Nara Petrovič, 27 April 2022
The text below consists of my instant commentaries as I was reading an older version of notes on the gurometer, the one I first found online. Later on, I read this long commentary about Decoding the Gurus podcast, written David Fuller. There I found a newer version of these notes.
I assume this was written by Chris Kavanagh and Matt Brown (no names are mentioned in the document itself). Had I read the newer version first, I would have written a different commentary. Later I actually did write a much more elaborate version. That’s a better-informed feedback/analysis, written after listening to a few Decoding the Gurus podcasts and interviews.
I decided to include this spontaneous commentary to the gurometer because it reveals a mental process of a newbie to this cultural ping pong (I think calling it a “war” is taking it much too seriously). Here below, you can see my biases and false assumptions, as well as lucky guesses.
Please don’t take this commentary too seriously! It’s often blunt and sarcastic. I’ve seen Matt and Chris loving that style so I hope they will have some laughs reading this.
Given that “gurometer” had only a few hits in Google and there was only one version found, I assumed it hasn’t been brought to a decent standard for publishing. Reading other Matt’s and Chris’s articles made it clear that they are ordinarily good academic writers. But I thought the gurometer was a public document when I saw it first and I jumped right to writing comments.
I share my comments raw. You will find the text of the gurometer indented and my commentary not. It’s always me adding bold or italic to the original text.
My intention is to show the authors and any interested audiences what happens in an outsider’s mind when he stumbles upon a text where words and phrases come with a lot of hidden/special meanings.
Have fun!
This is how the text begins:
In the below we discuss a few themes and characteristics that seem to be common among gurus.
Nothing makes a better first impression than starting with a typo.
Some are more common than others, and not all will be characteristic of every guru.
So, if I notice these characteristics in someone, that’s not necessarily a sign that I’m dealing with a guru? Or is it? How common do these characteristics have to be?
Nevertheless, they are often found in gurus to a heightened level, not seen in the general population of pundits, commentators, and ‘public intellectuals’.
Ok, I understand! These characteristics are seen in the general population. But we have to be careful about the heightened level. Hmm, I hope this gets clarified; I’ve been around gurus, but I don’t see myself qualified to discern where the “heightened level” starts.
Also, why are pundits fine but gurus aren’t?
Taken together, they help us in the task of spotting gurus in the wild.
While whale watching? Wild camping? On a hike?
I didn’t understand so I checked online and found here an explanation of the meaning of this phrase in slang. Ok, I guess you refer to the wilderness of the Wild Wild Web …
The most concise definition of a guru is “someone who spouts pseudo-profound bullshit”, with bullshit being speech that is persuasive without any regard for the truth.
Replacing “The …” at the beginning of the sentence with “My …” or “Our …” would make it explicit that the “definition” is crafted and promulgated by the author(s). It is not the definition.
Isn’t it tautological to select pseudo-profound jargon to pick holes in pseudo-profound jargon? It’s good that the authors’ decided to go for the vulgar word “bullshit”, making their negative bias against “gurus” explicit. By now it seems the “meter” is intended to “measure” negative characteristics – reversely.
What I mean by reversely is: Anyone with the listed characteristics and meeting the above definition may be labelled as a “guru”. While those that are labelled as a guru by their students or followers, may not fall in the category of the “guru” according to the gurometer if they don’t meet the criteria?
I hope this doesn’t get even more confusing ...
Thus, all these properties relate to people who produce ersatz wisdom: a corrupt epistemics that creates the appearance of useful knowledge, but has none of the substance.
These are strong statements! It seems the authors are pissed of at something or someone. It’s almost over-confident. I am getting really high expectations! I hope the authors will deliver!
Galaxy-brainness
Galaxy-brainness is an ironic descriptor of someone who presents ideas that appear to be too profound for an average mind to comprehend, but are in truth reasonably trivial if not nonsensical.
Ah, another tautological and pseudo-profound definition of a neologism … Thank you for pointing out it’s ironic, otherwise no one would have noticed. (I am being ironic, of course – if you haven’t noticed.) I just wonder why use ironic metrics? When I’m buying my measuring tape I expect it to be as un-ironic and trivial as possible: give me the measurement without any commentaries, especially not ironic.
I understand, however, why this is the first choice. I’ve been around “gurus” that don’t seem to live on the same planet as I do. And then they pull others to this parallel “galaxy.” I used to live in such a “galaxy” myself for quite a few years, actually.
I agree “galaxy-brainness” is bad, I only wonder how does it make sense as a metric?
