There are many different systems for quantifying a person's essential essence. You could use an Ayurvedic questionnaire to determine your doshic levels, you could consult an astrologer to identify your most auspicious dates and the origins of your personality quirks, or you could even ask a psychologist to take a personality inventory and discover your OCEAN traits.But if you want pure insight, crystallised through something that is BEYOND science, you must find yourself that very rare and extremely precious instrument- a gurometer. Sought after by kings and queens, politicians and CEOs, athletes and inventors, the gurometer is your one-stop shop for quantifying your secular guru essence.Normally, due to the delicacy of the topic and the arcane, and, dare we say, dangerous, nature of Gurometry, we keep these insights locked behind the gilded Patreon gates. Still, sometimes we think the world deserves to know about how the science and art of gurometry are progressing.So, here is a little peek at the beautiful science in action as we attempt to quantify Dr. K according to our 11(!) Gurometer characteristics. Play along at home if you dare but remember Guromancy is not something to trifle in idly.Should you want more details about the art of Gurometry, please see this previous episode for more information and if you want to know more about Dr. K then look at any of our three previous episodes. Also, it is perhaps worth mentioning that Gurometer episodes for ALL previous gurus are available on Patreon.We will be back soon enough for some full-length decodings.
Hello and welcome to Decoding the Guru's Gurometer Edition, where we pick a guru that has been recently decoded, we measure them up against the gurometer factors, and we see where they land in the guru constellation.
I started mixing my metaphors, but that's all right.
That's okay.
It's okay.
It's all right.
We have 11 factors.
11 factors that we've identified.
No longer a nice, neat 10, but an uncomfortable 11. We could combine a couple.
We could.
That might happen.
I refuse.
But I was convinced by your caterwauling to the 11th category.
So that speaks, Matt, that I can be swayed when the...
Argument is right.
Let it never be said that I cannot be flexible.
I'm so pleased.
You value my input.
This is great.
That's right.
So who are we with today?
Who is going into the grommeter?
Let's see.
So it's not Gabor Maté, is it?
No, he's already there.
He's already in there.
It's the other guy.
Yuval.
Yuval Noah Harari.
Is that right?
No.
What the hell?
We done him?
Dr. K!
Oh, we're doing Dr. K. Yeah.
Oh, there's Yuval.
You see what I have to work with?
When do we decode Yuval?
It must have been like months ago.
It was before Destiny.
Sorry.
Those two guys are on my mind at the moment.
I was just looking at some extra material that they've both put on the internet.
And I think we'll talk about it in the supplementary materials.
But just suffice it to say, Chris, we were not wrong.
About either of those gentlemen.
You can just look at the recent things they produce and it's all on a par with the stuff that we reviewed.
And yeah, I'm going to talk about it.
I'm done with that.
You're saying we were vindicated yet again.
It's hard.
We never miss.
We never miss.
That's right.
Never!
Never.
Infallible.
Yeah.
Famous last words.
That's it.
Well, so.
Dr. K, let's go one by one, Matt.
We'll treat them up.
I'll start us out.
Galaxy brainness, willingness to talk about a vast array of subjects with great authority and little hesitation, willing to link all these concepts in a novel and fascinatingly insightful way.
Yes.
Well, let's talk about it.
Let's have a bit of back and forth before we render judgment.
So within the scope of his self-help, clinical help thing, which is pretty broad, you know.
Not therapy.
Not therapy.
That's not his thing.
It looks and smells and quacks like therapy.
But it isn't.
But it is including spirituality and self-actualization and psychology and psychiatry and a million things.
Within that scope, I would say that he is pretty galaxy-brained.
Yeah, he is.
And I've heard him talk about all manner of subjects.
And yes, he does qualify opinions about physics a little, for example.
On occasion, he says he doesn't know things that well, but the amount of things that he does know very well is quite remarkable.
Did he link together some sort of observation about physics to his cosmic psychological theories in the material?
Yes, many times.
Many times.
Because for a second there, I was worried I was sort of conflating something that Deepak Chopra did with something Dr. K did.
But Dr. K did do it, didn't he?
Dr. K did a smarter way of it where he talked about how people do that and it's not valid and you shouldn't do that.
And then he did it.
So he was talking about materialization, I believe.
Wasn't he talking about how he basically misrepresented modern physics where he said that, you know, basically consciousness kind of creates...
The world and reconciles the quantum.
He did talk about that.
Yeah, interdetermination.
It's about observation.
You know, the quantum physics effect.
So that shows that the root of the universe is consciousness.
But he also said in Nuller content that that is a common misinterpretation of that, which is correct.
It is a common misinterpretation, but it didn't stop him from doing it.
So, yeah.
All right.
Quantum Wu is really common, though.
Oh, it's so common.
That's really annoying.
Even some physicists dabble in it when they get older.
Yeah, when they get older.
