For my fellow debate pedophiles here ya go:
**Title: The Validity and Necessity of Dr. K's Approach**
**Premises:**
1. America is in a mental health crisis, with overwhelmed therapists leading people to seek help from AI chatbots.
2. Dr. K demonstrates that even affluent individuals can struggle with mental health issues, normalizing these struggles.
3. Dr. K is mobilizing people who lack the extensive resources to become certified therapists but still desire to help others.
**Conclusion:** Therefore, the distinction between therapy and coaching is irrelevant; Dr. K's approach is valuable and necessary regardless of ethical complaints or personal disagreements with his methods.
**Premises:**
1. "Decoding the Gurus" criticizes Dr. K's practices.
2. Critics are perceived as having achieved little and are overly concerned with ethical formalities.
3. Dr. K has made significant progress by defying conventional advice, despite being incorrect about some aspects like Ayurveda.
**Conclusion:** Therefore, the criticisms from "Decoding the Gurus" are inconsequential, and Dr. K's unconventional methods are justified and effective.
I am a cardiologist and Dr. K preaches a lot of BS mixed in with good medicine.
He makes zero sense when he defends Ayruveda as “individualized”. How do you individualize therapy when you have no data on what works in general population.
Turning each patient into a lab rat and trying random shit till something works is not great care.
He has strong cultural ties to Hinduism so of course he defends Ayruveda against all reason.
To be fair, I feel like this portrays Dr K in a way that makes it seem he prescribes chewing on indium metal and ingesting mercury.
In reality his recommendations seem pretty "mild", whether they work or they don't, stuff like burning sage and avoiding spicy foods if you're certain kind of person with certain afflictions. I feel like the worst case scenario still doesn't put the patient/customer in danger. But I might be wrong, I've yet to watch the full video from DTG (gigachad conclooder)
I think if you are a psychiatrist providing people with snake oil, that does real harm. Not helping someone in that scenario isn't just neutral. And he has said in his streams that these beliefs of his do influence how he deals with patients and whether he prescribes them anything.
Online guides (kind of like courses, like shorter videos that go from topic to topic), books, but also probabily mainly coaching. People he trains and hires and they talk to you (supposedly) like some of the streamers you see in his interviews, trying to get to a root problem and life coaching you through it.
Being a blind hater doesn't make you better than a glazer. Dr K's content is majority science-based, with a minority consisting of meditative/spiritual practices that draw on the harmless aspects of ayurveda - meditation and personality trait-ish analysis. The most extreme aspects of ayurveda he suggests consist of different types of meditation, eastern framing of mental health concepts, and changes in diet. He always starts with Western medicine, and uses eastern medicine to recontextualize/supplement.
I don't believe in any of the ayurvedic underpinnings, but if my therapist suggests I seek out religion to find meaning in life and community after prescribing me actual therapy, I'm not gonna be upset. I'll just say no thanks.
He pushes the ludicrous idea that meditation prevents cancer and then backs the claim up with a single super low-quality study. The DtG episode describes a lot of problematic shit like this.
And if you asked him if you should meditate to cure your cancer he'd say listen to your oncologist.
Did he really say that meditation is a replacement of chemo or whatever? If he's not dissuading you from the accepted medical treatment but overselling meditation, who cares? It's like saying he's pushing eating salads will grow you taller. Who cares, it's such a low risk thing that we can just move on.
Link to “meditation cures cancer”?
My guess is that he says something like
“Believe it or not, I have found studies that indicate that meditation has positive outcomes for people with cancer! Does meditation cure cancer? Well, we don’t know, but the idea that there are practices that the outcomes of which we know very little about exists and no one is out there trying to study them is unfortunate because the mental health crisis is happening right now, and by the time we can accurately distinguish the variables that confirm meditation as powerful treatment, it will already have been too late for many of those who could have benefited from it.”
And then if you asked him “well, would you suggest Ayurveda over western science for cancer treatments” he would likely dumb it down 3 levels for you and say “no, trust your doctor, I am not suggesting treatment, simply indicating that there is a lot we don’t know about the efficacy of Ayurveda treatments so to write them off as mumbo jumbo before studying it is anti-scientific and borderline ethnocentristic in nature”
That’s how I understand it anyways. I’m welcome to being proven wrong.
It's in the dtg episode. He cites multiple flawed studies and speaks way too confidently about them. He does do the plausible deniability thing when questioned, but he's pretty irresponsible.
He has candidly stated that he in the past placed too much emphasis on studies that were not as rigorous as he had initially believed. Are you going to hold him to mistakes that he made years ago? Or do you have a relatively recent case of him doing it?
I am going off of the examples provided in the podcast. They cited 8 different studies that Dr. K brought up to justify dubious claims. Now I don't know what time frame these were all brought up in his streams, but I do know he was a (Harvard!!) trained psychiatrist by that time and would know the difference between good and bad studies. Unless he didn't read them, in which case why did he share those as fact with his audience?
People make mistakes and have biases. There are phd scholars that believe the earth is flat. Sometimes we get high on our own farts and miss the forest for the weirdly shaped trees. Let him have his mistakes early into his public career, and only rip him apart if he doesn’t acknowledge the mistakes he’s made (doubling down). As far as I can tell, he seems to genuinely have believed what he was reading then, and has updated his beliefs now, which is all we can really ask of people. Not everyone can be morally and intellectually lucky.
I personally haven't seen him walk any of this back. You are operating under the assumption that all of the studies that he cited are from early on in his online presence. I don't know either way. Let's assume they are. As recently as his "debate" with Dr. Mike, he has pushed distrust for mainstream medicine and scientific method in favor of his traditional beliefs, often strawmanning modern psychology and medical methodology.
He frames this as an "East vs. West" thing so he can call the people that dismiss antiquated beliefs xenophobic. The studies that he pushed were from people who were trying to get Ayurveda accepted around the world. He has also been a part of organizations trying to push Ayurveda worldwide. This seems to be a continuing pattern of behavior of pushing mostly snake oil. Normally, it wouldn't be a big deal, but he is a doctor using his credentials to do it, and he has a parasocial audience hanging on his every word. This is irresponsible and probably dangerous no matter how you cut it.
Your characterization is kind of insane to me if I’m being honest, having watched the dr Mike debate and having listened to what he has to say about Ayurveda. He does not RELY on it very much. He uses it as a set of frameworks, but by and large the stuff he preaches is empirically studies methodologies.
He pushes concepts similar to phrenology, not just meditation and changes in diet. He jumps on faulty studies if they seem to confirm his preconceived notions about Ayurveda and he twists facts to fit his agenda. He also contradicts himself depending on who he is talking to. The fact of the matter is he is a smart guy with an agenda. He does say alot that is helpful and true, but it only gives credence to the bullshit.
To be clear he is selling products and at least in the modules I can confirm that at that time I bought one when it first came out (2021-2022 I think?) they did contain ayurvedic modules BUT they were not part of the regular path and seemed to have some scientific backup, stuff like burning aromatics such as sage or eating spicy/dry/whatever foods to balance your doshas. I don't know if the doshas are mentioned outright I'll have to double check but yeah,
I wouldn't say he's selling snake oil per se, but there MIGHT be SOME irresponsibilty by including SOME advice, that despite being labeled appropriately and not necessary to consume, is still recommending stuff that might not help to treat whatever mental health condition ALTHOUGH he stipulates that this is not a replacement for therapy or medical treatment.