Gurus often present themselves as founts of wisdom, and it is an all-encompassing kind of knowledge that tends to span multiple disciplines and topics. Their arguments often link together disparate concepts, such as quantum mechanics, logic, and the nature of consciousness.
Ah, now I see! You are talking about Deepak Chopra! Let’s see how this continues … I wonder is Deepak the one against whom the gurometer is calibrated or is it someone else?
A guru will often present themselves as a polymath, who can offer novel insights with reference to many different fields. They will often allude to their own accomplishments, and exaggerate them to a shameless degree. They will confidently offer hot takes on technical topics, and with a wave of their hand, dismiss the perspectives of genuine experts. This is, of course, a confidence trick that relies on the recipient being convinced of their unique intellectual powers.
Yes, it’s definitely Deepak!
Various performative flourishes can assist in this deception, such as unnecessary references to high or specialist literature, the use of jargon and technical terms. On closer inspection, these references can often be recognised to be entirely superfluous and largely tangential to the argument being presented.
Alongside the gurometer I would actually appreciate some references and specialist literature. I’m still waiting to see which gurus the authors have in mind!
However, the recipient is not expected to dig too deeply or to fully understand the references being made. Indeed, they are probably most effective when the recipient does not understand them at all; they are merely allusions intended to signal a deep level of knowledge.
I dig deeply, trust me! I’ll look for any allusion intended to signal a deep level of knowledge of the gurometer’s authors! Yay!
Cultishness
Being a guru is a social role: a guru is only a guru if there are people who regard them as such!
You mean, if enough people are gullible enough to swallow the guru’s “pseudo-profound bullshit” uncritically? For that to unfold gurus have to abide by some social conventions and go against some other conventions.
There are situations when followers don’t have a possibility to make a (conscious, critical) choice. Let’s say they were born into a cult and follow all the habits and rituals, being completely ingrained in it. They revere high priests and are held back from seeing through them by immense social pressure.
Which brings me to Pope, one of the most cultish figures on Earth. (I don’t need to prove this point once this is posted, if any of the Pope’s followers read this, they will very likely do it for me.) Am I being too sarcastic? Probably I am. I apologize!
In any case, I’ll keep in mind Deepak as I read on. (I apologize to his ardent followers!) I don’t know what to do, I am still not sure what “gurus” this meter refers to … Or am I too ignorant and uninformed? Is there some implicit public knowledge English speaking countries in 2022 that is not there in the rest of the world?
How gurus interact with their followers and critics, their in-group and out-group, is often quite revealing. Gurus are not usually bonafide cult-leaders.
Are you implying that there are bona fide cult leaders? Do you mean gurus are implicitly cult-leaders, but they are not usually bona fide? Does that mean they sometimes are bona fide? What does a bona fide cult leader look like? Or do you intend to say: guru equals cult leader, no matter how bona fide they claim to be?
Also, do you have your own specific definition of “cult” as you have for “guru”, or are you coming from the same dictionary definition as I am?
Ah, gurometer is becoming more and more confusing! It would help if you brought some examples of the extremes on the “scale”: put the best bona fide guru you can find and put her/him(/them) side by side to the best example of a fraud. That would help immensely!
I assume something like that is taking place as a parallel process in the author’s brain but we, the readers get only the dry, theoretical extract.
However, the social groups they cultivate — often with themselves positioned as intellectual leaders — can have some elements reminiscent of cultish dynamics.
Including the Catholic Church?
A key characteristic of cults is the establishment of clear in-group and out-group identities, primarily between the cult-members/admirers and outsiders.
Yes, the Catholic Church!
However, there will often be internal discriminations made within the cult, such as between an inner-circle of favoured members, the broader normal members, and problematic or troublesome members (who may need to be reprimanded, temporarily excluded, or exorcised). In general, cultish behaviour is characterized by emotional manipulation and control.
Definitely, the Catholic Church! Or is Pope too obvious and thus too easy a target and therefore not interesting?
I know, I know – dominant orthodoxy cannot be counted among cults. But what if they do have the characteristics of a cult? Still not? Who decides these matters, anyway?
I just checked and this is cool – Wikipedia puts the layperson’s meaning of “cult” as a “religion I don’t like.” So I guess everyone’s orthodoxy is someone else’s cult.
We’ve noticed that gurus tend to act in a manipulative fashion with their followers and potential allies. This often takes the form of excessive flattery, such as intimations that their followers are more perceptive, more morally worthy, and more interested in the pursuit of truth than outsiders.
