Compromised Intellectuals: How it happens

[Joshe]

Regarding Jordan Peterson, Russell Brand, etc. 

The pattern often follows a similar trajectory:

1. Build credibility through thoughtful analysis
2. Gain a following that provides financial/social rewards
3. Begin tailoring positions to maintain/expand that following
4. Eventually end up defending positions they might have previously criticized

The tragic part is how this transformation often happens gradually enough that the person might not fully realize how far they've drifted from their original intellectual integrity. The financial and social rewards create powerful incentives to maintain course even when part of them might recognize the compromise.

There's also often a point of no return where their new identity and financial security become so tied to their new positions that walking back becomes nearly impossible without destroying everything they've built.

Common patterns:

• Build Credibility Through Thoughtful Analysis
  • Start with genuine academic/intellectual work
  • Establish core reputation
    • Produce nuanced analysis
    • Stay within expertise
    • Challenge ideas thoughtfully
    • Gain peer respect
  • Position as independent thinker
    • Question conventional wisdom
    • Support arguments with evidence
    • Engage with critics professionally
• Gain Following & Rewards
  • Social media breakthrough
    • Discover viral potential
    • Build platform across channels
    • Get algorithmic amplification
  • Financial opportunities emerge
    • Speaking engagements
    • Book deals
    • Podcast appearances
    • Brand partnerships
  • Build dependent infrastructure
    • Hire staff
    • Get agents/managers
    • Create business enterprises
    • Form media partnerships
• Begin Tailoring Positions
  • Shift content strategy
    • Focus on controversial topics
    • Reduce nuance for engagement
    • Optimize for algorithms
    • Create more frequent content
  • Experience audience capture
    • Echo audience preferences
    • Attack common "enemies"
    • Adopt audience language
    • Reinforce existing beliefs
  • Expand beyond expertise
    • Comment on all issues
    • Make bolder claims
    • Simplify complex topics
  • Monetization focus
    • Launch courses
    • Sell merchandise
    • Create subscription content
    • Host paid events
• Eventually End Up Defending Positions They Previously Criticized
  • Embrace controversial narratives
    • Promote conspiracy theories
    • Question established facts
    • Use "just asking questions" rhetoric
  • Change relationship with truth
    • Dismiss contrary evidence
    • Avoid peer review
    • React defensively to criticism
  • Alienate former allies
    • Attack former colleagues
    • Dismiss experts as "elite"
    • Frame critics as enemies
  • Justify the transformation
    • Claim personal awakening
    • Frame as brave truth-telling
    • Position as fighting system
    • Cite persecution as validation

Edited November 1 by Joshe

[PurpleTree]

That’s seemingly what happened to Russel Brand but i wouldn’t call him an intellectual.

I used to enjoy when he went on those tv shows and obliterated the hosts with his charm and quick wit. Very fun to watch.

But he was always a bit nuts and attention seeking.

[Consept]

@Joshe Very good analysis and I appreciate the detail youve included. 

I think its hard in general not to be audience captured as a content creator, there is also a healthy version of it whereby you serve your audience and try and give them what they want. For example if you do psychology you want to cover topics your audience would be interested in. But I think what separates Brand lets say is that he was willing to compromise his core values for what his audience wanted or to grow his audience. The other thing I notice is that their ego takes over, so they become a cult of personality and they believe it themselves because of the adulation they get. They believe themselves to be brilliant. If you look at the imagery of Brand especially, hes almost presenting himself as some christ like entity.  Only the most rabid, extreme fans can give you this type of devotion, most normal people will just stop watching you, but hes now left with basically crazy, fundamentalists, who are unquestioning of his rhetoric. 

I also think there has to be some kind of shared condition whereby these type of characters need this adulation. Both Brand and Peterson have had addiction problems, im not saying that just because your an addict you could fall in this trap but i think that plus a combination of other factors could lead to it. There seems to be something missing in them that is getting fulfilled by going down this road. 

[Joshe]

8 hours ago, PurpleTree said:

That’s seemingly what happened to Russel Brand but i wouldn’t call him an intellectual.

I agree. I never considered him an intellectual but others do and he does present himself as one. lol. 

[Phil King]

I think facing public backlash also makes them become compromised. Russel Brand only went full MAGA after he got accused of raping a ton of women. Peterson started off with good self help and psychology content, but became increasingly more compromised the more backlash he got for his views on trans people. Its like they cant admit their actions were wrong and they go further down the self justification and denial rabbit hole

[Joshe]

@Consept I agree. With the 2 examples I gave, I think both already had really big egos before they went off the deep end. It makes sense that the more you value praise and acknowledgement from others, the easier it is to part ways with your integrity, especially when doing so means more money and more praise. That addictive element could be a big factor. Nice insight. Jimmy Dore comes to mind. He was never intellectual but he once catered to the left and now his entire comment section is MAGA cheerleaders. 

@Phil King Good point. I also think there's something seductive about having an enemy you can take down before everyone's eyes. JP loves that shit. "Up yours woke moralist".

[sholomar]

This phenomenon is the reason society is more polarized in part. Every content creator tends to create content to appeal to a specific niche, and they often sensationalize it in such a way to where they get people participating in an echo chamber where these people circle jerk one another.  The entire man-o-sphere movement is such an example. Men trying to compensate for the fact they have no personality and are not playful.

Beware of any content that has a sensationalist screencap designed to appeal to the algorithm. Content creators are there to make money first, which is why their original core teachings tend to be the best. This includes many authors. I noticed for example the original "Conversations with God" book was better than his subsequent books and there are numerous other examples. Spiral dynamics stage greens are certainly not immune to this. Nobody under stage under yellow is truly immune. Even then it takes a turquoise level of self analysis to catch oneself getting caught up in some emotional position that should be "fixed" or "different from how it is" or finding some "truth" that isn't as true as one might think it is, and then see if it's actually worth fighting for or not, or seeing if it's actually true or just emotional bias. None of us is at one spiral dynamics level... we all have a mixture of levels in us.

I've come to see it's very easy to brainwash and/or manipulate people using many of these tactics due to our genetic propensity to want to fit into the "herd."  Neurotypicals in a large chatroom on youtube, a small slice of human nature for anyone to see. (Not judging them just observing )  On the plus side with the level of diversity of perspectives we have, new truths will be found as we grow as a species.

Edited November 1 by sholomar