When they're too old for the laboratory, they settle back and they start to speculate.
All right, well, I'm going to give them 4.5 just because I'm annoyed just thinking about Quantum Wu.
I went for 4. You're a bit extreme there, but that's fine.
I agree.
That's a reasonable one.
I'm an emotional mate.
What's next on the grometer map?
Cultishness.
Cultishness.
The spectrum towards acting like a cult leader to some degree, and it can include all kinds of minor forms of manipulation, social control, in-group, out-group stuff.
Think Westboro Baptist Church, but less extreme, you know?
Yeah, well, so I think Dr. K does do a fair amount to encourage the parasocial...
Attachments.
And he also does frame people criticizing him as an evil group of people.
Oh, yes.
When he was pre-bunking the criticism.
There are haters out there.
You're going to hear stuff.
But the thing is, they're just filled with hate, those people.
So don't pay attention to anything they might say about me.
I'm just trying to bring truth and light to the universe.
Now, that irritates me.
That makes me want to give him a higher score again.
I'm going to give him four.
For this, there are ways in which I think you could go a bit lower on it, but I think a lot of it involves buying into strategic disclaimers and disclaimers which are strategic are not worth the paper they're printed on,
okay?
People sometimes ask me, Matt, how do you tell a strategic disclaimer from a genuine disclaimer?
And the answer is genuine disclaimers come with Well,
I was just reminding myself about Celtishness, and there's a few aspects, I think, which he dings to a moderate degree.
And one of them is around that kind of cultural personality or even authoritarian leadership, right?
Where you claim the mantle of the authority.
You are the understander of whatever it is that the group holds to be super important.
And people sort of must defer to your special insights.
And he definitely does that with this clinical thing, right?
He's very good at just adopting that mantle.
In a very friendly, pally kind of way.
Very from the way, but I am the doctor.
I am the doctor.
You remember he read out the feedback from, I think it was a subreddit or something, where they were talking about doshas just being, you know, like a kind of psychological Rorschach test that you could use to, like, get insights.
And he was like, you know, this is really valuable.
This is really, it's wrong.
Fundamentally, it's mistaken.
But I so welcome it.
And it's so, you know, interesting.
So good to see you trying like this.
Now, let me explain how this works.
It was science.
Yeah, he's so good at being like the boss.
Like the friendly, cool boss.
You know what I mean?
Yeah, yeah.
Anyway, so there's that.
But the manipulative tactics, I think, you know, we see a lot of it.
So yeah, I'm going to give him 3.5 on this.
That's all right.
I'm 0.5 higher, so we're cancelled out.
Next is anti-establishmentarianism, like a reflexive dismissal of the authority of institutions.
Yes, you there at the front.
Sir, please, sir.
Please, go ahead.
We heard him many times, basically talking about how mainstream clinical...
Psychology, psychiatry has just got it wrong.
It's missing some massive truths about things.
And, you know, it's just the whole field is ripe for a complete reappraisal.
Most of those truths are around them not acknowledging the importance of dojas and stuff.
But, yeah, it was a thing that he harped on a fair bit.
And, you know, that is part of his brand, right?
Like, he's not like you're boring.
Conventional psychiatrist.
No.
He's got a special bespoke thing that they don't know about.
He combines East and West insights and he is up with the kids with the gamer lingo and their online worlds and this kind of thing.
Now, some people might point out, well, but he also does link quite a lot to his...
Credentials and his training.
So do the rest of our gurus who are anti-establishmentarian.
And Mark provides the rebuttal there.
Yes, they do.
There is a contradiction there if you think about it, but not for them.
Not for them.
It doesn't matter.
That's right.
It doesn't matter for Jordan Peterson or Brett Weinstein to be burning down the pedestal that they have stood upon.
But they do.
Now, I would say, though, when I think of like the most extreme version of this, it's the ones that say everyone in every institution is lying to you all the time.
The institutions aren't fit for purpose.
They need to go.
He's not there.
He's much more saying, you know, yes, it's important.
Go to your doctor.
See this.
There's just these limitations, right, that you should bear in mind and what we're doing here.
You know, if Jordan Peterson reels against the clinical.
Psychology institution, you know, saying, who are they to judge me?
But he is much more like, they fundamentally have the right to judge me.
This is what they're there for and this kind of thing.
And yes, you know, we talked about the various manipulations.
So I managed to talk myself down from 4 to 3.5.
That's funny because that's exactly where I'd already landed, 3.5.
No, you're right.
I mean, but part of...
Part of why he's not kicking it out of the park on this dimension, just like the other ones, I think, is that in many ways he has a light touch.
He's really rather good at this, whereas someone like Jordan Peterson is like a bull at the gate, ranting and raving and exploding and sort of lurching to things.
Jordan Peterson is wielding a massive, long cudgel, but Dr. K has got a rapier.
I'm giving 3.5, but I think he's got the capacity to do more.