Yes, there is acknowledgement of subjectiveness! (I’ve noticed that too.) I’m still uncertain who are these gurus you have in mind?
A guru will often put some effort into signalling a close and personal relationship with their followers — essentially encouraging the development of parasocial ideation.
I am becoming more and more certain that this is not going to be about the actual gurus. Nor about religious figures. I bet some kind of projection is coming … something not too obvious, I guess.
Praise and regard for the guru is usually reciprocated, whilst disagreement or criticism is usually dismissed as coming from an unworthy person who does not truly understand the significance of the guru’s ideas.
I see: the cultishness is wrapped around the guru and manifests through followers. It’s not even so much about how the guru responds, but how her/his “congregation” does.
When I left a cult, I heard the worst stories about gurus from their former personal servants. The remote followers who had hardly any personal interaction with gurus idolized them the most. On my personal gurometer one of key metrics was the type and level of disillusionment by those who left.
A guru may often wish to avoid the appearance of being a controlling leader. It is, after all, inconsistent with the flattery of their followers and the oft-spoken idea of cultivating a community of like-minded and clear-sighted individuals. However, they also do not want their privileged position challenged.
Combining guruism and democracy is messy. You wrote that “guru is only a guru if there are people who regard them as such.” If sufficient people give a vote of confidence to a person and decide to believe his words, that’s a free, democratic process. However, democracy doesn’t guarantee a positive outcome.
It’s worrying that there are so many narcissists and sociopaths fighting for attention of the masses, but it is just as worrying that people trust them. It’s worrying but not surprising given that we are flooded with an ocean of ads. We are over-incentivised and unable to make a rational choice based on a scientific analysis.
Thus, they may often wistfully talk of a desire to engage with ‘good faith’ critics who truly understand their ideas, and lament that they have been unable to receive the robust criticism they desire. Of course, this is a sham, as anything other than fawning praise, or at best the most superficial or minor disagreement, will typically be designated as being low-quality or badly-motivated.
I’ve been around gurus for years. I’ve seen them do what you state here, but is not an intrinsic characteristic of a guru. What you write about is a characteristic that stems from self-referentiality. You’ll get the same behavior from many a Christian priest, Muslim imam, Jewish Rabbi, Hindu sadhu, political leader, famous musician, actor etc. You must have watched Religulous, haven’t you?
How is this different from a scientist only receiving criticism from another scientist and only if criticism is given in “good faith” (whatever that means)? Sometimes scientists seem to fight over the authority over the right knowledge as fervently as the various religious denominations’ scholars fight over interpretations of the gospel.
An interesting example of a manipulative technique to prevent criticism and ensure agreement is what we have dubbed the ‘emperor’s new clothes manuevor’. The guru will prime a particularly special, highly elaborate, or controversial idea with various cautions such as ‘I know many of you won’t be able to understand this, but I think the more perceptive among you might’, or ‘I don’t think many of you are in a place where you are ready to accept this kind of idea, but here goes’. Naturally, few among their followers will want to admit that they lack the necessary qualities to appreciate the brilliance of the guru’s insight, and those that do, reveal themselves to be potentially among the set of ‘troublemakers’.
Catholic Church, again. Knowledge is hermetic; faith is necessary, understanding is not. Knowledge is mystical. For as long as religious institutions leave such a crucial imprint in human minds from such an early age and our society doesn’t ban such indoctrination, we’ll have to bear with such machinations by the “gurus.” The Church legitimises the “emperor’s new clothes manoeuver” (btw, do correct your spelling: “manuevor”) and it will not allow their privileged position to be challenged. “Gurus” should learn from the most successful over many centuries: the Church.
Anti-establishment(arianism)
It is necessary that the orthodoxy, the establishment, the mainstream media, and the expert-consensus are always wrong, or at least blinkered and limited, and are generally incapable of grappling with the real issues.
Ups, I’ve just attacked the Church! My score on the gurometer must be exploding ...
There are too many categories lumped together here. Orthodoxy is one thing: broadly accepted authorised doctrines. The Establishment is another thing: institutional (conservative) authorities in control of society (and resisting change). Mainstream media are yet another thing: traditional broadcasting outlets. So is expert-consensus: general agreement among experts.
Saying that gurus stand against all this, finding these categories always wrong or at least limited is a brave claim. I don’t know what gurus you’ve been interacting with, but those I’ve been around are usually more orthodox and conservative than the society they’re part of. If you mean leaders of crazy sects, that’s not gurus.