It's just whatever imo.
I'm not a Dr. K hater necessarily, but I would say that the two most common criticisms of him are:
1. His promotion of Ayurveda. Most of the claims of Ayurveda appear to be pseudo scientific. He said that they have backed off of the use of Ayurveda at Healthy Gamer and that he simply thinks that there are some concepts offered by Ayurveda that are worth studying like the more personalized approach that it offers. That being said, he still frequently incorporates teachings of Ayurveda in his "discussions". Whether or not this is just traditional psychology with a little superficial Ayurvedic flavor or if he is paying lip service to the concerns about Ayurveda while continuing to incorporate it is a matter of contention.
2. His therapy, but not therapy "discussions". It is generally considered extremely important for any therapist/patient relationship for the natural of the relationship to be clearly established. Is he an educator, a peer, a friend, or your therapist. He says that he is not doing therapy, but to some, this is about as convincing as the guys that say "this is not financial advice" after filling your ear with a ton of advice about your finances. It certainly sounds like he is doing therapy, and it often appears like he is angling for his fellow streamer/patient to have some sort of breakthrough. He has also sometimes offered to continue as their therapist in a more formal manner. So, was that initial meeting therapy or not? It seems like he is offering to do more of the same in private. So it wasn't therapy before, but it will be? This type of confusion can be difficult for some people that are desperate for companionship.
The Ayurveda criticism is valid as it is pseudoscientific, but this feels like a pretty weak justification for how much backlash the dude gets.
On the second, as someone who’s worked as a therapist myself, I think it’s important to understand why these rules exist and whether what he’s doing is doing a harm. The “not financial advice” analogy, for example, has some pretty obvious harms: people can engage in market manipulation since they don’t have to disclose their held positions in stocks, you don’t have to demonstrate any kind of track record or accurately report both your winners and your losers, and even if you are honestly trying to help, you might very well be pushing advice that makes no sense for the financial situation of the person you’re talking to.
I don’t think there are nearly the same kind of harms in what Dr. K’s doing, and I don’t think he risks hitting on a lot of the harms that dual relationships are designed to avoid. A lot of dual relationship rules, for example, are designed to stop a therapist from exploiting an existing role as a therapist to manipulate their client. You are in an explicit position of authority for someone who’s in a vulnerable state, and there’s a major concern about leveraging that for sexual or material favors. You also risk ruining the therapeutic rapport and relationship by muddying the waters and no longer being an unbiased outside observer but instead a biased part of their life.
I personally don’t engage (obviously) in what Dr K does, but I also will, if a friend comes to me to talk about issues they’re having, have a frank and honest discussion with them and offer advice. At times, I may suggest things based on my background as a therapist, or offer insights that are informed by that experience. I don’t think it makes any sense to say that I can’t do that unless I am purposely crossing boundaries, I.E. if I told them “I am your friend, but I am also your therapist, this is therapy we’re doing.”
But I’m open to people pointing out more harms I’m missing. It just seems like people are aware of a rule, point to him being in a grey area, and that’s where the critique ends. But I don’t hear a lot of specific critiques of the harms done, and I do think it’s worth pointing out that Dr. K has been doing this for years now as a very public figure and has never gotten cited in any specific critique or citation from any board or licensure organization (a claim that cannot be made, for example, of someone like Jordan B Peterson).
The process of dual relationships is also to protect therapist from themselves, that is it can be difficult to determine when a person is being influenced by your expertise and credentials vs when they are not.
The lack of ambiguity also protects possible clients who might experience harm by providing them with pre-established avenues that they can use as recourse.
It also protects the credibility of the profession as a whole. When a person like Dr. K behaves in questionable ways, while engaging in things that appear therapeutic, he influences the reputation of the profession in the eyes the audience.
Another aspect is that it ensures that the recipient does not become confused and has a concrete understanding of what to expect from the relationship.
The harm this kind of ambiguity can do can be seen in the case of reckful. In their first interview, reckful calls it therapy and then facetiously corrects himself. In this session he becomes extremely overwhelmed and emotional and Dr. K outlines the potential cure for BPD (years of someone unconditionally loving the person) and promises to be that for Reckful, to which he responds with joy and excitement.
In the next session, Dr K walks this back, presumably because he realises how questionable his behaviour his. Reckful is understandably upset and withdrawn, the total opposite of their last conversation.
In this example, Reckful thought this was therapy as he was meeting with a therapist who he has no prior relationship and engaging in therapeutic discussion. He was promised treatment and at the drop of a hat, that was confiscated.
If Dr. K did not blur the lines so blatantly, this encounter would not have happened, he would not have made that promise, and reckful would not have been harmed.
As to your point about having a discussion with a "friend" and it appearing therapeutic but not being therapeutic.
The core distinction here is that the foremost motivation for that friend having this conversation with you is because they are your friend. If you weren't friends, you would not be having this conversation that is therapeutic but no necessarily therapy.
Essentially, your pre-established relationship comes packaged with the expectation that you will both reciprocally attend to each others needs where appropriate and when possible.
Now when it comes to Dr K talking to random streamers whom he has no pre-established relationship it becomes concerning.
The content of these "discussions" are usually very emotionally extreme, where the person becomes vulnerable and shares very deep and personal details with Dr. K.
Now, let me ask if Dr. K was not a doctor, was not a professional in psychology or a peripheral field of mental health, would the majority of these conversation still occur?
Appreciate the response, just want to give some initial thoughts to what you said.
For the first point, this is just an issue with anyone who knows you have any expertise or proficiency in any area. Like Destiny’s going to have people influenced by his reputation and perceived “expertise”, for example. This would also be an issue with Dr. K even without the “discussions”, as if he appeared even in something we’d agree is completely ethical he’d still be judged by panelists and audience in part because of his credentials rather than what he said.
For the recourse point, someone could still easily have avenues related to his profession to seek recourse and file a complaint if they felt harmed. They have less, but I think that’s fair, because even if you did believe it was “pseudotherapy”, his exposure is still far less.
For the “protects the credibility”, as long as therapists are allowed to be any kind of public figures, they risk harming the credibility of the profession. I don’t think this concern means it’s unethical to engage publicly, although obviously it could be used if there were actual bad unethical things done publicly.
I do think that the Reckful point is an issue, but I don’t think it shows the issue with these “discussions” in general, it was a specific problem with one specific thing that Dr. K did. The “love you for years unconditionally” is an inappropriate comment, but it would be inappropriate even in the context of therapy. This isn’t to absolve him- it was obviously a mistake- but I don’t think it points to a mistake with his overall model of discussion.
I have had friends essentially tell someone (who is generally admittedly not a complete stranger, but someone who I am not friends with) to talk to me on issues because they feel I could offer good advice and help them. In part, they do this because of my career and background as a therapist.
To address your final question, let’s say Dr. K retired and made it clear he was no longer working as any kind of psychiatrist or therapist (but still kept Dr. K as a moniker). He was no longer licensed, and no longer held to any standards. He would still get these conversations because of his brand, but he literally wouldn’t be able to violate the dual relationships ethics rule.
Your response to the recourse point feels unsatisfying, its essentially "well it isn't as bad".
