Role of Debunkers in Society: An Analysis

[Twega]

Leo has mentioned previously the allure of becoming a debunker. Something you see a lot on YouTube. I believe we all understand the dangers and limitations posed by becoming attached to being this personality; The debunker, the watchdog; the bullshit caller, the one who lays it out like it is and calls out those evil or stupid shit-talkers.

However, I believe that as a society, we definitely need such a personality to permeate the noosphere. The Debunker serves a vital role, but it has been corrupted. Let's take a few real-life examples:

• Coffeezilla

I believe what coffeezilla is doing, overall, is actually good. He serves a vital role, which anyone who watches him can recognize. But he still makes errors. A classic example of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, which he and his community fall into is by literally demonizing anyone who sells a course, without further analysis of value to price ratio. Just outright rejection and condemnation. Recently, he made a video on a company supposedly selling nitrous oxide for the purposes of using it in whipping cream but is clearly a cover for actually selling it to get high. The analysis is 100% true, but I found it weird when said something like "they're selling something that will kill your brain cells". Would he say the same for alcohol companies? I don't think so. His video presented no nuance or solution, just condemnation and a call for stopping this company.

• Professor Dave

A lot has been said about professor dave. So I won't dig too deep. I know this community hates Prof Dave. I don't agree with his video on Leo at all. But his videos on creationist and the like is spot on. When compared to other debunker, I feel like professor dave offfers the most technical  critiques. Leo posted a video on abiogenesis by james clear, and prof dave offered a sound critique. This community is quick to dissmiss prof dave (maybe rightly so), but is quick to accept james tour who is more deluded, technically incorrect, and biased more than prof dave.  Prof dave, just like most debunkers has a lot problems, but I consider him still valuable.

• D'Angelo Wallace

Perhaps the most useless of all the debunkers mentioned so far. His debunking (if we can even call it that) is vapid as fuck. It is really just drama content. Moral grandstanding, unnuanced, biased, and useless.

 

 

I believe we need more Reformed Debunkers, not to do away with them entirely. So here's a fun thing we can contemplate:

What makes for a good vs bad debunker?

 

[Leo Gura]

There is an important function for correcting misinformation and biased perspectives, but it's really hard to do it right, without falling into flip side self-deceptions.

Many debunkers do it from an ideological place, trying to replace one ideology with another, or criticizing without offering constructive realistic solutions.

Criticizing others is the oldest, easiest trap in the book. And social media rewards it far too much.

Edited September 22 by Leo Gura

[Butters]

14 minutes ago, Twega said:

The analysis is 100% true, but I found it weird when said something like "they're selling something that will kill your brain cells". Would he say the same for alcohol companies?

I haven't seen the video but I'm pretty sure whippets are way worse than alcohol, they cut oxygen flow which can be extremely dangerous. 

(I wasn't sure but ChatGPT helped):

Quote

Yes, whippets (inhaling nitrous oxide) can be more dangerous than alcohol, particularly because they can cause immediate and severe health risks. While alcohol's dangers typically stem from chronic use, whippets can cause oxygen deprivation, nerve damage, and even death after just one use. Long-term use of nitrous oxide can also result in neurological issues, vitamin B12 deficiency, and serious cognitive damage.

Alcohol, on the other hand, has more widespread societal harm due to its long-term risks (addiction, liver damage, etc.), but nitrous oxide can have quicker, more unpredictable effects. Both are dangerous, but whippets pose an acute risk that many users underestimate.

On CoffeeZilla: you're absolutely right about him hating on courses. He even has a video 'discrediting' Napoleon Hill, which kind of discredits himself and shows no understanding of what those teachings are about. 

Edited September 22 by Butters

[Leo Gura]

6 minutes ago, Butters said:

On CoffeeZilla: you're absolutely right about him hating on courses.

I don't think he has a problem with courses per se, he has a problem with grifty courses which offer little new content at huge fees and sleazy sales tactics. That sort of thing is a big problem within the get-rich-quick industry. Many newbies get outright scammed.

Coffeezilla is one of the good debunkers out there. He does good research and the guys he targets are major sleazebags and conartists for the most part. They do serious fraud. So I got no issue with Coffeezilla.

Edited September 22 by Leo Gura

[Twega]

19 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I don't think he has a problem with courses per se, he has a problem with grifty courses which offer little new content at huge fees and sleazy sales tactics. That sort of thing is a big problem within the get-rich-quick industry. Many newbies get outright scammed.