Oh, he can go up.
He can go up from there, definitely.
Especially if he ends up losing his license or something like that.
I think we may see.
Or if he starts to feel that he's been negatively profiled in the mainstream media.
Who would do that?
Yeah, yeah.
Grievance mongering.
So, I almost would have been inclined to say...
You know, he does avoid this in some sense because of the positive spin that he puts on things.
But that extended section that we listened to about the, what was it, the hate mongers or whatever they were called.
Yeah, basically, you know, the haters and losers out there.
And I don't hate the losers or the haters.
I just pity them.
Yeah, and the other thing that occurred to me was that dialogue with his partner.
Do you remember we listened to it from the very beginning?
Now, I mean, that's not really a grievance, but it did illustrate just sort of how touchy he is.
Yeah, kind of pettiness.
Yeah, and everybody has their petty moments, but yeah.
And we've talked to Mike as well.
You know, that conversation is a lesson in passive-aggressive.
Yeah, passive aggression.
That's it.
That's how you describe it.
And it's very much his modus operandi, right?
He's not aggressive.
He doesn't rant and rave.
He's not over the top with any of these things.
He's quite subtle about it.
And the same with the aggression.
Or when he's wanting to let people know that he's the morally upright one.
He's the one who understands this stuff.
You don't.
He does it in a very sophisticated way.
And I think...
It could give you the mistake that he's not doing it, but it's just like with aggression, passive aggression is a more subtle way to do aggression.
So I still can't give him a very high score, but I'm not going to give him a low score.
So where should we put him?
I put him 3.5.
That's where I put him.
But it could go 3. I can see that being a reasonable...
Yeah, I was tending towards 3, so I'll stick with it.
I'll go 3.5 because I got to keep...
We all got to fit into our own doshik.
Categories, and that's where mine...
Your dosha is 0.5 points above mine.
That's right.
Usually, yes.
What comes next, Mark?
Number five.
That would be self-aggrandizement.
Self-aggrandizement.
And narcissism.
Yeah, we don't need to define this.
We all know what this is.
This is a hallmark of gurus.
Now, I'm giving him at least four for this.
I'm giving it a four.
Again, this might strike people because one of the things is he's striking a humble pose at times.
That's very much what he would...
He's always looking for feedback.
We're still working this out.
We're not perfect.
We're doing new material here.
We're breaking new ground.
We're not always going to get it right.
If anyone's got some feedback, we can help us and correct us.
Look, honestly...
I just don't...
Like, below the surface, it's like the passive aggression, right?
It's there all the time.
Look, one of the things they mention in the video is about him wearing the hoodie with the Harvard logo, right?
When this was in the disciplinary.
And it would be like me doing the podcast with a big Oxford hoodie, right?
That's a choice, right?
Now, you have to be careful here, because you and I do like to mention our qualifications from time to time.
I have been known to mention that I'm a full professor.
But when we do it, we are joking.
Hopefully that is clear, that we are joking if we were ever to do that.
I do not feel that Dr. K was joking.
I mean, yes, yes, this is true.
But also, there's a difference between...
I don't think Dr. K at all for mentioning...
His qualifications and his expertise.
That's fine.
But there's a way that you can mention that, which is like self-aggrandizing versus that you want to communicate what your expertise is.
And I feel like sometimes people don't understand this, but to me, it's very obvious where the difference is.
And I've met many people with many different qualifications.
And some of them do this, and some of them don't.
And it isn't the degree of qualification, or the degree of prestige, or that kind of thing.
That's right.
It's not a simple thing, like, do they mention this or whatever.
Like, take Mick West, right?
Oh, yeah, yeah.
Like, he may well, I'm sure he does, describe from time to time the vast amount of experience he's had.
Yeah, he mentioned Tony Hawk's.
The Tony Hawk scheme.
I mean, I know that that has been a qualification.
But he should, right?
And the way he does it is purely informational, right?
Yeah.
Or his experience.
Yes.
Yeah.
But you see with Dr. K again and again, him just setting himself up on a pedestal, particularly when he feels a little bit under threat.
Like if someone's challenging my authority in some way.
And he'll do this.
When he talked about the IRB and whatnot, he was talking about, look, I understand many people haven't been through an IRB system and they don't understand,
right?
And that's true.
So anybody who's been through an IRB could say that.
But he took that and presented it like...
It somehow made him...
Well, yeah, yeah.
It somehow makes the topic too complicated for you to understand.
And he does.
So just take it.
Don't question what he's saying.
That was the implication.
And it doesn't work in that case with me and Matt because we have been through many more IRBs than Dr. K. So it doesn't sound...
Impressive.
It's kind of like saying I went to the training course at my university and like, congratulations.
I did a health and safety course at my university and don't talk to me about health and safety, Chris.
Yeah, or ethics training for that matter.
I've completed countless online ethics training.