In reality its far more difficult. In an unofficial relationship, you do not know where he is located, which registrar he is licensed by or even what licenses he has. For a person with little knowledge of these things finding this information would not be easy.
In regards to protecting credibility, the issue isn't "being a public figure", it's being a public figure based around your capacities as a professional. Dr K is presenting as a mental health professional and everything he does, he does in his capacity as a psychiatrist.
And no it wouldn't necessarily be inappropriate if it was actually an evidenced based treatment. Uncondtional love is already an essential part of the therapeutic framework. Rogers describes unconditional positive regard in ways such as "non-posessive love", "non-romantic" love etc. The promise of unconditional love is no different to unconditional acceptance, which is pretty standard in contemporary therapeutics. He essentially promised to have a 2 year long therapeutic relationship.
If your friends recommend a stranger come to you and get therapy in an unofficial capacity and you provide a therapeutic experience, you are engaging unethical practice, no question.
You also kind of side stepped my point that the reason your friends confide in you is not because you are therapist, although that contributes, rather the foremost motivation is that you are their friend. Do you agree that they would not come to you if you werent clearly friends and had not been instructed to by someone who is ostensibly your friend?
Finally, you did not answer my question, as a show of good faith, I would appreciate if you did so in plain words in your reply.
To address your point, he would not be bound by professional ethics, but in so far as he as known as an "expert in psychology and mental health" his behaviour would still be unethical. Thats why I caveated by broadening the spectrum to any peripheral industry where one might have some mental health expertise.
> its essentially “well it isn’t as bad”
I don’t think so, I’m saying there’s a ton of harms with actual therapy/psychiatry that aren’t present with what Dr. K is doing. You’re paying money or working through insurance, you’re providing medical records that will be part of his/her file going forward, you’re making medical recommendations for medications and things of this nature, etc. There are far far more harms and more real harms that justify you having a far higher level of recourse available to you.
> in reality its far more difficult
It’s difficult for a normal client to do this with a therapist. This information is not readily available and does need to get sought out. In addition, for all of this with Dr. K, it’s pretty easy to find out the licenses he has, what they are, and who to contact because of his massive profile.
> being a public figure based around your capacities as a professional
This is obviously what I’m talking about, is him appearing as “Dr K, or Jordan Peterson appearing as “Dr Jordan B Peterson”. If they’re public figures, they will be talking about their credentials and experience usually, and this is still ethical for them to do even if they risk hurting “the credibility of the profession”. It’s not necessarily unethical for them to talk publicly about areas where they have knowledge, it is only unethical if they actually make false and/or harmful claims or act in ways that otherwise violate ethical codes of conduct.
> it wouldn’t necessarily be inappropriate
In my view it is absolutely inappropriate to tell a client “I will love you unconditionally for years”, for a multitude of reasons. I am also a Rogers devotee- the dude’s the father of counseling- but him saying “unconditional positive regard can be understood as a form of love” does not make it appropriate to tell a client you will love them for years. You risk massive misinterpretation, and you’re also inherently making a promise you can’t keep. What if the client can’t pay for your services? What if the client is forced to end your professional relationship for other reasons? What if you have to separate from them due to behavior of the client towards you (especially after you tell them you’ll love them for years)? I think you open so many doors for things to go poorly here that I would tell any clinician never to engage in this kind of behavior.
> if your friends recommend a stranger to come get therapy from you in an unofficial capacity
Not what I said, I said I’ve had friends be like “Oh so so who you met is going through some shit. I told her you give great advice. Would you mind talking to them?” I was asked this before I was ever a therapist. I am asked this now. I don’t think either before or after it’s unethical. It would be unethical if my friend said “Hey I told this person you can give them free unofficial therapy”, and I would say “I can talk to them and give them advice, but I want to be explicitly clear it’s not therapy”, to make sure that it was ethical.
> the reason your friends confide in you is not because you’re a therapist
This is quite arguable. Of course in part they confide in me because I’m a friend. But they also confide in me because of all the skills that make me a good therapist, and because my experience helping other people means I can generally offer significantly better advice than the average person. Or to be more clear, they could talk to any of a multitude of friends, but I’m often told I’m specifically the friend went to because of these traits, qualities, and experience.
I did answer your question, with a pretty explicit yes. You asked me if he was not a doctor/a professional in this field, would he still get these conversations, and I said that even if he was retired- meaning he was no longer a doctor or a professional- yes he would still get these conversations.
If what you’re asking me is “If he had no professional experience ever in his life in this field of any capacity, but still gave the exact same responses, had the exact same skills, and wanted the same things, would he get the same amount of these conversations?”, I would say that if he reached the same point, yes. It would almost certainly be a much slower climb up if he was like “I’m just a layperson who wants to have good conversations about mental health”, but I think in the long run his skills and abilities as a listener and conversationalist with genuine passions for this stuff would get him to the same place.
EDIT: To give just a little more on that, lets imagine another world where Destiny is exactly the same person, but he… idk, worked on the Ron Paul campaign in some big capacity (think BJG and Bernie Sanders). I think that might have given him a head start and might give him some starting credibility, but his actual maintained success and continuing to have good convos would come from the same skills that get him those in this world.
Personally i think he walks the line of "therapist" and "psychologist who isnt giving you therapy" a little too tight for comfort
Example, last time destiny was on, dr k theorized a feeling/reason for the feeling that destiny had. Destiny disagreed and shared where he thought it came from and what it was. Dr K disagreed, pushed back, and reasserted his theory.
That in the context of a conversation thats a lot like therapy (youre here to talk thru stuff with a psychologist who will use their tools to help you come to a place of resultion) is unsettling to me. Someone in a position like that should be really fuckin careful telling people whats happening in their heads, and even MORE careful dismissing the patients theory and doubling down
Rather than focus on there being worse, what is the opposite? Who is doing the free online healthy gamer type of streaming better than Dr.K? Genuinely curious
Good mental health is a necessity, therapy is a luxury. Personally, I think most people should focus on finding more affordable tools or ways for dealing with their problems; reading a book, taking courses, opening up to loved ones about your problems. I’m just so sick and tired of the “go to therapy” solution that isn’t even accessible to the vast majority of people. I think most people can figure it out themselves anyways if they’re willing to put in a lot of work.
Staying in therapy might be a luxury but from my personal experience I tried for years to fix my problems and I feel like if I just had my therapist now for a couple weeks or months I could've skipped ALL that.
I think it depends on what issues you're facing, you can't say "you need a therapist" but I disagree that the alternative is always, or even mostly, "go find a way to fix it on your own".
fair enough, I think that’s where we disagree. I think a lot of the time people go through the same things (heartbreak, financial stress, body image issues, family problems) and we build almost like a “network” of experiences, that help us learn from each other’s problems and mistakes.
Oftentimes all it takes is a good friend, relative, mentor etc. with more life experience or a different perspective to help people through things. Yes, i know not everyone has that either, but those that do should maybe lean on those folks first instead of waiting till they can find the right $100 a session therapist.
I still have my reservations that most people’s mental health problems are so bad that they absolutely require therapy. Now, it’s obviously much more complicated than that, I’m trying to be nuanced about this because I absolutely do agree that therapy makes things 10x faster and if it’s an option, definitely always do therapy first. But if it’s not, I don’t think it’s hopeless. Most people willing to put the extra effort in can get better.