If you’re talking about a very specific type of “gurus” you should make that clear right at the beginning of the gurometer so you don’t confuse the readers. Given that you’re doing well with neologisms, maybe you can invent a new word, so you don’t need to stretch the term guru beyond recognition.
In the rare occasions when they are right, they are described by the gurus as being right for reasons other than they think. Kavanagh has coined the term ‘science-hipsterism’ which captures this tendency quite nicely. A guru can seldom agree with the establishment, because it is crucial to their appeal that they are offering unique insight – a fresh hot take that is not available elsewhere, and may be repressed or taboo.
It’s getting more and more clear that you’re not talking about gurus! Are you maybe writing about renegade, self-proclaimed innovators who acquire a status of intellectual giants less due to the quality of their innovation than due to the quantity of the following? They get carried away by the authority entrusted upon them by the masses and enticed to commenting on issues they are not nearly competent enough to comment upon. They become icons, or idols and the impact of the content they create moves far beyond accountability they can hold on all those issues. Matters get out of control and their alternate identity (egregore) gets shaped more by their followers than by themselves. In that sense they become “gurus”.
I am trying to read between the lines. Am I reading correctly?
The guru’s popularity will obviously benefit, if this iconoclastic view happens to coincide with their prejudices or intuitions of their lay-followers. Thus, gurus are naturally drawn to topics where there is a split between the expert consensus and public opinion (e.g. climate change, GMOs, vaccinations, lockdowns).
So it is about the renegades who take the issues in their own hands and, relying on their charisma, rhetoric and marketing skills, speak out against a contentious issue. It’s not clear yet, but it seems you’re aiming for the critics of mainstream – aka “conspiracy theorists.”
After all, if a guru is merely agreeing with an expert consensus on a topic such as COVID, then there is less reason to listen to the guru rather than the relevant experts.
Oh, gosh, why does everything have to be about COVID these days! So this is about contemporary, superficial matters, not about timeless ideas and values. I hope I’ll figure this out by the end …
Thus, the guru is highly motivated to undertake epistemic sabotage; to disparage authoritative and institutional sources of knowledge. There is a tradeoff where the more the guru’s followers distrust standard sources of knowledge, such as that emanating from universities, the greater the perceived value that the guru provides.
This is a very real phenomenon, yes. I’m guilty of it myself to some degree. I used to disparage institutional sources of knowledge. I guess I could be classified as belonging to anti-establishment. I wouldn’t equate this with “epistemic sabotage,” though.
When I hear public commentators referring to the Establishment as “they” and almost personalizing them into a conspiratorial force, they make the “us and them” game explicit. I don’t think they know who they’re talking about. Saying “they” is too much of a shortcut. I suppose we agree on this.
I have the same complaint about taking the label “guru” and randomly defining it to designate another type of “them”. Half way through the text, my confusion about who you’re referring to has only deepened.
This tendency is at odds with the guru’s natural tendency towards self-aggrandisement, which may involve emphasising or inflating their (even limited) academic intellectual recognition, which results in some amusing contradictions.
Oh, more pseudo-profound definitions within a self-referential cloud … I understand the meaning of your words and what characteristics they describe but what’s confusing is the vagueness of the connections between the elements of your patchwork.
Gurus will also strategically utilise ambiguity and uncertainty within their criticisms, providing themselves with the means to walk back claims that prove wrong or attract criticism or to enable them to highlight disclaimers. This dynamic of sabotaging other sources of wisdom is also evident in their fractious relationships with other gurus, with whom they may often have alliances of convenience, but are also strongly incentivised to compete with.
This describes equally an astrologist and an unscrupulous politician. Thus far, this was the vaguest point. I could spend hours analyzing just this last paragraph. When you write “strategically utilise ambiguity,” for example, you seem to imply vile intentions (while it is more likely that they walk back their claims on the go without premeditation).
Where did “sabotaging other sources of wisdom” come from? Grammar is fine, but it would be good to pay more attention to syntax – throughout the text.
Grievance-mongering
A cult will generally have more than a few bones to pick with supposedly nefarious forces in the outside world. Likewise, fascist organisations will derive much energy from narratives of grievance focused on specific out-groups.
Fascist organisations?! Where did that come from all of a sudden? What’s next? How much further are you going to stretch this? I guess you don’t know about Godwin’s law since you mention fascists halfway through your text.