And like, yes, so technically I'm qualified in them.
It doesn't make me ethically better.
No, it doesn't, honestly.
You know, honestly, all jokes aside, even now having done those, like literally, as I said, hundreds of ethics applications, I don't think I've got a particularly better handle on ethics than anyone else, right?
It doesn't help.
Anyway, so yeah, we see him doing this many times.
So I'm going to put him...
I'm going to get a 4.5.
Well, look your.5 up.
I'm 4. I'm 4. Just because my top line is Eric and Russell Brown and stuff.
Well, this is the thing.
I think he's subtle about it.
And I think he's wanting to trick me into giving him low scores.
That's right.
That's what he is.
He's in our heads now.
So I'm reacting against that.
Maybe you're overreacting.
Who can say?
That's right.
Cassandra Complex.
I didn't get that much of that in the content.
I have heard things where he's talked about, you know, mental health epidemic and low self-esteem faced by meals and this going under-acknowledged and stuff.
But I don't get the impression that a big part of his thing is warning about the, you know, the forthcoming disaster or that kind of thing.
No, he's talking about like he's dealing with an issue now, but it's...
Yeah, it's a reasonable one.
Like, you know, mental health problems.
Like, I just, I don't get a strong Cassandra complex from him in the content.
I'm sure there's isolated examples, but that didn't come through to me, and I've consumed quite a fair bit of his content.
Hmm.
Yeah.
No, I agree with you.
I think it's a slightly different thing where, like, most of the guru types, they do point towards, like, a deep and threatening, Apocalypse that is happening.
And I'm beginning to sort of...
Maybe I want to revise this particular thing, Chris, because it's a bit specific.
The Cassandra thing is about warning you about things that are going to happen.
But I think it can...
It's kind of the same thing, really, if you're talking about a crisis or a thing that's already happened or happening now.
It has the same moral weight behind it.
Well, yeah, but I'm not taking...
So, I would include if he was very much emphasizing an unfolding apocalypse that is here now.
Like, I would count that in this category, even though it's, you know, about something that's happening now, not necessarily forthcoming.
But, again, I just don't...
I don't get that strong feeling from the stuff that he's saying.
So, yeah, I can't score him high on it.
I'm going too much.
You're going too?
Yeah.
No, I can't scream that high either.
I think there is a thing there in terms of the mental health crisis, basically.
There's some massive problem that the Guru is here and is uniquely qualified to solve for everyone.
We need AOE healing.
Yeah, that's right.
Because we're getting too many hit points damage.
Yeah.
Actually, Chris, this is a total aside.
I did something.
Weird.
You know, we've never done this before.
I just added up the columns.
So I was just curious as to which dimensions on the gurometer seem to get hit the most.
Yeah.
I just did it for myself, just for fun.
The biggest is anti-establishmentarianism for me.
I've rated, on average, I rate gurus higher on anti-establishmentarianism than anything else, followed by narcissism slash self-aggrandizement.
How about you?
I don't know.
Do it for me.
You're in the document, aren't you?
I'll do it for you real quick.
Use your Excel competencies.
So, you're pretty, you're more, you give, it's good for you.
Pseudo-profile bullshit is the lowest on mine.
Yes, that is the lowest.
Oh, I'm profiteering.
That is a bit low.
But the ones that are high is revolutionary theories, Cassandra Complex, self-aggrandizement.
Oh, anti-establishmentarianism is the biggest for you, too, at 195.
So, there we are.
There we are.
Okay.
Sorry.
So, Cassandra Complex is fine.
Don't you dare tinker with perfection.
You've already added an 11th column.
So, what comes next, Matt?
We should start our own little Wikipedia and you and I can have like dueling edits.
Yeah.
I'll lock you out.
Too many changes locked out.
Revolutionary theories.
Yep, yep.
He does this.
He does this absolutely.
Because his whole thing is that he's blending together the insights from East and West in a way that, you know, heretofore has only been done by the yogis and those that are You know, with the relevant insight.
And it's leading to AOE healing on a scale that we can't imagine.
So, yeah.
And he's training an army of healthy gamers who can go out and act as coaches to spread the theories of healthy gamer GG.
So, yep.
Bye for me.
By the way, Chris, that is another point that we should take into account when thinking about is cultishness.
Oh, cultishness.
Yeah.
You know, that tiered monetization model, prosatizing, having little mini.
Yeah, the multi-level modeling aspect of it can be.
Although, you know, if you want to be kind about it, it is just training criteria.
Because, like, one of the things I did notice, I don't know if I'm giving undue credit here, but I think this applies, is, like, He releases these mental health modules that you can go online and buy.
But for the amount of content, they are actually reasonable value.
I'm not talking about the content.
And it's not a subscription model.
It's not a $19.99 a month to get more Dr. K. Lectures.
And they did talk about they could have went that way, but they wanted it to be more like that.