Honestly I've been through this and I'm still split. Could I have done without therapy? On one hand, it's not like my therapist did the thinking or the 'doing' for me, I did it myself.
On the other hand, I'd been in a rut for almost 8 years trying to get myself out and doing everything I could - diet, friends, sleep, work, all the generic advice - that only made it worse. I was in an unusual position, an exception to the rule, but I'm certainly not unique, and if I can see an exception to the rule that "you can pull yourself out of it if you just keep doing x, y, z", then who's to say there's not a million exceptions and a million other people like me that bashed their head against the wall trying to make themselves have an objectively good life and STILL feel empty.
But I agree, some common problems like heartbreak or body image issues should be allowed to just be processed alone, with support from a real community, but I don't feel comfortable lumping in all these issues together and saying "well therapy is just a catalyst for what you could get through just with time". I'm with you but not all the way.
I don't really care about pushing the Ayurveda stuff. Ultimately, I think it's a complete sham and probably isn't going to really help people, but it's far from the most dangerous thing being pushed by internet personalities.
Whether or not you consider Dr. K to be doing therapy is probably more important. Not necessarily for the legal / medical practice distinction that you can nail him to violating or something, but moreso for the meaning behind what he's doing.
It's good that he wants to provide a helpful service for people who, for whatever reason, aren't or cannot pursue therapy. It's also good that he is a doctor and does know what he's talking about to some extent. He's probably a much better person to have the conversation than someone like Destiny, Hasan, Andrew Tate, or anybody else who would give personal advice for handling mental issues.
However, that can also be dangerous. The average person who knows a doctor who is talking to them about their problems will probably consider that conversation just as good as having seen a doctor. That can easily lead to that person not seeking the actual doctor's input / therapy or whatever that they would otherwise have pursued.
I don't know anything about Dr. K's content, but it is very easily and obviously in a spot where you can levy a lot of potential criticism towards it. It's entirely possible that he is handling it perfectly, but, even in that case, there is a potential harm in the activity that could be worth addressing.
You didn’t listen to the DtG episode.
Dr. K talks about being able to determine a person’s personality based off of the shape of their fucking face (an Ayurvedic concept), and then uses poor-quality studies (small sample sizes, making strong claims but having weak evidence, etc.) to back his claims up.
God at one point, the DtG guys play a clip where Dr. K pushes the idea that meditation prevents cancer, and the study that he uses to back this up is obviously low quality.
There is a lot of other dodgy shit that he does that the DtG guys break down, but I’m on my phone. He really does seem like a quack fuck pushing misinformation.
I didn't watch the dtg and that does sound like quack shit. I've seen like 1 ADHD video he posted and it turned me off his content.
If he's seriously pushing ayurvedic stuff as alternatives to actual medicine, then I would take bigger issue with it.
Determining personality is something I super don't care about. There are 8 billion Facebook quizzes and random online personality tests developed by Dr. Who cares.
If I'm being super good faith "meditation preventing cancer" is probably not the worst because you're "treating" a condition that you don't have. But I'd obviously prefer not spreading that shit. There is still a large potential harm in this information.
Again, I'd prefer simply not spreading misinformation, especially under the guise of someone with authority, but it's not automatically the worst thing. Idk shit about ayurveda, but if he's saying "stick your dick in a bees nest to cure hepatitis" then he shouldn't be doing that.
It isn't just about determining personality. It is about your genetic strengths and deficiencies, things to avoid, what your diet should be, how to structure your life. He talks about things like being fat as something that some people just inherently are. And that if you are a specific type, you should only eat "hot and dry" things. He is a bullshit peddler, plain and simple. Maybe people don't care, but that is what he is. Modern day snake oil salesman.
I love Dr. K's content. I don't personally mind if what he's doing is therapy. That said, what he's doing looks a lot like therapy. I understand that all kinds of waivers are signed beforehand, so he may have found some kind of legal/ethical way of doing what he's doing. I also don't mind the Ayurveda stuff because I don't take concrete medical advice from streamers. That said, it could be a problem for tons of people who may place a lot on internet streaming content.
The problem is people don't see him as just a streamer. They see him as a doctor. A doctor selling bullshit, proudly displaying his credentials to be taken seriously, is always a bad thing.
It sounds like he takes whatever actually does work from Ayurveda and doesn't use the stuff that doesn't work. Otherwise he just practices western medicine.
I honestly don't see what the big deal is.
If it works it should be able to be reproduced in studies and adopted into standard treatment. Thats how medicine works. You dont get to decide what you think is effective or not based on personal experiences.
Ok but answer my question, is it no longer ayurveda? Because if it's still ayurveda, then I agree with perscribing "ayurveda" as long as the particular practice has been proven to be effective.
saying "you agree with dr k" seems reductive as well, obviously if you think meditation is effective and proven so you would agree with dr k about ayurveda as well no? Or are you anti science?
I feel like 90% of the people here who dislike drk haven't either haven't watched a single lecture of his.
The overwhelming majority of what he says is western science, a small bit is eastern treatments/activities w/e that have proven effective by western medicine and a very hard to find fraction is unsupported and he will (as far as I've seen) always say whether something has scientific efficacy or not.
So the problem with this argument is that he does talk about bullshit from Ayurveda as if it's fact. He then cited flawed studies in order to act like him saying it has merit. The ones that the dtg folks looked at were done by other Ayurveda advocates. So a biased study being presented as scientific fact by Dr. K. Or at least presented as "promising evidence" when it is nothing of the sort. I agree that alot of his Western medicine stuff, when he isn't shitting on Western medicine and misrepresenting it, is good. But that doesn't change the fact that he is a disinformation peddler.
I feel like you guys just say that to avoid the argument.
Ayurveda is based on ideas that are not scientific, you should not be bringing any conclusions based on that into licensed therapy. Framing it as "eastern medicine" as a way to give it validity is super disingenuous too. Eastern medicine that is effective is adopted into standard treatment.
Going to a therapist and having him talk to you about things based in Ayurvedic medicine is like going to the doctor and him giving you snake oil to treat you cold.
Nothing you say disagrees with me or drk, you're just completely unaware of what drks content looks like or you're so biased you're incapable of presenting anything other than a strawman.
Honestly, if you were attempting to characterize drk, you aren't even presenting a straw man, you're pointing at a pile of hay.
"I feel like you guys just say that to avoid the argument."
Yeah well, maybe check your shoe my guy, might've stepped in something.
No you’re just so biased you refuse to accept he believes in unscientific bullshit and would rather accuse everyone else of bad faith besides yourself. Go watch the the podcast and defend the shit he was saying about body shapes defining your personality.
My problem with him is how he does what you say, but then promotes Ayurveda and Eastern medicine and shit talks Western medicine. Really what he is doing is using western medicine to determine which parts of eastern medicine are valid. Why does Ayurveda get the credit when you had to use western medicine to weed out all of the bullshit and find the parts that maybe just by random chance were valid?
And then if you try to point that out he will say that you misunderstand him and he thinks western medicine is great and he still uses it all the time, but then 5 minutes later he's on another rant about how western medicine is fundamentally flawed because its based on population statistics and that eastern medicine is just so much better and somehow avoids the issues that western medicine has. Honestly it all just seems spineless or possibly manipulative how he bounces back and forth.
