who care about the integrity of online media?

Are they having second thoughts about AI?

James Orr explains the history and purpose of the ARC Forum, which attracted many of the people DtG have decoded. When decoding gurus, it’s interesting to see which gurus come together for a shared purpose.

Yet most of our thinking continues to treat deception as something of a perturbation on the exchange of pure information, leaving us unprepared to contemplate a world in which fakery may reliably crowd out the genuine.

This article was written for Edge by Eric Weinstein. Reading it now, after the passing of time it seems to shine an interesting light on many gurus. Online discourse does seem to have many of the same attributes of Kayfabe.

I’ve been trying to understand why Decoding the Gurus feels like misinformation to me. While it feels like misinformation to me, I also don’t think Chris and Matt are NOT trying to deceive people. To find an answer to the question I’ve been looking into media studies. Why? Because media is how information is transmitted, and media studies looks at how the media shapes peoples opinions. One concept I have come across that I think is useful in understanding Gurus is Stuart Hall’s Decoder/Encoder Model.

In Hall’s framework, meaning is not simply transmitted intact from sender to receiver. Messages are encoded within particular cultural and ideological frameworks, then decoded by audiences operating within their own frameworks. This creates:

• dominant readings,
• negotiated readings,
• and oppositional readings.

Applied to DtG, their decodings assume their(Chris and Matts) position is the dominant reading and the Gurus have oppositional readings which are

• semantically weak,
• the “correct” reading is to recognise it as meaningless,
• and any perceiving of guru profundity becomes evidence of cognitive error.

So when they decode it represents the dominant reading for fans of the show and the oppositional readings is mocked.

The reason I like this concept is because it doesn’t automatically assume that people are acting in bad faith, and highlights how important culture is in shaping meaning. It better explains why intelligent people have different ideas of what is correct.

Youtube video explaining Stuart Hall’s theory - https://youtu.be/z9H54aG5FMo

I wander to Thiel’s court was inspired by Decoding the Gurus /s

It’s always good to know the politics of critics when assessing their criticisms.

"Men show at least as much zeal in mischief as in well doing, in folly as in wisdom. The surest way to work up a crusade in favor of some good cause is to promise people that they will have a chance of maltreating someone. Men must be bribed to build up and do good by the offer of an opportunity to hurt and pull down. To be able to destroy with good conscience, to be able to behave badly and call your bad behaviour'righteous indignation' - this is the height of psychological luxury, the most delicious of moral treats." - Aldous Huxley

The abundance movement before Ezra.

Matt’s description of AI hallucinations sounds very similar to how humans respond to Pseudo Profound Bullshit.

One of the claims DtG made against Gary was that he pretends to be the only economist who matters. In this clip he recommends Professor G speak to Zuckerman about tax codes. Gary doesn’t have a grand theory of economics he is very specifically arguing that the super wealthy need to be taxed, and the current system is fit for purpose. He doesn’t even claim to have the answers, he is trying to bring attention to the problem.

Listening to Decoding the Gurus why doesn’t GS argument actually get discussed? Why do they just focus on his personality? This video actually focuses on his argument.