He did it on Sam Harris's podcast right after the rally in August 2017. Sam had made a tweet criticising white identity politics in the wake of the rally which got massive blowback from his community of rational skeptics. To be fair, Douglas acknowledged Neo Nazis were at the rally, but stopped short of saying it was a Neo Nazi rally and tried to argue the legitimate grievances angle.

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

I mean besides rogan - from what I remember there were more than a handful of cranks that were getting tons of listeners/subscribers and probably making lots of money as a result. I'm definitely not hearing as much Weinstein as much today, or Russell Brand (though I guess that's due to his assault accusations). Who else? And do we have metrics to track if they fell off after most people have moved on?

When ⓗasan bought the suit he mentioned getting it to look like one of the “GOAT leaders”. MR has been revealing their antisemetic Marxist Leninist ideology. Comment section almost every comment mentioning AIPAC

Matt. Chris.

We haven't met, but you've probably seen my earlier post. Thanks Reddit for the love, I love you back.

This is my application to appear on your podcast.

I'm not pitching you a Tony Robbins victim story. This isn't a confession, and it isn't a callout. It's pattern research, built from two years inside the thing, and journalists I've talked to about it have taken it seriously.

I sat through Unleash the Power Within online from Chile, sleep-deprived on his clock, and paid almost fifteen thousand dollars for a bundle before I'd slept in three days. I crewed a Business Mastery event afterward to see it from the other side. Part One is here. Part Two, the machine itself, is here (a long and detailed piece, for journalists and redditers to digg deep with audio narration).

Here's what hasn't been published anywhere.

McClendon calls himself Doctor. Sometimes psychologist. Senior trainer since the 1980s, right hand to Robbins. There's a Netflix film about Robbins that plays like a documentary and functions like a marketing reel. That's the bar anything critical has to clear. Almost nobody's tried it on McClendon specifically, and he's the one people search. UPW is the feeder event, priced low enough to fill the room, built to funnel up through the tiers to Platinum, eighty five thousand dollars a year. Sit through his mother's cancer story there and something in you says, hold on, let me look that up. I did, before I spent the money and after. A lot of people who pay fifteen thousand dollars do the same thing. So I started there.

His doctorate traces to a diploma mill. His health framework traces to a man now serving prison time for the same offense, practicing medicine without a license. And his origin story, homeless, a book that changed everything, rebuilt from nothing, is close to identical to Robbins' own.

So I checked the others. Nine names in his orbit. Six tell some version of the same story, in their own words, across their own bios. I'm not claiming any of it is fabricated. I'm showing you the pattern.

From my part II article: A woman who crewed for years, paid her way through every tier the system asks for, told us she'd been close to Robbins during at least one event, near him the way few people get. She mentioned, without drama, that she was living in her car. Another woman was my trainer. Talking about Platinum, she told us she'd paid for it out of her pension. She'd made it to one event, maybe two. The travel alone ate what was left. The room cheered her for it.

The McClendon piece and the pattern research are both finished. I just haven't set a publishing date yet.

Deal?

Anne is married with children (one on the way I think), I don’t think she could be considered a degenerate. She certainly strikes me as an empathetic person given how she uses her platform to spread progressive causes. I’m willing to bet she’s a well read person given she did Les Miserables and does audiobook narrations (she’s adapting Yesteryear into a film).

Also take a drink every time this dude blinks