Feelings of frustration and oppression, being excluded and disregarded, and deprived of one’s manifest rights and recognitions, represent a potent set of negative emotions.
Is this about the people who got “cancelled”?
Gurus too, will sometimes rely on narratives of grievance pertaining to themselves and their potential followers in order to drive engagement. After all, a worldview in which all is essentially fair and just is not one that will encourage people to search for alternative ways in which to view the world.
No, it’s not about those getting cancelled! It’s about those who do the cancelling: the woke mob! It must be them! I just re-read the whole document until here and replaced “guru” with “Social Justice activist” and it makes sense.
Are you choosing such camouflage and using this kind of language to protect yourself from cancellation?
Gurus sometimes also engage in personal grievance narratives. These are especially convenient, in that they not only encourage emotional connection and sympathy for the guru, but they provide a convenient explanation for why someone of their unique talents has not been well-supported or given the recognition they deserve by the outside world. They also relate to conspiratorial ideation (discussed more below), in explaining why the special ideas and perspectives shared with followers have not been recognised and accepted by the outside world. It is because their ideas have been suppressed by malevolent and powerful actors for selfish reasons.
There’s too much to unpack, so I’ll skip this one …
Self-aggrandisement and narcissism
It is almost impossible to be a guru without having a sense of grandiosity and inflated idea of one’s self-importance.
That’s exactly my experience with the woke! It’s impossible to have a conversation with them. They are completely convinced that they are right and become violent if you don’t agree with them 100%.
The role of being a guru involves cultivating praise and attention, and demands a certain level of charisma and charm.
Reading on … the term guru is getting increasingly convoluted.
Another trait of narcissists is a belief in one’s uniqueness, and that only special people can appreciate them.
I haven’t mentioned I’m an editor and proofreader. It’s bad syntax when you pull out a new (especially negative!) term without introducing it and swap it with the original subject in your text. You create a sense of identity between two terms, where what I assume you wish to convey is qualification: “Gurus can be narcissists and believe in their uniqueness, and that only special people can appreciate them.”
Another example: “Chris and Matt wrote a paper. The absent-minded made many mistakes.” This implies inherent negligence within the identity (and therefore cannot be corrected). it’s more likely that mistakes are the result of temporary absent-mindedness and circumstantial (can be corrected).
It is therefore not surprising that one tends to see other narcissistic traits in gurus, such as having a very thin skin when it comes to criticism, or expecting that the world should be recognising one’s talents far more than it does.
I find this to be true about the Social Justice activists, yes. It is also true about many spiritual “gurus.” Now this can refer to Deepak Chopra again. I’ve seen this in academia as well: resentful professors angry at their “genius” innovation not being recognised.
Our tentative hypothesis is that narcissism is the key personality trait of gurus.
Just put this sentence higher up in the text and that will immediately improve your syntax.
People without at least some degree of over-confidence and attention-seeking will find the role of guru very uncomfortable and eschew it, even if it is thrust upon them. People who are not narcissistic, but with genuine expertise and insight in a given domain, may find the spotlight an unwelcome distraction.
It goes on with Deepak, it seems. This is not about the woke anymore. Hm …
Would you say over-confidence and attention-seeking are welcome in politics, art and sport? I guess they don’t look good on a guru, that’s true. But since this is not about gurus, it’s a kind of confusing. The term “guru” is starting to mean everything and nothing.
Being in the spotlight is almost guaranteed to inflate one’s ego. My experience with a few authentic gurus in India has taught me about the quality of not being affected by the attention of the masses. So my experience with real gurus is the opposite of what you write about.
People ‘on the spectrum’ of narcissism, however, will find any attention and regard highly satisfying, and this is the motivating factor for engaging in going beyond whatever talents they may have, to engage in the pseudo-profound bullshitting techniques described here.
What techniques? You haven’t mentioned any techniques thus far? Are you fighting bullshitting with bullshitting?
Am I to be considered a narcissistic guru if I feel good about myself after winning a literary award and having a few thousand of dedicated readers? You really need to qualify this better. It’s too vague, too relative and if you present it as a metric it should give the reader a scale and a methodology to measure properly.
The lack of self-awareness common among narcissists also seems to explain why gurus seem to ‘believe their own bullshit’.
I admit, I am a very demanding reader. From what I’ve seen thus far in this text (and mind you, I’m not even a native speaker), it doesn’t convey a sense of self-awareness. Am I to conclude, therefore, that the author is a narcissist who believes his own bullshit?
