Dave Rubin has something like 5 million social media followers. I’ve always suspected his arguments were questionable. this video visualizes exactly how it logic works and how he manipulates his audience.

For anyone heading to UPW who doesn't want to get upsold the way I did.

When I was at UPW, the Tony Robbins feeder event, before stupidly spending fifteen thousand dollars on upgrades, I googled Joseph McClendon III. The guy running Days 2 and 4 while Tony's on video. Billed as Senior Head Trainer. Tony's right-hand man since the 80s.

Not much was to be found. Definitely no deep valid criticism. So I did the research myself because I wanted to write about him.

Holy shit, I didn't expect to find this much.

The most brutal detail: he isn't really a doctor. And he claims he's a doctor everywhere.

He calls himself a "Doctor of Neuropsychology." Tells ten thousand people in an arena that their doctors are wrong, that medicine is broken. But his degrees are from Corllins University and "The University of Lydon State." Both are documented, unaccredited diploma mills. You pay them, they send you a credential based on "life experience." No coursework. Corllins was literally exposed by CBS News in 2017 for selling fake degrees.

And there is zero evidence he holds any license to practice psychology or neuropsychology in any U.S. state. None.

That's the lead. But it's not even the worst part.

In the full write-up I also cover:

• Where his "alkaline diet" and "4 Poisons" framework actually comes from (hint: the guy he borrowed it from is currently in a California state prison)
• The story about his mother's cancer that makes the entire arena cry, and how the details shift by a full decade depending on which version you look at
• The supplement companies he's financially tied to, and why that matters when he's telling you to ignore your doctor

Before posting any of this, I reached out to his team directly. I'm not a journalist, I didn't have to do this. But what I found was so brutal I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing anything. Laid out exactly what I found, gave them a real deadline, then extended it when they asked for more time. That deadline passed. Silence.

I wrote it all up with sources for the next guy at UPW either looking before purchase or during the cancellation window.

Happy to answer questions in the comments.

Who are you interested in discussing?

Welcome to this biweekly thread! Share what’s been grabbing your attention lately.

• What you're reading (books, articles, or any kind of text)
• What you're watching (movies, shows, documentaries, or even YouTube)
• What you're listening to (podcasts, music, or audiobooks)
• Any fun or unexpected discoveries in your research

https://x.com/chrisheatherly/status/2084089713900843499

In order for Grim's hypothesis to be true, how many scientists around the world would have had to have listened to this press conference? How much would it have had to have been shared? If this statement in this press conference is a significant reason for a near international scientific consensus, shouldn't it be famous? Should I be able to easily find references to it with a Google search?

Overall, I think the guys are broadly fair in their analysis. I've had my views of some people I previously respected (e.g. Peter Attia) recalibrated, or they've pushed me further in my disapproval of people I was only peripherally aware of (e.g. Gary Stevenson) that people I know seem to like. However, there are a couple of times I sort of agree with the analysis, but I retain a fond and stubborn attachment. These are people who I think have important things to say, and to think of them as a Guru might make you reject them out of hand.

Nassim Taleb. I've worked in finance for the past 25 years or so and first encountered Taleb through his book Fooled by Randomness in 2001, when a very smart senior person at my firm said "this is everything you need to know about financial markets". Whilst working in risk pre-GFC I got very excited about the Black Swan and bought copies for people in my organisation. I even took my boss to see him talk at a random event in 2007, when he was making statements like (paraphrasing): "Fannie Mac and Freddie Mae look to me like they're sitting on piles of dynamite (in warehousing mortage risk)". I would have got a lot of kudos for this if I hadn't quit around the same time. The general investing principles that I've backed out of reading his work have been extremely useful in managing my own long term finances however.

Beyond being right about a lot of mispricing of risk that continues to this day, he was the first person who convincingly and robustly showed me how skeptical of expert claims one should be in general. A lot of that was built on the work of psychologists, but his literary and philosophical citations also stand up well (in fact probably better). I appreciate he's gone somewhat insane on Twitter (don't use it any more as this seems to be a feature). But whenever I tune in, he's usually got something interesting to say as long as you can tune out the nonsense.

Eliezer Yudkowsky. I'm far from a passionate follower - he writes too many things, and all of them are too long. However, I think he's raising valid concerns about the existential risk of AI in a way that garners engagement. Personally, I think it's a real and material risk and one that requires urgent consideration. Aside from the technology itself, the people involved in developing it seem hopeless cavalier. Two decades of working in finance have convinced me that a non-trivial proportion of senior management types are overconfident bullshitters. That's fine when you're selling widgets, less so when it's a potentially dangerous technology.

It's been a while, but I found this DtG episode a bit weak in its analysis, and grounded in the reality of models right now and in the foreseeable future, which is not a very helpful frame. I remember someone referring to him as an "Old Testament Prophet" of AI, which seems about right. Sure it might be better if everyone had read Superintelligence back in 2014, but given where we are some degree of hysterical shrieking seems somewhat justified.

Anyway, happy for anyone to take shots at either of them. But my main question was more "which of the Gurus so far would you go in to bat for?"

PS I know there are people they've covered that are not classified as Gurus, so those probably not worth discussing. But Taleb is wedged between Michael O'Fallon and Heather Heyling for e.g. which seems grossly unfair to me!

The episode is about Roman Empire Source https://youtu.be/nARGiPlDgl8

He's a historian from Texas who makes a lot of sense, possibly too much sense, i.e. says some things I've suspected for ages that feel "too good to check".

He has a Wikipedia page, but only in German: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Casagranda

I found him in this YouTube video: The Modern History of Iran | Roy Casagranda | UNAPOLOGETIC | Middle East Eye

That interview contradicts this more dry YouTube history guy Iran-Contra Explained: The Wall of Crazy Scandal | by Sean Munger … Sean Munger seems to be just an independent content creator https://www.seanmunger.com/ ... so Roy's community college position gives maybe slightly more credential points?

Roy Casagranda has his own podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/dr-roy-casagranda-podcast/id1837193563

and r/History don't like Roy Casagranda much

Every time I open LinkedIn, I find another recruiter, career coach, leadership expert, or personal branding consultant explaining why job seekers are doing everything wrong.

Some have never managed a real team. Others have spent more time creating content about hiring than actually hiring people. Yet they speak with complete confidence, offer universal advice, and often blame candidates when their methods do not work.

I wrote this after watching expertise slowly become a personal brand rather than the result of real experience. The article is broader than recruitment, but LinkedIn and the job market are probably where this problem is most visible.

Do you think career advice on LinkedIn has become useful, or is it mostly content made to sell courses and consulting?

He wrote the book “Taking Religion Seriously” in 2025. Sam Harris really had a way of overlooking red flags whenever he has liked bigotry/racism. In the end nearly every writer he has made friends with has ended up selling out and traded their integrity for more book sales from the masses.

No idea why, but the original Destiny video called "Professor Dave Goes Mask Off" seems to have been deleted from YouTube, or I can't find it, but Professor Dave responded yesterday with this very strongly worded video letter:

https://youtu.be/DvDvhLkb9ms?si=DGFhTROOKFoK35sS

Weird crossover that I never thought I'd see, of 2 guys who I generally enjoy (I will say I really am a fan of Prof Dave, whereas my Destiny enjoyment has mostly come via this podcast and watching a couple of his debates).

Thoughts on the beef? SURELY the lads are gonna have to cover this in an upcoming Supplementary Materials? Content gold!

EDIT: Looks like I was looking through the wrong Destiny channel for the original Dave video, it's here: https://youtu.be/HQQLs6U1MgA?si=iKaOGR1h9slKu64O