And I don't think Dr. K's hating for income, but I mean, this probably gets more profiteering, but I'm just saying.
You can mention that in the profiteering, but I just will point out while it is arguably a valid thing to do, to have a model where you've got your amazing sort of cosmic theory, and then your model is to create like a whole.
Your little army of practitioners, right, who then implement your philosophy.
I just have to say, Chris, that I encountered this in my explorations with Complementer and Alternative Medicine several times.
Probably the best example of this is color therapy, where there are these companies that basically preach the gospel of color therapy, where there's all these different colors and they're all cosmic colors, and you buy them in these little sort of elixir-type bottles.
But the thing is, the public, the lay people, you and me, don't buy them directly.
They sell them to practitioners, practitioners of color therapy, who will then have to buy like a whole wall of little bottles of essential oils or whatever, all the colors of the rainbow, and then they can practice color therapy with you and figure out what colors you're drawn to,
which colors harmonate with your psychic energies and all of that stuff.
So it is a model that...
It's a franchise model.
It just rings my little alarm bells.
Yeah, it is interesting because I guess when we're thinking about this in the Twitch streamer kind of ecosystem, influencer ecosystem, it would be a bit like Hassan or Destiny.
It would be like them releasing a course where you learn how to debate like Destiny or how to...
React like Hassan.
I don't know.
Learn the political insights of Hassan and get qualified.
That'd be a short course, Chris.
Yeah, western spot.
But that would be ridiculous, right?
It would be ridiculous, but it's not as ridiculous as Dr. Case because he's...
You know, he's a trained psychiatrist.
But this is the kind of self-help model that you're talking about where, you know, that's one of the things that people do.
So, yeah, I guess.
Anyway, we're not changing anything on our scores.
This is all just chatter, chatter.
This is chatter, chatter.
We were talking about revolutionary theories.
But you wouldn't be able to have those courses without those revolutionary theories.
That's the thing.
Yeah.
I mean, you can't do those courses, I suppose, about very mundane, like, professional development and training.
Of course you can do courses, but you can't do this, like, bespoke.
This is a unique approach, which is completely unlike...
Like, you could teach a course about CBT, right?
And it would be one of hundreds of courses about CBT therapy or this kind of thing.
He doesn't do that.
No, look, getting back to the point, I totally agree with you.
He does have a bespoke...
You know, meta-theory of psychiatry and trauma and, you know, cosmic doshas all melded together with a smattering of conventional psychiatry stuff.
So I'm going to give him 4.5, I think.
I'm going to give him 5 because, like, yeah, as you say, 0.5 higher.
Yep, he deserves at least 1.5 somewhere.
Pseudo-profined bullshit.
No, no, no, no.
As we established, I generally don't score people high on this.
This is people using terminology.
It can be genuine terminology, but in a performative manner.
Also citing studies in a performative manner.
Okay, well, if you do that, it's very high.
So there's one that I'm going to go down for, which is there's no objection to using some specific terminology and explaining that.
To your audience who don't have that expertise, right?
Saying in psychiatry, we have these three different types of depression.
We assign people based on these criteria.
That's fine.
That's not suitable for fine bullshit, right?
That's just using technical terminology, but you can do the exact same thing in terms of use the exact same terminology, but instill it with this kind of aura of, you know, that this gives you the ability to properly understand what everybody else.
Relax.
And you're citing studies, you know, not in the way of, like, here's a link to this study, here's the pros and cons of it, and here's the interpretation I would take from it.
Rather, like, throwing it out.
Like, I read these studies, we are science-based, this is all science, the doshas are science, blah, blah, blah.
I see him doing pseudo-profound bullshit in a very specific way, Chris, because what I remember from him is this pattern where he'll go...
Okay, so what you probably don't understand is this concept called psychic energy or something.
And then he'll just give a little potted description of a thing.
You know, my mind's blanking on examples, but he does this a lot, right?
But he's often referencing like a legitimate concept, right, that exists somewhere in the literature.
And his little potted description of it is kind of fine as far as it goes, right?
Then he goes on, having introduced this idea, established...
He then goes on to misuse it and do a kind of a sweeping kind of thing.
And for me, this is a form of pseudo-profound bullshit.
He actually is using a very superficial and inaccurate version of the thing that he's talking about, but he's using it to invest what he's about to say with a fair bit of authority.
When he talked about the history of psychology, for example, That was just completely wrong.
But he was referencing terms that are correct and people that actually existed.
But it was all in service of this claim that essentially the key insights of the valid part of psychology came from the Vedic system.
Which absolutely is not...
It doesn't follow from any of the stuff that he referenced.
Yeah, I think that's a form of pseudoprofen bullshit we haven't...
It hasn't come across our radar before.
He's really quite interesting.
He has his own way of doing things.
I think I've got to give him a relatively high score for this because...
What are you going to give him?
I'm going to give him four.