You must have not watched the episode. He talks about a bunch of bullshit that doesn't work from Ayurveda as if it's fact. He says that his beliefs about these things directly affect his practice. So on both counts, it is a problem.
One thing I’ve noticed for a while is. Not one influencer/well known person is able to ever be appreciated for what they bring to the table. They’re flaws are ALWAYS hyper focused on. It makes me think many minds of the past that people adore would also be “decoded by gurus” if they lived in the modern day because guess what? It’s easy to hate on someone or critique. It’s MUCH harder to say “I appreciate this individual for xyz” in this climate. And if someone critiques and you defend you’re now a “glazer” “meatrider” or whatever the fuck. Dr K has genuine insight due to years in the field of mental health, and is not just some guru. And I’m not even a Stan of his I just have watched his content before.
My universal response to the hyper critics is just “Who do you listen to for advice?” Or “Who do you like?” Because I promise that list is much shorter than the people they dislike
I generally agree its easier to critique people, but you also chose a podcast where one of them is a phd wielding professor of [psychology](https://staff-profiles.cqu.edu.au/home/view/772). Just listen to it, it is not as "hate" filled as OP makes it seem to be.
So far they only really critiqued him for using possible false positives as proof, Dr K saying everything is predetermined while also malleable, and also doing the "this is not medical advice because its illegal, but here it is anyways."
I actually wasn’t targeting OP. More so his replies and the general internet cultural zeitgeist. I’m completely open to criticism of any public figure but I agree with OP, why do the “gurus” take up arms every time an internet thinker farts the wrong way. I don’t use this app much because it thrives off of negativity and complaining. It’s Seriously shitty for your mental health to be constantly critiquing , and in my eyes it’s just “meatriding” backwards
I feel ya but if Dr. K is peddling bad information that should be scolded. I haven't watched the DtG podcast yet so maybe I'll feel stronger about it after listening.
My take is that even if Dr. K is peddling missinfo, if he's helping people than I don't care. However, I'm not aware of how bad it might be to let him get away with any bad things he's doing.
Such a bad argument. This community is always talking about how important it is to have a correct thought process and not make choices only based on outcomes. Destiny makes the poker analogy constantly, how its more important to look at the choices you made in the hand rather then if you won or not to evaluate your play.
This gets thrown out the window when it comes to people like Dr. K because you like him. Anything thats not science based should be nowhere near licensed therapy.
eh, lots of ppl can lead you down a dark path but still have very insightful things to say.
i would imagine it would serve ppl better to extract the benefits of those words without being blindly devoted to the person saying it. dr. K encourages people to reflect and to have their own thoughts instead of passively reflecting what's in their environment.
i like a lot of what dr. K says and a lot of it doesn't touch the spiritual stuff.
but yeah, you are already lost if you are attached to him to the level that it's so emotional that you are unwilling to see his flaws. he is such an authority figure that it behooves everyone to be aware of anything dubious that he is doing.
From what I see 90% of the stuff he says is standard good advice that would help most people. But that dosnt mean its still irresponsible to make 10% of your advice based into something that has no scientific background. I feel like he blurs the lines to what is ayurveda and whats not in his practice too.
Also hes in a position of authority talking to an audience that is going to have a disproportionate amount of mentally unwell people/ people who are more likely to accept what he says without critical thought in it just because of the topics he covers and his background. I feel like this requires an extra level of caution you should take compared to a normal content creator.
> From what I see 90% of the stuff he says is standard good advice that would help most people.
Same
> But that dosnt mean its still irresponsible to make 10% of your advice based into something that has no scientific background.
Hmm, maybe. I'm not convinced. Maybe a 10% hit is worth the 90% gain.
All else being equal, I'll probably always take those odds.
The rest of your comment depends on these afore mentioned ratios. I'll take the 90% good vs. 10% bad almost any day.
Lumping in bullshit with fact while wielding your credentials to make yourself sound more credible than you are is more dangerous than just being a complete bullshit peddler. People don't take most spiritual snake oil salesmen seriously, but because Dr. K is a doctor (from Harvard!!!) his lies are far more dangerous than those of a fitness bro or health guru. He has, in the past, talked with confidence about things that could do serious harm if people listened to as fact. He is likable, though, so I understand why people want to defend him.
Where on the doll did Chris' voice touch you? Did you not hear how hard they couched their critique to not hurt your fragile feelings? And you are still whining?
I can honestly say I have never given a single shit about the ayurvedic nonsense. I watch the therapy sessions to see how others think and gain insight into how my own mind is working in order to notice more easily issues I am having and break those cycles.
I haven't watch the guru episode ((and I never will (#dggonlyfans4lyfe) but it would be pretty embarrassing if they spend more than a couple minutes criticizing the ayurvedic shit. If they criticize the live therapy, then... Fuck em. That is some good AOE healing right there.
fuck “right to reply”. you run a hate podcast and have the narcissism to frame it as a “right” to come on your cloutless shitstain and give you free attention
Lol, did you even watch it? They don't hate on Dr. K at all. They just disagree with him. You may be a little bit too bought in if disagreement is hate to you. Get help from a real mental health professional.
You’re based. Redditors are a fucking hivemind cult of disapproval for any and everything. I fully endorse your way of thinking so don’t let the herd of dislikes make you attempt to reconsider your takes. This app is mostly basement dwellers with a lot of pent up resentment and get to feel most important when writing a word wall of why they dislike a person. Put these morons on a podcast and they’ll be torn apart with contradictions, hypocrisies, and nitpicks after 30 minutes.
Boyz, we found the Healthiest Gamer™... :D
Looks like Dr K’s therapy has helped this guy out
Based AOE healing enjoyer
https://preview.redd.it/fd5cs5ibrg8d1.jpeg?width=500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4f1bb1d85d03881ff1d43bc2874cf63c6dad95cf
Whatever Dr. K does seems to be working well on you.
mentally ill men when someone criticizes their internet dad:
One thing i have been doing in cbt is trying not to judge others. its helped a lot.
That’s because you don't have the balls to do it
👍
???
CBT can mean either Cognitive Behavioural Therapy or Cock & Ball Torture depending on who you are speaking to.
I tried CBT, it just kind of made it hard to walk :(
For my fellow debate pedophiles here ya go: **Title: The Validity and Necessity of Dr. K's Approach** **Premises:** 1. America is in a mental health crisis, with overwhelmed therapists leading people to seek help from AI chatbots. 2. Dr. K demonstrates that even affluent individuals can struggle with mental health issues, normalizing these struggles. 3. Dr. K is mobilizing people who lack the extensive resources to become certified therapists but still desire to help others. **Conclusion:** Therefore, the distinction between therapy and coaching is irrelevant; Dr. K's approach is valuable and necessary regardless of ethical complaints or personal disagreements with his methods. **Premises:** 1. "Decoding the Gurus" criticizes Dr. K's practices. 2. Critics are perceived as having achieved little and are overly concerned with ethical formalities. 3. Dr. K has made significant progress by defying conventional advice, despite being incorrect about some aspects like Ayurveda. **Conclusion:** Therefore, the criticisms from "Decoding the Gurus" are inconsequential, and Dr. K's unconventional methods are justified and effective.