Just as a narcissist loves themselves, they are in love with their own ideas, and may be incapable of seeing the degree to which they are bullshit.
I have to remember this! It’s a good example of bulverism and can come handy.
Cassandra complex
Gurus like to claim prescience among their many talents. Their heightened insight gives them a superior ability to predict the future, and they will enjoy dwelling on those instances in which they made a purportedly correct prediction (obviously not mentioning or acknowledging the times when they got it wrong).
This is also true of some members of the U.S. congress.
We’ve already described how a narrative of grievance plays a role in being a guru. A heightened sense of how the world is not right, and ought to be fixed, and that they are the persons to do it, is a common feature.
This applies to any religion or even political ideology.
Unfortunately, the broader public fails to recognise their genius and heed their advice, and thus the world lurches from calamity to calamity.
Esoteric knowledge depends on esoteric logic, yes. A totalitarian regime would get rid of this mess: one frame of reference would be commanded and that would be it. The battle is about which frame of reference will have the primate. As one dominates, others have no other choice but to fight for some room next to it.
It is fallacious to see calamities as proof that the mainstream frame of reference is bad through and through. It is sad to see how some smart people aren’t able to express their genius ideas better and, instead, sink into self-pity. It is, however, a good thing that dimwits self-eliminate in the same way.
Despite being a social innovator, I like how human cultures are conservative. They don’t accept change easily. You have to make a lot of effort to bring about change. That’s a natural defence mechanism and I’m glad it’s there to filter out my bad ideas and force me to really make an effort to have an objectively better concept or methodology applied on a large scale.
We need innovation and out-of-the-box thinking – Feynman style. There are problems that can lead to calamities and some solutions will invariably come from the margins. The Establishment has some good filters and some bad filters. I think academia needs to help the general public on both sides: supporting good (prospective) innovators and lobbying the Establishment to open the gates to such innovations.
Combining these features, we will often see that a guru positions themselves as something of a Cassandra – seeing the future and warning of possible calamities, that could be avoided if only they were heeded. The followers also gain a positive role for themselves, in supporting, defending, and promoting the guru, they can help make the world a better place.
Since you mentioned COVID earlier, it might be that’s what you’re hinting at: the endless debate between the pro- and anti-measures groups and their champions?
Revolutionary theories
If galaxy-brainedness refers to a breadth of knowledge, an ability to forge connections between disparate topics, then their professed development of revolutionary theories displays the depth of their knowledge.
You probably mean pretentious depth …
Connected with their narcissism and worthiness of being a guru, they are greatly attracted to claiming that they have developed game-changing and paradigm-shifting intellectual products. This is, in a sense, the credentials and the resume of a guru.
A lot is lumped together, again. Yes, there are guru-narcissists. But there are also humble wise elders who have amazing credentials and made an incredible impact on society.
At the other extreme, you have narcissists that bulldoze their way through all the social normative barriers and become totalitarian leaders, tycoons, superstars, high priests … I find them a lot more dangerous than those that hit the ceiling much sooner and are recorded in history as relatively minor figures. Time will expose the true value of their work and teachings.
Just as the public were keen to seek out Albert Einstein’s opinions on all matter of topics unconnected with physics, they also find it quite natural that one who has accomplished something great in one area, should be qualified to offer advice on all matter of topics. Of course, genuinely revolutionary theories such as general relativity are few and far between, and therefore the guru is compelled to manufacture their revolutionary theories. The problem of why they are not already famous is dealt with via reference to the personal grievance narratives discussed above.
You’re conflating two things here. First: people trust genuinely successful people and tempt them to give advice beyond their domain of expertise. (Does it mean that they become guruish if they extend such advice? Is Einstein a guru?) Second: gurus aren’t genuinely successful but, since they are by default narcissistic, they fake success, craving recognition, and because they get in only in a limited circle, not widely, they deal with it through grievances. This blends together genius, innovation, success, ambition, narcissism … and somehow glues it to the term “guru”. Phew! It’s a lot to take on sloppy reasoning!
Pseudo-profound bullshit
At the outset we described a guru who engages in pseudo-profound bullshit (PPB). This is their core business, their stock-in-trade. They are most comfortable in the role of armchair opinionator, the wise man (or woman, but usually man) graciously offering their advice to eager seekers of wisdom.
This is a brave statement (again)! Daring to say something like this about all the gurus is quite something. You either know better than anyone what you’re talking about or you’re overconfident about your knowledge. It’s a judgment camouflaging as an assessment.