I give him four.
Good choice.
Then we have conspiracy mongering.
Not so much.
The anti-establishment stuff covers that a little bit.
I didn't see him invoking conspiracies.
I don't think he'd ever go as far to say, oh, psychiatry, it's all a bit of a scam.
They're just trying to make money, trying to keep people sick.
He doesn't stoop to that level.
No, he implies that the pharmaceutical industry might have too much.
Influence over things, but that's also, yes, that's actually true, right?
In various, depending on how far you go of it.
So, yeah, I don't, I just don't get conspiracy mongering vibes in general.
Good news.
Congratulations, Dr. K, if you're listening.
Well done.
You got a one.
You got a one.
Good job.
Good job.
See where it hides your couplers.
I can say that you did a good job with conspiracy mongering specifically.
That's right.
Now.
The last two, Matt.
I'll leave them to you.
What are the last one, last two?
You can put them together.
You can separate them as a juicy pet.
All right.
You can let me do all the work, eh?
All right.
Excessive profiteering slash grifting.
So that needs no explanation, I think.
What do you think about that one?
Well, as I said, I am aware that there are potential avenues for additional profit that he has not dug into.
And explicitly to avoid excessive profiteering, things like subscription models and that kind of way.
So I think he deserves some credit for that.
On the other hand, I don't think he's hurting for income for his gamer coach system or in general.
But success is success.
Yeah, like on one hand, he does do the extremely clickbaity YouTube titles and things and the bait and switch there in terms of, but you know, that's so common now on YouTube.
It's almost like normal.
And there isn't a huge upsell, I don't think, in like a bunch of his material, not that I've noticed.
He doesn't offer some like personal sessions for like $4,000.
I think it's beyond that.
I'm sure there are going to be people that say, well, he did this and this, but I think he's earning lots.
He's got that kind of coaching system, which makes me, that's the bit that strikes me as the most potential.
But it's not out of line of what happens in the health and wellness.
Space in general.
So I got to put them in the middle, like three?
Yeah, no, I'd give them a two.
I mean, it's a bit like this.
Like imagine you got a company that's selling some stupid Echinacea supplement thing and they're promising all kinds of things and it costs $19.95.
On the shelf right now.
Is that profiteering?
I don't think it's a good thing.
It's not great, you know, but it is what it is.
It's business, right?
So I think I'd have to give them a two.
You go two, I'll go three.
I'm probably a little high and you're probably a little bit low.
Even in overall.
And the last category, I left it for you.
Yeah.
You and Mr. Squeaky chair.
This is my innovation.
That's true.
This is your revolutionary theory.
It's my revolutionary theory.
You took someone else's concept, which already exists, and just said we should use that.
Put that in the grometer.
But I thought of that.
That was my idea to put it in the grometer.
That's true.
That's true, yeah.
Okay, so this is investing yourself with a special kind of moral authority, like excessively so.
I mean, obviously characters like the Pope or something like that sort of do this.
No, he's allowed to.
He's allowed to.
Yeah, they get a pass, you know.
The leaders of religions are moral grandstanders usually, and that's okay.
The people that really exemplify this to me are people like Robin DiAngelo and also Jordan Peterson on the other side of the aisle.
Where, you know, there's just a lot of, like, vitriol towards those corrupt people on the other side.
And if you disagree with them, then you're probably one of the corrupt people.
Yeah, and the constant invocation of their highest, that they are purely motivated by the best possible motives.
And, like, to object to what they're doing would be tantamount to, you know, wishing.
Hell on Earth, right?
Yeah, they're kind of on a moral crusade to some degree or another, which obviously has huge guru potential.
God damn, it was a good idea to put that into the Gromada.
It is, it is.
Where is he going to go, Matt?
Where is he going to go?
No, I don't...
No, I don't think he's going to score high for this.
I mean, you're saying...
I'm on five.
I'm going five.
You're going five, are you?
I'm right there.
Okay, explain yourself.
Justify that.
Justify that.
That's what he does.
Maybe it's a recency bias because of listening to that thing about...
Every time that he speaks to criticism or whatever, he invokes that his motivations are pure.
And it's because he wants to do...
He has to heal so many people, Matt.
And that's why.
And yes, the haters will attack because they don't understand.
So it's very much investing.
His whole thing is based on good motives.
It helps people.
If you attack that, you are like immoral.
Like us, in some respect.
And we are immoral in various regards.
But if you say so.
No, but we're more like normal humans are immoral.
I guess I'm partway along to agree with you there.
The thing that I was going to say that I noticed was that he always does present his motives as very pure.
He's not aggressive.
He's not combative.
He's totally open to all of the feedback you want to give him.
But that's not quite honest.
We saw that in his interactions with people.
He could see that the motivations there are to do things like defend himself from criticism, exert his moral authority, and project himself as being just this absolutely great guy who is just trying to do the best for everyone.
