Former Community – We Moved
🆕 Coached community here, for posts & feedback public community here.
To assess gurus, look at CHARACTERS, NOT citations or titles
Self-development is much more efficient if you can go straight to the best teachers.
Problem is, you can't be sure who's a bullshiter, who's an idiot, and who actually knows his stuff and tries his best to share what works.
And to find out... You'd have to become an expert yourself.
Not always feasible.
But I've noticed that to spot a liar VS a knowledgeable teacher I often don't need to look up the research myself.
I can just look at the character.
This was one such example:
Other examples include:
- Liver King and eating raw meat (this one was obvious to many, but still a huge crowd fell for it)
- Wim Hof and the cold. Just look at the guy and to me it's obvious he's not after what's 100% truth, but more the leader of a self-development fad (who enjoys the cold and the media exposure)
- Sadguru and... Whatever he says, since it's obvious to me that he's too in love with his own "guru" status, power and social dominance to prioritize that whatever he says is true/helpful
- ...
Of course, the possibility I may be wrong is always there.
But over time I've noticed that looking at the character is 100x faster, and quite reliable.
Self-development is much more efficient if you can go straight to the best teachers.
Problem is, you can't be sure who's a bullshiter, who's an idiot, and who actually knows his stuff and tries his best to share what works.
And to find out... You'd have to become an expert yourself.
Not always feasible.
But I've noticed that to spot a liar VS a knowledgeable teacher I often don't need to look up the research myself.
I can just look at the character.
This was one such example:
Other examples include:
- Liver King and eating raw meat (this one was obvious to many, but still a huge crowd fell for it)
- Wim Hof and the cold. Just look at the guy and to me it's obvious he's not after what's 100% truth, but more the leader of a self-development fad (who enjoys the cold and the media exposure)
- Sadguru and... Whatever he says, since it's obvious to me that he's too in love with his own "guru" status, power and social dominance to prioritize that whatever he says is true/helpful
- ...
Of course, the possibility I may be wrong is always there.
But over time I've noticed that looking at the character is 100x faster, and quite reliable.
Matthew Whitewood, John Freeman and 6 other users have reacted to this post.
Matthew WhitewoodJohn FreemanJackKavalierEmilyRobertoPower DuckDrazil
Boom! So so true. This goes back to being good at reading people as you said before. Thanks!
Just like you I dislike quacks and scammers. I appreciate the con-man as an elegant and sophisticated movie character but in real life: no thanks.
Boom! So so true. This goes back to being good at reading people as you said before. Thanks!
Just like you I dislike quacks and scammers. I appreciate the con-man as an elegant and sophisticated movie character but in real life: no thanks.
Lucio Buffalmano, Matthew Whitewood and 3 other users have reacted to this post.
Lucio BuffalmanoMatthew WhitewoodKavalierEmilyPower Duck
Quote from
Emily on September 29, 2023, 8:51 pm
Yes, I think a lot of times we would feel something uneasy if the character is not transparent - given "we are generally well-adjusted individuals" (according to Lucio).
I feel recently I have been better with gauging out the generally good characters for people around me. For public figures, better apply an ample amount of skepticism. On a side note, never a fan of Sadguru, or anyone with "renowned spiritual status", it feels to me that it just violates the point of being spiritual, really - it might come down to chance and largely marketing.
Yes, I think a lot of times we would feel something uneasy if the character is not transparent - given "we are generally well-adjusted individuals" (according to Lucio).
I feel recently I have been better with gauging out the generally good characters for people around me. For public figures, better apply an ample amount of skepticism. On a side note, never a fan of Sadguru, or anyone with "renowned spiritual status", it feels to me that it just violates the point of being spiritual, really - it might come down to chance and largely marketing.
Matthew Whitewood, Kavalier and Power Duck have reacted to this post.
Matthew WhitewoodKavalierPower Duck
I was reading about criticism of Nassim Taleb.
After considering the criticism and claims that he got his ideas from the field of nonparametric statistics, I did feel that he was taken ideas from this field and put it in an entertaining way to appeal to the popular public.
From Wikipedia,
Nonparametric statistics is the type of statistics that is not restricted by assumptions concerning the nature of the population from which a sample is drawn.
But, as Lucio advised, I am a beginner in this subfield of statistics. And, as such, it's challenging to make an accurate discernment.
Nevertheless, my opinion of him as a pioneer or maverick has changed.
I was reading about criticism of Nassim Taleb.
After considering the criticism and claims that he got his ideas from the field of nonparametric statistics, I did feel that he was taken ideas from this field and put it in an entertaining way to appeal to the popular public.
From Wikipedia,
Nonparametric statistics is the type of statistics that is not restricted by assumptions concerning the nature of the population from which a sample is drawn.
But, as Lucio advised, I am a beginner in this subfield of statistics. And, as such, it's challenging to make an accurate discernment.
Nevertheless, my opinion of him as a pioneer or maverick has changed.
Lucio Buffalmano, John Freeman and Power Duck have reacted to this post.
Lucio BuffalmanoJohn FreemanPower Duck
Hello Matthew,
yes what I noticed is that many well known authors are actually vulgarizing and summarizing scientific research for a larger audience.
Hello Matthew,
yes what I noticed is that many well known authors are actually vulgarizing and summarizing scientific research for a larger audience.
Lucio Buffalmano, Matthew Whitewood and Power Duck have reacted to this post.
Lucio BuffalmanoMatthew WhitewoodPower Duck