Coffeezilla is one of the good debunkers out there. He does good research and the guys he targets are major sleazebags and conartists for the most part. They do serious fraud. So I got no issue with Coffeezilla.

I agree. None of us disagree on scammy courses. But he dismisses anyone selling courses as a scam or, at the very best, as useless. For example, Spencer Cornelia, who himself is a debunker/exposer of scams and somewhat of a colleague of Coffeezilla, made a course on something related to real estate, and Coffeezilla and his community dismissed Spencer. He did not assess the fees or the value of the content.

Coffeezilla is also the type of person who only thinks experts (academics or professionals) should speak on topics like health or psychology. He would call your heavy metal detox video as dangerous. I could go on.

If Coffeezilla saw some of your videos, he would say you aren't a therapist and, therefore, shouldn't advise people on how to deal with their problems.

 

You are precisely describing what I'm saying; he is correct often but also throws the baby out with the bathwater.

Edited September 22 by Twega

[Twega]

26 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

There is an important function for correcting misinformation and biased perspectives, but it's really hard to do it right, without falling into flip side self-deceptions.

Many debunkers do it from an ideological place, trying to replace one ideology with another, or criticizing without offering constructive realistic solutions.

Criticizing others is the oldest, easiest trap in the book. And social media rewards it far too much.

Don't you think your content also offers criticisms (not on others, but on mental models, beliefs, behaviors, etc)? We need to make distinctions between types of criticism.

[Ero]

Coffeezilla is doing actually important research. He called the FTX scandals better than any economist/ tech person I know. That says something

[Nemra]

What do y'all think about Decoding the Gurus?

Edited September 22 by Nemra

[Leo Gura]

7 hours ago, Twega said:

I agree. None of us disagree on scammy courses. But he dismisses anyone selling courses as a scam or, at the very best, as useless.

I don't think that's true.

Quote

Coffeezilla is also the type of person who only thinks experts (academics or professionals) should speak on topics like health or psychology. He would call your heavy metal detox video as dangerous. I could go on.

If Coffeezilla saw some of your videos, he would say you aren't a therapist and, therefore, shouldn't advise people on how to deal with their problems.

Well, I don't expect him to understand my work. He's in a very different line of work. And sure, he may easily see my as a cult leader.

It's pretty obvious that anyone in the debunking business is gonna find it irresistible to criticize me. Because debunking is just a form rationalism, which my work challenges.

7 hours ago, Twega said:

Don't you think your content also offers criticisms (not on others, but on mental models, beliefs, behaviors, etc)? We need to make distinctions between types of criticism.

As I said, there is a right and wrong way to do criticism. It has to be done very carefully. I have talked many times about how skepticism can be abused and weaponized.

What you're talking here is the abuse of skepticism. That is a big trap.

Edited September 22 by Leo Gura

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, Nemra said:

What do y'all think about Decoding the Gurus?

They are a good example of being overly dismissive and cynical. It's more comedy than serious sensemaking.

Edited September 22 by Leo Gura

[Joshe]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

They are a good example of being overly dismissive and cynical. It's more comedy than serious sensemaking.

Their takes are usually still higher quality than most. Multiperspectival analysis doesn’t sell well. We probably wouldn’t know about them if they included it. We need people like them critiquing the obvious clowns, even if they don’t balance their perspectives out with more helpful ones. The fools need to know there are consequences to their devilry and they will be laughed at and mocked for it, which bothers them. 
 

Edited September 22 by Joshe

[Nemra]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

They are a good example of being overly dismissive and cynical. It's more comedy than serious sensemaking.

Well, they have a Patreon. There is more content there—interviews and very long conversations. It's interesting to see how academics debunk others. Also, they have videos about "decoding" academia, which I haven't watched yet.

Edited September 22 by Nemra

[Leo Gura]

24 minutes ago, Joshe said:

Their takes are usually still higher quality than most. 

I enjoy watching them, just for laughs.

Just don't mistake it for serious analysis.

[Joshe]

4 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I enjoy watching them, just for laughs.

Just don't mistake it for serious analysis.

Some people can’t discern the ways of the devil. They can’t decode Russel Brand, so these guys are using mockery as a teaching strategy. (Probably unconsciously)

Yeah, they’re not the highest quality, that’s for sure. BUT, they are criticizing from a higher moral and cognitive development than what is typical. They seem to be in the 70-85 percentile of intelligence and they have integrity, which is way more than can be said for most. They don’t usually shine light on things I haven’t already seen, but I think they are for many others, hopefully. 