He's always looking to love, learn, create, that kind of thing.
But there's just a mismatch between...
He's not the Dalai Lama.
He's operating...
He's a very naughty boy.
He's a very naughty boy.
That's right.
He's operating a lot like...
Life of Brian reference for anyone beyond the age of...
35. Below the age of photo.
But no, but like in reality, he'd be someone who is like wanting to shut down criticism or he's someone looking to grow his YouTube channel or whatever.
It doesn't mean he's the devil incarnate, but he's not the Dalai Lama.
Now, Matt, let me just put it like this.
The other people that have scored five for me, and granted, we've only scored this like ten times, but for me, Lex Friedman, Sam Harris, Hassan Piker.
Those are the ones that we've looked at.
Go back and give D 'Angelo a five.
Well, yeah, I would give her a five as well, but we just haven't covered her.
So I'm just saying...
We haven't got to it.
Those are all people, I think, that fit in the same way.
So that's why it's five for me.
But don't let me...
Influence you, Matt.
You know, you go as low as you need to for your conscience.
3.5 for me.
Okay, that's a reasonable one.
That's reasonable.
So, we have his overall score for Matt converted to a percentage.
Very precise percentage.
He is at, out of 100%, 56.25.
Only 56. That doesn't seem high enough.
I feel like he warrants more.
I was too kind, Chris.
You might feel that, Matt, but the garometer has spoken.
You must now be silent.
I want to go back and add one to everything.
All right.
He's at 60%.
60% for me, which is not that much higher, right?
Just for higher than...
So why isn't he crazy high?
It feels like he scored pretty high on quite a few dimensions for me.
He scored high on Galaxy Brainness.
He scored...
High on self-aggrandizement.
He scored high on revolutionary theories.
He scored high on pseudo-profound bullshit.
But I guess there's just some where he...
Low on Cassandra complex.
Low on conspiracy mongering.
Relatively low on profiteering.
So, you know...
You know what the problem with the garrometer is?
What?
It doesn't fit with your...
Expectations when it gives a final score.
Yeah, well, that's right.
And that's because it has this kind of linear averaging effect across the dimension.
Oh, you think we should be weirding things.
Well, that's for version two.
No, it should be like a nonlinear function, right?
Where once you get past a threshold on three or more dimensions, then you sort of go up into the red zone.
It's an exponential curve for that.
Yeah, it's like...
It's a complicated...
I can't explain the science of grometry to you right now.
Well, I was going for a different one.
I was going for weirdings, which is an entirely separate amendment.
First we've got to get grometer version 1 out.
No, weightings would still be a linear composition.
I'm talking about something.
I know that.
I know.
So I'm saying this is a separate amendment.
Oh, both.
We do both amendments.
Okay, so this will be in the grometer, the full-release grometer.
We're still in beta.
Yeah, that's right.
Or beta, whichever way you pronounce it.
So with that, Matt, just to mention some other people that are around...
Chris, I just want to point out beta is spelled B-E-T-A.
I know that.
Not beta.
If it was beta, it'd be B-A-D-A.
No.
That's not how it's spelled.
Let's leave it to the internet to tell us who is right and not respect.
I don't like the confidence with which you say that.
Well, you are famously somebody that refers to matrices as matrices.
So let's see how correct you are on this.
Maybe you are right.
Maybe you are.
Maybe I'm wrong.
You know, I invented the matrix.
Yeah, I know.
I know because nobody else says that.
That's true.
Other people that are around the 60 mark for me, Matt, I'm talking about my scores, are Hassan was at 66. Constantine Kissin was at 64. He'd be higher now,
but this was back when we covered him.
And Jimmy Wheatle.
So there's a wide array of people in that domain.
For you...
People around the 55 mark.
If we look up in the 50s, who have we got?
We've got Hassan and we've got Robin DiAngelo.
Maybe that's why it was coming up.
And we have Gadsad.
So there's a couple of people, you know, close in yours.
Russell Brand as well, but obviously Russell Brand, this was a couple of years back.
He'd be up now at the tippy-top if we...
We didn't.
But there you go, Matt.
I think that's accurate.
Speaking of Russell Brand, Chris, did you see the photograph of Russell Brand performatively praying with Tucker?
I did, Matt.
That image is seared into my brain.
I can't stop thinking about it, actually.
That would be moral grandstanding in embodied form.
Yeah.
Yeah, I know.
They're despicable people.
But, Matt.
The quick fire round.
That's where we're at now.
We need to, because before you add more noises to the environment, you've got a squeaky chair, a microphone, now you're viaping.
We've got to get there.
We've got to get through before you get the tambourine noise.
Don't worry, Chris.
We'll sort it out in post.
Will we?
Let's see.
I don't know how much power we have in post, but okay.
So we've decided collectively that the way that we do this is we ask you, If they are there or not.
And I merely nod along.