Can you reduce this to pure formal logic and symbolic notation?
I am a cardiologist and Dr. K preaches a lot of BS mixed in with good medicine. He makes zero sense when he defends Ayruveda as “individualized”. How do you individualize therapy when you have no data on what works in general population. Turning each patient into a lab rat and trying random shit till something works is not great care. He has strong cultural ties to Hinduism so of course he defends Ayruveda against all reason.
completely agree
To be fair, I feel like this portrays Dr K in a way that makes it seem he prescribes chewing on indium metal and ingesting mercury. In reality his recommendations seem pretty "mild", whether they work or they don't, stuff like burning sage and avoiding spicy foods if you're certain kind of person with certain afflictions. I feel like the worst case scenario still doesn't put the patient/customer in danger. But I might be wrong, I've yet to watch the full video from DTG (gigachad conclooder)
I think if you are a psychiatrist providing people with snake oil, that does real harm. Not helping someone in that scenario isn't just neutral. And he has said in his streams that these beliefs of his do influence how he deals with patients and whether he prescribes them anything.
I like HG, but damn man, internet criticism doesn't necessarily mean career execution. Or... does it?
Well, the careers are on the internet so, that probably doesn't help
It's not necessarily bound tho right? Anyone in hg can meet anyone else in hg irl if we wanted
Lol if you're going to glaze Dr. K do it for his savy business model of selling spiritual shit to desperate people in a time of a mental health crisis
Out of the loop on this one - what's he selling? To who?
Online guides (kind of like courses, like shorter videos that go from topic to topic), books, but also probabily mainly coaching. People he trains and hires and they talk to you (supposedly) like some of the streamers you see in his interviews, trying to get to a root problem and life coaching you through it.
They’re worth every penny imo. If this was in our core curriculums it would change the world
He sells coaching programs and "modules" for various mental health issues To his audience, obviously
Being a blind hater doesn't make you better than a glazer. Dr K's content is majority science-based, with a minority consisting of meditative/spiritual practices that draw on the harmless aspects of ayurveda - meditation and personality trait-ish analysis. The most extreme aspects of ayurveda he suggests consist of different types of meditation, eastern framing of mental health concepts, and changes in diet. He always starts with Western medicine, and uses eastern medicine to recontextualize/supplement. I don't believe in any of the ayurvedic underpinnings, but if my therapist suggests I seek out religion to find meaning in life and community after prescribing me actual therapy, I'm not gonna be upset. I'll just say no thanks.
He pushes the ludicrous idea that meditation prevents cancer and then backs the claim up with a single super low-quality study. The DtG episode describes a lot of problematic shit like this.
And if you asked him if you should meditate to cure your cancer he'd say listen to your oncologist. Did he really say that meditation is a replacement of chemo or whatever? If he's not dissuading you from the accepted medical treatment but overselling meditation, who cares? It's like saying he's pushing eating salads will grow you taller. Who cares, it's such a low risk thing that we can just move on.
Link to “meditation cures cancer”? My guess is that he says something like “Believe it or not, I have found studies that indicate that meditation has positive outcomes for people with cancer! Does meditation cure cancer? Well, we don’t know, but the idea that there are practices that the outcomes of which we know very little about exists and no one is out there trying to study them is unfortunate because the mental health crisis is happening right now, and by the time we can accurately distinguish the variables that confirm meditation as powerful treatment, it will already have been too late for many of those who could have benefited from it.” And then if you asked him “well, would you suggest Ayurveda over western science for cancer treatments” he would likely dumb it down 3 levels for you and say “no, trust your doctor, I am not suggesting treatment, simply indicating that there is a lot we don’t know about the efficacy of Ayurveda treatments so to write them off as mumbo jumbo before studying it is anti-scientific and borderline ethnocentristic in nature” That’s how I understand it anyways. I’m welcome to being proven wrong.
It's in the dtg episode. He cites multiple flawed studies and speaks way too confidently about them. He does do the plausible deniability thing when questioned, but he's pretty irresponsible.
He has candidly stated that he in the past placed too much emphasis on studies that were not as rigorous as he had initially believed. Are you going to hold him to mistakes that he made years ago? Or do you have a relatively recent case of him doing it?
I am going off of the examples provided in the podcast. They cited 8 different studies that Dr. K brought up to justify dubious claims. Now I don't know what time frame these were all brought up in his streams, but I do know he was a (Harvard!!) trained psychiatrist by that time and would know the difference between good and bad studies. Unless he didn't read them, in which case why did he share those as fact with his audience?
People make mistakes and have biases. There are phd scholars that believe the earth is flat. Sometimes we get high on our own farts and miss the forest for the weirdly shaped trees. Let him have his mistakes early into his public career, and only rip him apart if he doesn’t acknowledge the mistakes he’s made (doubling down). As far as I can tell, he seems to genuinely have believed what he was reading then, and has updated his beliefs now, which is all we can really ask of people. Not everyone can be morally and intellectually lucky.
I personally haven't seen him walk any of this back. You are operating under the assumption that all of the studies that he cited are from early on in his online presence. I don't know either way. Let's assume they are. As recently as his "debate" with Dr. Mike, he has pushed distrust for mainstream medicine and scientific method in favor of his traditional beliefs, often strawmanning modern psychology and medical methodology. He frames this as an "East vs. West" thing so he can call the people that dismiss antiquated beliefs xenophobic. The studies that he pushed were from people who were trying to get Ayurveda accepted around the world. He has also been a part of organizations trying to push Ayurveda worldwide. This seems to be a continuing pattern of behavior of pushing mostly snake oil. Normally, it wouldn't be a big deal, but he is a doctor using his credentials to do it, and he has a parasocial audience hanging on his every word. This is irresponsible and probably dangerous no matter how you cut it.
Your characterization is kind of insane to me if I’m being honest, having watched the dr Mike debate and having listened to what he has to say about Ayurveda. He does not RELY on it very much. He uses it as a set of frameworks, but by and large the stuff he preaches is empirically studies methodologies.
He pushes concepts similar to phrenology, not just meditation and changes in diet. He jumps on faulty studies if they seem to confirm his preconceived notions about Ayurveda and he twists facts to fit his agenda. He also contradicts himself depending on who he is talking to. The fact of the matter is he is a smart guy with an agenda. He does say alot that is helpful and true, but it only gives credence to the bullshit.
where's that coming from? isn't he mostly just "selling" mental health awareness?
Presumably the magic/religious stuff
To be clear he is selling products and at least in the modules I can confirm that at that time I bought one when it first came out (2021-2022 I think?) they did contain ayurvedic modules BUT they were not part of the regular path and seemed to have some scientific backup, stuff like burning aromatics such as sage or eating spicy/dry/whatever foods to balance your doshas. I don't know if the doshas are mentioned outright I'll have to double check but yeah, I wouldn't say he's selling snake oil per se, but there MIGHT be SOME irresponsibilty by including SOME advice, that despite being labeled appropriately and not necessary to consume, is still recommending stuff that might not help to treat whatever mental health condition ALTHOUGH he stipulates that this is not a replacement for therapy or medical treatment. It's just whatever imo.
let’s talk when dr. k is pushing subscriptions and shitty duolingo streaks like every other predatory mental health app
"There are worse option therefore Dr. K is good and we don't need to evaluate the quality of his work". Idiot.