[Leo Gura]

34 minutes ago, Joshe said:

Some people can’t discern the ways of the devil. They can’t decode Russel Brand, so these guys are using mockery as a teaching strategy. (Probably unconsciously)

Yeah, they’re not the highest quality, that’s for sure. BUT, they are criticizing from a higher moral and cognitive development than what is typical. They seem to be in the 70-85 percentile of intelligence and they have integrity, which is way more than can be said for most. They don’t usually shine light on things I haven’t already seen, but I think they are for many others, hopefully. 

I do enjoy their takedowns of Brand, JP, Bret Weinstein.

But they are not intellectually fair in their takedowns. They don't bother to actually see the perspective of the people they criticize. Someone like JP, you can't just laugh him off or mock him endlessly. He makes valid points.

Edited September 22 by Leo Gura

[Joshe]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

But they are not intellectually fair in their takedowns. They don't bother to actually see the perspective of the people they criticize. Someone like JP, you can't just laugh him off or mock him endlessly. He makes valid points.

Yeah, I know what you mean.

Speaking of JP, I saw where Alex (cosmic skeptic) finally got JP to admit he believes in the literal resurrection of Jesus. That was funny. Then, his reasoning on Piers Morgan for why people should vote for Trump was some of the dumbest shit I’ve heard a smart person say. He’s skilled at playing around in the world of abstraction to gain insight but when it comes time to use those insights intelligently, he’s like a child.

His positions are too convoluted and unnecessarily intricate. They require too much computational energy to decipher and comprehend. This process seems like intelligence, and often it is, but it seems more and more it’s just him having unconscious fun, constructing his own sand castles and then telling people they don’t understand because they didn’t account for the hidden room he constructed on the 8th floor of his sand castle. 

I do like many of his perspectives and admire his thinking, but I think it can be found elsewhere in more accessible and accurate form, without having to devote an hour to compute one of ten ideas needed to understand his sand castle.

Maybe Decoding Gurus feels the same as me and just says fuck’em… he doesn’t deserve our time in sifting through his bullshit to find the parts of his sand castle that are worth keeping, so fuck the whole sand castle. 

[Leo Gura]

JP has awful reactionary politics.

[Consept]

21 hours ago, Twega said:

What makes for a good vs bad debunker?

I think the main issue with being a debunked is just by debunking it puts you at a higher moral ground or at least attempts to, than whoever you're debunking. So your bias and your own ideology are very important factors. Everyone has bias' but if you're not aware of them and actively work to counter act them, you would feel in the trap of someone just attacking people that don't believe what you do. 

Another issue is being taken in or gullible, I've seen Spencer Cornelia literally be fooled by grifters that he's interviewed. You have to have an open mind but it can't be so open that you're being convinced by bullshit. 

A lot of online people set themselves up as debunkers, lets say someone like candace owens, but really she's just trying to forward her narratives and discredit others. So it's extremely important that people just learn how to actually discern when someone is like this, it's difficult because if someone agrees with you, you'll probably overlook red flags.

Regarding decoding the gurus, I like them because Brand and the like are obvious grifters and I like to see people going at them, but I think because of their snarky, laughing at them mode of conversation, it takes away from their ability to actually convince anyone who mightve been a follower of Brand, that he's bullshit. Imo coffezilla does a great job in terms of it would be hard to watch his videos on Logan Paul and still be able to side with Logan Paul even of you did before. 

[Joshe]

13 hours ago, Consept said:

Regarding decoding the gurus, I like them because Brand and the like are obvious grifters and I like to see people going at them, but I think because of their snarky, laughing at them mode of conversation, it takes away from their ability to actually convince anyone who mightve been a follower of Brand, that he's bullshit. Imo coffezilla does a great job in terms of it would be hard to watch his videos on Logan Paul and still be able to side with Logan Paul even of you did before. 

Good point. Different strokes for different folks though. Some styles of influence work on some but not others. 

If I had a magic money machine and I wanted to bring awareness to the masses of Brand's grift, I would use various styles of influencer because what resonates with some don't resonate with others. You'd have better success if the same message was tailored to specific audiences. People who are more serious might appreciate Coffeezilla more than Decoding Gurus but jokester types might find Coffeezilla too boring to sit through long enough to be influenced. 

So, as long as a corrective message is getting out, it's better than no message at all, IMO. 

Edited September 23 by Joshe