Most of the other techniques and maneuvers discussed here function primarily to support and justify this most-favoured activity. Whilst the ‘revolutionary theories’ and ‘galaxy brainness’ describe the content of their discourse, PPB describes the form of their discourse. It is typified by language that is cognitively easy to process, superficially appears to be something profound, but upon analysis turns out to be trite, meaningless, contradictory, or tautological.
The more I read, the more I see this text describing itself, a nice tautology indeed. If that’s intentional, consider it a masterpiece!
The ‘classic’ examples of PPB are best exemplified by Deepak Chopra, who said things such as
Finally, you did have Deepak in mind!!!
“There are no extra pieces in the universe. Everyone is here because he or she has a place to fill, and every piece must fit itself into the big jigsaw puzzle.”
“To think is to practice brain chemistry.”
Or
“It is the nature of babies to be in bliss.”
That’s PPB indeed. Still, I will defend Deepak here! These short sentences might make better sense in context. Deepak also said: “Even when you think you have your life all mapped out, things happen that shape your destiny in ways you might never have imagined.”
(Deepak is right: Some things happened, one thing led to another, and look at me now: I’m taking apart the gurometer!)
Well, I see as PPB your statement from above: “Gurus are not usually bonafide cult-leaders.” Before you take on other people’s PPB, make sure you clean up your own.
All of which are easily detected by most people to be cases of PPB, partly due to their strong resemblance to ‘inspirational quote’ memes, in being blandly positive messages of saccharine self-affirmation.
PPB can be over-inflated negativity just as well.
However, it is the logical and semantic structure, not the content, that is the core property of PPB. Modern secular gurus do not necessarily provide self-help (although some, like Jordan Peterson certainly do),
Finally another name: Jordan Peterson! I see where this is going. If it’s not about the woke … is it about anti-woke? And who else?
and their PPB, liberally peppered with abstract and abstruse references (see galaxy-brainedness above) can be on any literally any secular (scientific, health, political, social, etc) topic.
I’m really disappointed. So “guru” can include any commentator of any topic that the authors of the gurometer designate as abstruse. And now we’re down to a broad secular sphere … I expected this would get more elaborate and specific, but it’s getting vaguer and vaguer.
Conspiracy mongering
To gain real insights, real special knowledge that nobody else can see – that’s hard work. For normal people, even a lifetime of study and research only provides scant few original intellectual contributions. That is not nearly enough for a guru, who needs a steady supply of fresh, original content to supply to their followers and justify their status.
Now that you brought up Peterson, I see what point you’re making. It’s about the online influencers selling their opinions on every single topic you can imagine. What you react against is when they express strong opinions about contentious issues that pull many people along.
I agree with you criticising the instantaneous production of commentaries (often not much more than gossip), competing for attention on every little culturally contentious issue. An echo of a slap can resonate in cyberspace for weeks and months. That’s egregious.
To be a guru, they must set themselves up, not only as uniquely insightful, but above and apart from orthodoxies, including established political or ideological groups. Thus, they are encouraged to go beyond standard heterodoxy, contrarianism and scepticism, into the realm of conspiratorial ideation.
What you’re describing here is effectively the battle for attention in the cyber-meta-reality. How to generate a better “avatar” in the massive competition with other “avatars” addressing the same audience: (loosely) alternative, non-conformist, anti-establishment, counter mainstream … I guess these “avatars” are your “gurus.” You must be after Joe Rogan, Lex Friedman, Bret Weinstein etc. as well? Or?
This is because the expert consensus – though naturally not infallible – but definition, tends to supply the most reasonable and evidence-based view, based on current information.
As I wrote earlier, time will smoothen all the sharp edges. Some room for conspiratorial thinking will remain (as in the case of moon-landing deniers) and we’ll have to bear with some “COVID-deniers” in fifty years. For better or worse, the consensus will win and it won’t even matter was it completely true or not. We will have moved on.
We will move on based on available and acceptable information, dominant view forms within the cultural and ideological constraints of each society. Each major event in history is followed by years if not decades of back-and-forth tug of war between proponents of divergent interpretations. In natural sciences, it’s easier to fall back on the scientific method than in humanities. The wisest of gurus know this and keep the most contentious interpretations to themselves. They know what the system can take and won’t try to force it to take any more than that.
As Alexandre Auguste Ledru-Rollin nicely put it: "There go my people. I must find out where they are going so I can lead them."