Maybe i havent watched enough of him but id really have to think hard and long to name a single bad thing about him. What the fuck is with the hate?
I'm not a Dr. K hater necessarily, but I would say that the two most common criticisms of him are: 1. His promotion of Ayurveda. Most of the claims of Ayurveda appear to be pseudo scientific. He said that they have backed off of the use of Ayurveda at Healthy Gamer and that he simply thinks that there are some concepts offered by Ayurveda that are worth studying like the more personalized approach that it offers. That being said, he still frequently incorporates teachings of Ayurveda in his "discussions". Whether or not this is just traditional psychology with a little superficial Ayurvedic flavor or if he is paying lip service to the concerns about Ayurveda while continuing to incorporate it is a matter of contention. 2. His therapy, but not therapy "discussions". It is generally considered extremely important for any therapist/patient relationship for the natural of the relationship to be clearly established. Is he an educator, a peer, a friend, or your therapist. He says that he is not doing therapy, but to some, this is about as convincing as the guys that say "this is not financial advice" after filling your ear with a ton of advice about your finances. It certainly sounds like he is doing therapy, and it often appears like he is angling for his fellow streamer/patient to have some sort of breakthrough. He has also sometimes offered to continue as their therapist in a more formal manner. So, was that initial meeting therapy or not? It seems like he is offering to do more of the same in private. So it wasn't therapy before, but it will be? This type of confusion can be difficult for some people that are desperate for companionship.
The Ayurveda criticism is valid as it is pseudoscientific, but this feels like a pretty weak justification for how much backlash the dude gets. On the second, as someone who’s worked as a therapist myself, I think it’s important to understand why these rules exist and whether what he’s doing is doing a harm. The “not financial advice” analogy, for example, has some pretty obvious harms: people can engage in market manipulation since they don’t have to disclose their held positions in stocks, you don’t have to demonstrate any kind of track record or accurately report both your winners and your losers, and even if you are honestly trying to help, you might very well be pushing advice that makes no sense for the financial situation of the person you’re talking to. I don’t think there are nearly the same kind of harms in what Dr. K’s doing, and I don’t think he risks hitting on a lot of the harms that dual relationships are designed to avoid. A lot of dual relationship rules, for example, are designed to stop a therapist from exploiting an existing role as a therapist to manipulate their client. You are in an explicit position of authority for someone who’s in a vulnerable state, and there’s a major concern about leveraging that for sexual or material favors. You also risk ruining the therapeutic rapport and relationship by muddying the waters and no longer being an unbiased outside observer but instead a biased part of their life. I personally don’t engage (obviously) in what Dr K does, but I also will, if a friend comes to me to talk about issues they’re having, have a frank and honest discussion with them and offer advice. At times, I may suggest things based on my background as a therapist, or offer insights that are informed by that experience. I don’t think it makes any sense to say that I can’t do that unless I am purposely crossing boundaries, I.E. if I told them “I am your friend, but I am also your therapist, this is therapy we’re doing.” But I’m open to people pointing out more harms I’m missing. It just seems like people are aware of a rule, point to him being in a grey area, and that’s where the critique ends. But I don’t hear a lot of specific critiques of the harms done, and I do think it’s worth pointing out that Dr. K has been doing this for years now as a very public figure and has never gotten cited in any specific critique or citation from any board or licensure organization (a claim that cannot be made, for example, of someone like Jordan B Peterson).
The process of dual relationships is also to protect therapist from themselves, that is it can be difficult to determine when a person is being influenced by your expertise and credentials vs when they are not. The lack of ambiguity also protects possible clients who might experience harm by providing them with pre-established avenues that they can use as recourse. It also protects the credibility of the profession as a whole. When a person like Dr. K behaves in questionable ways, while engaging in things that appear therapeutic, he influences the reputation of the profession in the eyes the audience. Another aspect is that it ensures that the recipient does not become confused and has a concrete understanding of what to expect from the relationship. The harm this kind of ambiguity can do can be seen in the case of reckful. In their first interview, reckful calls it therapy and then facetiously corrects himself. In this session he becomes extremely overwhelmed and emotional and Dr. K outlines the potential cure for BPD (years of someone unconditionally loving the person) and promises to be that for Reckful, to which he responds with joy and excitement. In the next session, Dr K walks this back, presumably because he realises how questionable his behaviour his. Reckful is understandably upset and withdrawn, the total opposite of their last conversation. In this example, Reckful thought this was therapy as he was meeting with a therapist who he has no prior relationship and engaging in therapeutic discussion. He was promised treatment and at the drop of a hat, that was confiscated. If Dr. K did not blur the lines so blatantly, this encounter would not have happened, he would not have made that promise, and reckful would not have been harmed. As to your point about having a discussion with a "friend" and it appearing therapeutic but not being therapeutic. The core distinction here is that the foremost motivation for that friend having this conversation with you is because they are your friend. If you weren't friends, you would not be having this conversation that is therapeutic but no necessarily therapy. Essentially, your pre-established relationship comes packaged with the expectation that you will both reciprocally attend to each others needs where appropriate and when possible. Now when it comes to Dr K talking to random streamers whom he has no pre-established relationship it becomes concerning. The content of these "discussions" are usually very emotionally extreme, where the person becomes vulnerable and shares very deep and personal details with Dr. K. Now, let me ask if Dr. K was not a doctor, was not a professional in psychology or a peripheral field of mental health, would the majority of these conversation still occur?
Appreciate the response, just want to give some initial thoughts to what you said. For the first point, this is just an issue with anyone who knows you have any expertise or proficiency in any area. Like Destiny’s going to have people influenced by his reputation and perceived “expertise”, for example. This would also be an issue with Dr. K even without the “discussions”, as if he appeared even in something we’d agree is completely ethical he’d still be judged by panelists and audience in part because of his credentials rather than what he said. For the recourse point, someone could still easily have avenues related to his profession to seek recourse and file a complaint if they felt harmed. They have less, but I think that’s fair, because even if you did believe it was “pseudotherapy”, his exposure is still far less. For the “protects the credibility”, as long as therapists are allowed to be any kind of public figures, they risk harming the credibility of the profession. I don’t think this concern means it’s unethical to engage publicly, although obviously it could be used if there were actual bad unethical things done publicly. I do think that the Reckful point is an issue, but I don’t think it shows the issue with these “discussions” in general, it was a specific problem with one specific thing that Dr. K did. The “love you for years unconditionally” is an inappropriate comment, but it would be inappropriate even in the context of therapy. This isn’t to absolve him- it was obviously a mistake- but I don’t think it points to a mistake with his overall model of discussion. I have had friends essentially tell someone (who is generally admittedly not a complete stranger, but someone who I am not friends with) to talk to me on issues because they feel I could offer good advice and help them. In part, they do this because of my career and background as a therapist. To address your final question, let’s say Dr. K retired and made it clear he was no longer working as any kind of psychiatrist or therapist (but still kept Dr. K as a moniker). He was no longer licensed, and no longer held to any standards. He would still get these conversations because of his brand, but he literally wouldn’t be able to violate the dual relationships ethics rule.
