Decoding The Gurus patreon

Upcoming Releases & General Update

🕑 Added 2021-10-25 00:57:39 +0000 UTC

Comments

Cesare, But Def Not A Borgia

Man that was painful the way he kept talking over you guys. IDK, I've never heard him so defensive. He's usually eloquent and on point, but the talking over, having vague answers, or deflecting by always bringing it back to semantics it sounded almost like the way some Republicans debate. Chris showed far more patience than I would've in such a situation. And I know Matt didn't say much, but what he did say was poignant.

Tom Allison

Really looking forward to the Brene Brown episode! From my very glancing familiarity with what she puts out I always imagined I would be a fan if I looked closer -- quite interesting to see her make the Gurus list. Should be fascinating to see the results of giving her material the Chris and Matt going over ;).

Tom Allison

I suppose that they were "popular amongst the undergrads" may already be a sign -- I'm not sure that is a usual situation for TA's -- but the woman who described this to me is very far from someone I would imagine appreciating any guru-ish-ness in her science heroes...

Tom Allison

Oh, and one last thought while I’m on the subject of guru-capture by audiences - I was at UM while Bret and Heather were doing their PhDs there and teaching a lot of courses (as graduate students do). While I didn’t have first hand experience with them that I know of, I have friends who were undergrads in biology and have since gone on to successful academic careers and *they* are quite chagrined that Heather and Bret have taken things the way they have - they were quite popular amongst the undergrads and thought of as on the hard-nosed end of the scientific thinking spectrum… “What the hell happened to them?” is a line from recent communication regarding their recently published book. So, they may well be a good model for exploring how gurus as well as audiences can be misled by the dynamics between the two.

Tom Allison

“ We don't take ourselves seriously enough for that.” I wish we could figure out how to bottle whatever this is…

Tom Allison

There needs to be a combined heart and wink emoticon…

Christopher Kavanagh

Anyone with an audience is impacted by the reaction of the audience to the content and we do inevitably notice how people respond but I do not think we are in any danger of becoming gurus. We both have a fairly healthy appreciation for our own limitations and personality quirks and are under no illusions that we deserve a Nobel or wider public recognition. It's probably a mixture of our cultural backgrounds and individual personalities but consistent piss taking tends to deflate egos and I think we have a reasonable perspective on our place within the podcast/online ecosystem. It probably helps that we have other interests/careers/family stuff that keeps us from getting overly identified. Matt and I also approach the podcast as primarily something that is fun for us to do and that we are happy to put our name to. That might mean that at times we release content or take choices that annoy some of our audience. That helps with reducing feelings of 'capture'! Overall, we are certainly not immune to the online dynamics and psychological rewards doled out by positive feedback but I think there is unlikely to be a late season heel turn into guru-hood. We don't take ourselves seriously enough for that.

Christopher Kavanagh

There are also three of us who work on the files so sometimes we have to coordinate efforts and/or wait for someone to add something/adjust a segment, etc. We definitely do edit out stuff, but most of it is verbal tics, technical issues, or too long detours.

Christopher Kavanagh

Hmmm... Preparation depends on the content. Usually we both listen separately then I (Chris) clip the content. This takes time mechanically but has been speeded up a lot by using Descript. The total amount is hard to guess because it depends on the amount of clips but its probably in the region of 1-3 hrs in total, not counting initial listening time. For post-production for each hour produced it is probably about 2 hrs of editing time.

Christopher Kavanagh

Interesting! And everything you mention does line up with the content. Being a victim does not prevent you from becoming an exploiter/abuser so yeah... depressing!

Tom Allison

Um, I did just realize that one form of innoculation may be having .05% the audience size :). (Though, then, what does *the quality* of the audience do to that calculation?)

Tom Allison

Good point on the authority hang-over of the written word from a time when it was costlier to produce… Is that a common observation in analyzing the dynamics of the Internet, or is it something you have formulated for yourself? (Apologies - I like the point, but I know I am not around such meta-conversations much these days ;)).

Charlotte Goodall

You're on to something Tom. There is a weird authority bias around the written word, even in the internet age, that is a bit of a hangover from the days of more controlled publications. Add to that the extra affirmation around upvotes or likes of general interactions, and it is easy to see how people start believing in their own bullshit. No one is totally immune, but there's enough civility self-awareness and around these parts that makes me think those of us on this patreon, and Matt and Chris as well, probably are at least partially vaccinated, if not double jabbed (to labour a metaphor).

Tom Allison

Here's a heavy thought: one of your guests (I think David Pizarro, but could have been Stuart Ritchie or Robert Wright? Then again, also could have been Conspirituality guy - Matthew Remski? - I don't necessarily listen in order ;)) talked about the potential for a pattern of Guru capture *by the audience* - wherein normal folk are slowly turned into Gurus via the intoxication of being fawned over/responded to by their audience... Do you guys ever worry about this? Do you do anything to innoculate yourselves against it? I ask in part because I am noticing my own noticing when my comments get upvoted on Reddit and how much I pay attention/get a charge in the micro-interactions surrounding them -- at least in part because I find your content so cool. It makes me wonder what it must be like to be on the other side of those interactions, as the creators, and whether it is possible to escape the pull/not get hooked on it? It makes me think that the manipulation and microtising of feedback that online social media has given us might not be much more behind the rise of this current crop of gurus than one might otherwise think -- and whether there are ways to participate but avoid the worst effects of it? Is staying sharp and critical enough? It reminds me a bit too much of the future drug-addict bragging about how she can handle the interaction with whatever her substance of choice happens to be...

Tom Allison

You are managing to produce some truly entertaining content on some very challenging topics. I am very curious about this tidbit: would you be willing to share how much pre- and post-production work goes into producing 2 hours of this content? I know there were technical issues with getting this online -- and those should count and are often ignored in planning/appreciation -- but I am wondering how many hours it takes to get all those clips, how much planning there is for your discussions and how much review there is to splice together AND EDIT OUT POTENTIAL FAUX PAS (or do you do that, at all? ;)). You may set your playback to 2x, but this all still seems really labor intensive. I would understand if you want to keep the sausage making part of the process in house, but I am curious.

Charlotte Goodall

I enjoyed the Mikhalia Peterson episode and had a few observations: you treat her with compassion, which is admirable. However, I think you underestimate the depth of the eating disorder that she expresses. Orthorexia, while not yet in the DSM, is widely accepted as a damaging and subtle eating disorder that involves fear of foods that are deemed “unhealthy “, and attribution of all ailments to “eating incorrectly”. She characterises this essentially. It is a psychological disorder that is incredibly difficult to address and these “diet cult” characters are pushing people deeper into disorder and distress. There is absolutely a crossover into other kinds of medical pseudoscience here: promoting the thought patters that illness is a direct result of “not eating/behaving/believing in an way approved by the belief system. I’m not quite as charitable towards her as I see her as both a victim of this but also preying on those who are vulnerable to the same issues.

DavidtheG

I loved the debate over the evil chuckling clown, Scott Adams. I found myself agreeing with both of you. Yes, it is good that he is willing to be a heterodox right wing nut, but he’s still a right wing nutter. By the way, Chris, PDX is the nickname for Portland, Oregon (it’s the airport code). Home to our favorite Weinstein bro.