So you say yes or no, unless you're overruled.
So...
Monomenia.
Does he present with monomenia?
A little bit.
I mean, he does talk about the doshas a lot.
I'm going to go one.
Yeah, he stopped mentioning them as much, but I think, yeah, there is a lot to be said for.
The Doshi Gensai that he talked about.
Shilling supplements?
No.
I didn't notice he does that.
Maybe he does.
If so, we didn't know.
Broacity?
No.
He does say bro.
Oh, my God.
Yeah, he does do that.
And it's really...
Oh, my God.
It's so fake.
I'm sorry.
But when I hear him do that kind of...
Those little, you know, folky intimacies.
Yeah, it's just...
It's not.
It's not authentic.
I'm sorry.
Charisma.
That's how I perceive it.
That's how I perceive it.
It's just my perceptions.
You can't judge me for that.
It's all right.
I accept it.
Charisma.
I have to give him a one for that.
He is charismatic.
There's no denying it.
It might not be the type of charisma that appeals to us, but it is there.
Neologisms.
It appeals to some.
I don't think so.
I'm going for no, because he does use words that exist, basically, whether it's in the karmic realm.
Or the psychological realm.
Strategic disclaimers.
Yes.
Yeah, yeah.
Oh, he just broke that.
That particular one is smashed off.
Yes, he does do that.
Rebranding of all those theories as his own?
I'll say no.
No, he gives credit, I think, overall.
You said that I just answer and you overrule me if necessary.
You're giving your opinions.
Yeah, so I'm just yes andy.
I'm just saying yep, yep, yep.
Okay.
Lucretiousness?
Yes.
Yes.
Hell yes.
Hell yes.
Never admitting error.
That's a tricky one because he's clever.
He's clever, right?
He'll admit error but never fault.
Yes, that's it.
So if we said never, but it's kind of the same, isn't it?
But the thing is, he does admit.
He does acknowledge that he can make mistakes.
He's always self-correcting.
He's always learning, Chris.
It's a process.
It's a process.
Yeah.
Yeah.
This still just depends on what level you want to take this criteria.
Do you want to take it at this?
Stop the humor.
I'm merely here as a Greek chorus.
I'm going to say yes, then, because I think more substantively, he doesn't.
He's a good guy.
He's always going to be good.
It's bonus points.
He got five of them, which is a reasonable amount to get.
But he didn't score that timeout.
That's one of the things to recognize.
He is not a top-tier, S-tier guru.
And I think that's because the Gurometer does not measure for health and wellness spiritual guru types.
It measures for secular gurus.
That's what it was designed to do.
That's what it's for.
And this is why.
I think he didn't score higher because we don't have a non-linear transformation that takes kind of like a critical sum.
Blah, blah, Mr. Stutt.
Nonetheless, Matt, this is the essence of science where you have to set aside your intuitions and the fears of the hard empirical reality of 60 or 50%.
I'm going to consider some alternative where someone who scores above four on more than three dimensions, which he did for me.
Maybe not S tier, but up there in the tiers.
Just add yourself a little column that can satisfy you and leave the garometer alone.
The garometer can deal with additions, Matt, but the holy aspect of it cannot be altered.
It's like evolution, you know?
It has to deal with what was there before.
So, well, there we go.
But here was an interesting cat to cover.
Other people's opinions are available.
One great thing about the Garometer is that you can score him yourself.
And there is a...
Official Decoding the Guru scoring sheets are available on our website for $15 each.
That's right.
Buy some for your friends.
They make for great Christmas presents.
Yeah.
You know, you said that.
Now people are actually trying to look good.
Yeah, yeah, they are.
Or bring Andrew Golders out on Cliff and say, no, look, they're selling decoding kits.
But this will be our test.
So, yep.
Yeah, go and purchase your Decoding the Guru kits.
Great Christmas stocking filler.
So, yeah.
Well, that's it, Matt.
We're done.
We're out of Dr. K-Space.
He can sleep well knowing...
We are out of the Dr. K business.
We've done three episodes.
We've done a garrometer.
That's enough.
Banish.
Banish from the DTG realm.
We're out.
The eye of DTG, like Sauron, has moved on.
That's right.
So, relax.
Chill out.
Go to whatever realm you see fit.
And good game, everyone.
Good game.
GG.
Yeah, GG.
GG.
All right.
And Destiny, if you disagree, because Destiny has famously argued with people about Dr. K, first you need to listen to the three episodes in totality.
It's like 12 hours of content before you're entitled to disagree.
We demand, like Jordan Peterson, you go back through the back catalogue.
That's the price of entry.
The price of entry to engaging with us.
We don't want to hear it otherwise, okay?
No bitchy, because we've done the work.
We went through all that content.
So there you go.
That's it.
That's just preempting before people start saying that we should discuss it.
We're open to discussing that, but you have to have done the legwork.
