Guru Overload

Moving on from the figureheads of the latest culture war drama.

In 2018, Bari Weiss published the infamous New York Times article: “Meet the Renegades of the Intellectual Dark Web.” At the time, the characters featured were known for challenging mainstream narratives, but none of them were particularly threatening to society or embarrassing to follow. But over the past few years, a few of them have developed into full-blown grifters, clout-chasing narcissists, or pseudo-intellectual hacks.

Dave Rubin is the most obvious example. Rubin started out as a decent interviewer, attracting a range of guests to discuss hot-button topics. But at some point, as his libertarian leanings began to merge with conservative talking points, he just started saying dumb things. Patently brain-dead things. He embarrassed himself on Rogan, never got invited back, and from there he just got worse. He went from a liberal gay atheist to a conservative Christian who’s mocked by his own followers for being gay.

Bret and Eric Weinstein (sadly) are also examples of IDW members who lost respectability over the past few years. Bret, for endlessly misrepresenting Ivermectin as a COVID cure while recklessly fear-mongering about vaccines. Eric, for revealing his “theory of everything” only to act like a child in the face of valid criticism.

The IDW crew serve as a case study for the trajectory of the online, secular gurus. Not all outspoke online figures who amass a large online following become grifters or hacks. (Sam Harris, I’d say, remains respectable among those formerly associated with the IDW.) But many, many do.

Gurus are everywhere online. Find a community—religious, political, parenting, health and fitness—and you’ll find a bunch of gurus grappling for your attention. By “guru,” I mean those who claim to have all the right answers in a world where—they claim—the truth is being suppressed. “They don’t want you to hear this,” is the general vibe. “The establishment is lying to you.” Etc. How is the guru qualified to know more than the establishment authorities? Typically by overstating their qualifications or by claiming that the organizations offering the relevant qualifications are corrupted.

Gurus are often highly intelligent and articulate, like the Weinsteins. And they likely do have a lot to offer in terms of cultural commentary. But they take it too far. In the Weinsteins’ case, they’re not shy about claiming to have revolutionary theories that are being silenced. They say things about deserving the Nobel Prize. They develop narratives about global conspiracies that are all-too-similar to the theories of true crackpots like Alex Jones or David Icke.

What’s to be done with the gurus? In Bari’s article, the tagline reads: “An alliance of heretics is making an end run around the mainstream conversation. Should we be listening?”

My answer to this quest is yes. We should be listening. And the reason is in Bari’s preface to the question: Society needs heretics; it needs conversations challenging the mainstream. Have you ever talked with someone who gets all their news and opinions from mainstream news sources, whether CNN, NPR, or Fox News? It’s truly demoralizing.

This is why I always defend (and occasionally write for) Quillette and publications like them. In don’t always agree with the opinions of particular Quillette writers, but that’s the point. They present challenging views, views that often reveal the faults in the mainstream narrative.

That last sentence there…it almost sounds conspiratorial, right? This is where the conversation gets interesting. While it’s good to challenge the mainstream, it can be taken too far. Particularly by guru-types. The tricky part is knowing when to start rolling your eyes at the gurus’ overblown claims. When to jump ship and become a skeptic of the skeptics.

There was a moment when James Lindsay was saying interesting things, often speaking alongside the imminently level-headed Helen Pluckrose. He’s now hard to listen to on almost any topic. I remember when Russell Brand used to be tolerable to listen to. Now he’s gone from talking about addiction recovery to making everything sound as conspiratorial as possible. Jordan Peterson used to be (if nothing else), a seemingly worthy interlocutor with Sam Harris. He's now basically a Bill O'Reilly-esque blowhard on the Daily Wire. This list goes on and on.

Maybe you’re reading this and disagree with one of my brief characterizations of a guru figure. The point I’d like to make isn’t about any guru in particular, but about the idea that gurus (like many things in life) should be held lightly. Also, they should be moved on from quickly.

A healthy diet of gurus should come along with a healthy diet of guru debunkers, such as: Decoding the Gurus, Embrace the Void, Rebel Wisdom, and Timbah Toast. I’d even add one of the original IDW members to this list: Michael Shermer. (Although I find it a little aggravating that he continues to take Dave Rubin seriously and also that he interviewed Bret Weinstein and never addressed Bret’s egregious COVID talking points. Where’s your skepticism when it counts, Michael?!)

Chris Kavanagh of Decoding the Gurus recently offered some generic advice on this topic: “Be critical of the content you consume. Seek out relevant experts and people who are not super invested in the latest culture war drama to understand an issue. Institutions and whatnot are not perfect, but they’re not always improved by the alternative ecosphere.”

His cohost Matt Browne concludes: “If you’re remotely sensible, you already know all of these things because they’re pretty fucking obvious.”