The guru is in the position of needing to provide a strongly contrasting perspective, and then to supply the argumentation that backs up their bold claims in a compelling way. This leads them inexorably down the path of bespoke conspiracy mongering, with an alternative view of events that authoritative sources either can’t or won’t tell you about.
Please, think twice before making such absolute statements. If you have a specific person in mind that this statement describes, say it. Here you’re putting a negative label on “every bold claim!”
The way I understand you is: in order to attract attention, the “guru” takes a unique perspective, packages it well, markets it and … From this point, it’s not explained how this inexorably leads to conspiracy-mongering. Is it that because they’re overzealous they are incapable of providing customers ethical products and their marketing is invariably deceptive … and because their product is essentially their opinions there’s no way they won’t get drawn to conspiracy theories?
Conspiracy theories require a ‘suppressive network’ to explain away the lack of evidential support, and why almost nobody else is willing or able to accept their theories. Gurus are subject to the same dilemma, and will often need recourse to some conspiracy-like As with conspiracy theories, their reasoning will be intricate but subject to massive reaches, and they will disregard simpler or more conventional alternative explanations.
I get called a “guru” sometimes because of my extracultural manners. I’ve been barefoot 99% of the time since 2006. In 2002, I wrote a series of articles about humanness, starting by arguing that the natural position to defecate is squatting. And, well, mainstream doesn’t assimilate new ideas easily … After 20 years, seven reprints of my book and a documentary about me, squatting on the toilet has reached a wider acceptance and recognition – not only in science but, this matters to me a lot more, in practical, everyday life of regular people.
My sharp edges have smoothened and so have the edges of mainstream society around me. We interact better, making steps toward each other from both directions. I’ll stay at the margin of society and still be its productive member.
I write this as a positive alternative to the one-sided image of bold claims leading only to futile divisions.
Grifting
Gurus perhaps desire respect and admiration above all else, but they also tend to feel that more worldly and tangible recognition of their talents is appropriate. Accordingly, gurus may be surprisingly willing to undertake activities such as shilling health supplements, that would otherwise be a little surprising in an intellectual of their calibre. Note that it is natural and reasonable for any intellectual worker or content creator to be compensated for their effort.
Ok, you seem to actually be narrowing down the meaning of “gurus” to online opinion marketeers.
Thus, book royalties, YouTube advertising royalties, or the insertion of standard advertising in a podcast does not usually or necessarily indicate grifting. However, gurus tend to go somewhat further in an effort to monetise their following, while avoiding the appearance of such – which would detract from their guru status. A recent example was the actions of London Real, a venue for gurus such as JP Sears or David Icke, who constructed an elaborate censorship justification for gathering over 1 million dollars from followers, to move their content from YouTube to a dedicated platform, from which they could then further monetize their content at a much higher rate.
America, America … No wonder hoaxers love it there. Have you seen Marjoe?
NOTES
What is a guru?
Most people think of gurus as spiritual or religious thinkers, perhaps somebody like Deepak Chopra.
Wow! This tells a lot of where you’re coming from! The world is immensely diverse and if most people around you see gurus as such, your world is small. Please be more specific! Generalisations are making your gurometer unusable.
But recently, it seems that secular public intellectuals or commentators are attracting devoted followings, and are seen as having unique insights and special wisdom by their fans. They’re often offering views that are contrary to the mainstream or institutions, sources like the ABC or universities.
Ah, this text should be at the very beginning!
And please resolve all the non-sequiturs.
They can appeal in a variety of ways. For example, they might challenge accepted wisdom around COVID or vaccines, or provide self-help or personal growth advice, or play to your political fears around globalism or social justice.
You state some of your background here, including your biases, making it easier to understand your text. Thanks!
What do you do in your podcast?
Well, we try to ‘decode’ the gurus. Although they’re incredibly diverse, we’re finding that there are some common themes, that connect them to more traditional cults or conspiracy theories. We listen to their content very carefully, and we pay attention to the techniques they use, how they present themselves, and the themes that bind them together.
Reading this text through, I see where the noise in communication is coming from. You assume shared knowledge; your reader is supposed to be aware of your premises and unexpressed core ideas. This is likely not a very public document you would share widely.
In this commentary, I was in the role of an “ignorant” reader. Ignorant about your specific field of reference. I hope I made it clear I am not ignorant in the broader cultural field of reference. I am well-read and informed about the meanings of terms and concepts in the general public forum.
I’ll go search the Internet now to figure out what all this is about … I’m still curious who the gurus are and how they can actually be measured.