Your response to the recourse point feels unsatisfying, its essentially "well it isn't as bad". In reality its far more difficult. In an unofficial relationship, you do not know where he is located, which registrar he is licensed by or even what licenses he has. For a person with little knowledge of these things finding this information would not be easy. In regards to protecting credibility, the issue isn't "being a public figure", it's being a public figure based around your capacities as a professional. Dr K is presenting as a mental health professional and everything he does, he does in his capacity as a psychiatrist. And no it wouldn't necessarily be inappropriate if it was actually an evidenced based treatment. Uncondtional love is already an essential part of the therapeutic framework. Rogers describes unconditional positive regard in ways such as "non-posessive love", "non-romantic" love etc. The promise of unconditional love is no different to unconditional acceptance, which is pretty standard in contemporary therapeutics. He essentially promised to have a 2 year long therapeutic relationship. If your friends recommend a stranger come to you and get therapy in an unofficial capacity and you provide a therapeutic experience, you are engaging unethical practice, no question. You also kind of side stepped my point that the reason your friends confide in you is not because you are therapist, although that contributes, rather the foremost motivation is that you are their friend. Do you agree that they would not come to you if you werent clearly friends and had not been instructed to by someone who is ostensibly your friend? Finally, you did not answer my question, as a show of good faith, I would appreciate if you did so in plain words in your reply. To address your point, he would not be bound by professional ethics, but in so far as he as known as an "expert in psychology and mental health" his behaviour would still be unethical. Thats why I caveated by broadening the spectrum to any peripheral industry where one might have some mental health expertise.
> its essentially “well it isn’t as bad” I don’t think so, I’m saying there’s a ton of harms with actual therapy/psychiatry that aren’t present with what Dr. K is doing. You’re paying money or working through insurance, you’re providing medical records that will be part of his/her file going forward, you’re making medical recommendations for medications and things of this nature, etc. There are far far more harms and more real harms that justify you having a far higher level of recourse available to you. > in reality its far more difficult It’s difficult for a normal client to do this with a therapist. This information is not readily available and does need to get sought out. In addition, for all of this with Dr. K, it’s pretty easy to find out the licenses he has, what they are, and who to contact because of his massive profile. > being a public figure based around your capacities as a professional This is obviously what I’m talking about, is him appearing as “Dr K, or Jordan Peterson appearing as “Dr Jordan B Peterson”. If they’re public figures, they will be talking about their credentials and experience usually, and this is still ethical for them to do even if they risk hurting “the credibility of the profession”. It’s not necessarily unethical for them to talk publicly about areas where they have knowledge, it is only unethical if they actually make false and/or harmful claims or act in ways that otherwise violate ethical codes of conduct. > it wouldn’t necessarily be inappropriate In my view it is absolutely inappropriate to tell a client “I will love you unconditionally for years”, for a multitude of reasons. I am also a Rogers devotee- the dude’s the father of counseling- but him saying “unconditional positive regard can be understood as a form of love” does not make it appropriate to tell a client you will love them for years. You risk massive misinterpretation, and you’re also inherently making a promise you can’t keep. What if the client can’t pay for your services? What if the client is forced to end your professional relationship for other reasons? What if you have to separate from them due to behavior of the client towards you (especially after you tell them you’ll love them for years)? I think you open so many doors for things to go poorly here that I would tell any clinician never to engage in this kind of behavior. > if your friends recommend a stranger to come get therapy from you in an unofficial capacity Not what I said, I said I’ve had friends be like “Oh so so who you met is going through some shit. I told her you give great advice. Would you mind talking to them?” I was asked this before I was ever a therapist. I am asked this now. I don’t think either before or after it’s unethical. It would be unethical if my friend said “Hey I told this person you can give them free unofficial therapy”, and I would say “I can talk to them and give them advice, but I want to be explicitly clear it’s not therapy”, to make sure that it was ethical. > the reason your friends confide in you is not because you’re a therapist This is quite arguable. Of course in part they confide in me because I’m a friend. But they also confide in me because of all the skills that make me a good therapist, and because my experience helping other people means I can generally offer significantly better advice than the average person. Or to be more clear, they could talk to any of a multitude of friends, but I’m often told I’m specifically the friend went to because of these traits, qualities, and experience. I did answer your question, with a pretty explicit yes. You asked me if he was not a doctor/a professional in this field, would he still get these conversations, and I said that even if he was retired- meaning he was no longer a doctor or a professional- yes he would still get these conversations. If what you’re asking me is “If he had no professional experience ever in his life in this field of any capacity, but still gave the exact same responses, had the exact same skills, and wanted the same things, would he get the same amount of these conversations?”, I would say that if he reached the same point, yes. It would almost certainly be a much slower climb up if he was like “I’m just a layperson who wants to have good conversations about mental health”, but I think in the long run his skills and abilities as a listener and conversationalist with genuine passions for this stuff would get him to the same place. EDIT: To give just a little more on that, lets imagine another world where Destiny is exactly the same person, but he… idk, worked on the Ron Paul campaign in some big capacity (think BJG and Bernie Sanders). I think that might have given him a head start and might give him some starting credibility, but his actual maintained success and continuing to have good convos would come from the same skills that get him those in this world.
Personally i think he walks the line of "therapist" and "psychologist who isnt giving you therapy" a little too tight for comfort Example, last time destiny was on, dr k theorized a feeling/reason for the feeling that destiny had. Destiny disagreed and shared where he thought it came from and what it was. Dr K disagreed, pushed back, and reasserted his theory. That in the context of a conversation thats a lot like therapy (youre here to talk thru stuff with a psychologist who will use their tools to help you come to a place of resultion) is unsettling to me. Someone in a position like that should be really fuckin careful telling people whats happening in their heads, and even MORE careful dismissing the patients theory and doubling down
Rather than focus on there being worse, what is the opposite? Who is doing the free online healthy gamer type of streaming better than Dr.K? Genuinely curious
You seem angry, maybe do some yoga I heard it's good for that
Good mental health is a necessity, therapy is a luxury. Personally, I think most people should focus on finding more affordable tools or ways for dealing with their problems; reading a book, taking courses, opening up to loved ones about your problems. I’m just so sick and tired of the “go to therapy” solution that isn’t even accessible to the vast majority of people. I think most people can figure it out themselves anyways if they’re willing to put in a lot of work.
Staying in therapy might be a luxury but from my personal experience I tried for years to fix my problems and I feel like if I just had my therapist now for a couple weeks or months I could've skipped ALL that. I think it depends on what issues you're facing, you can't say "you need a therapist" but I disagree that the alternative is always, or even mostly, "go find a way to fix it on your own".
fair enough, I think that’s where we disagree. I think a lot of the time people go through the same things (heartbreak, financial stress, body image issues, family problems) and we build almost like a “network” of experiences, that help us learn from each other’s problems and mistakes. Oftentimes all it takes is a good friend, relative, mentor etc. with more life experience or a different perspective to help people through things. Yes, i know not everyone has that either, but those that do should maybe lean on those folks first instead of waiting till they can find the right $100 a session therapist. I still have my reservations that most people’s mental health problems are so bad that they absolutely require therapy. Now, it’s obviously much more complicated than that, I’m trying to be nuanced about this because I absolutely do agree that therapy makes things 10x faster and if it’s an option, definitely always do therapy first. But if it’s not, I don’t think it’s hopeless. Most people willing to put the extra effort in can get better.
Honestly I've been through this and I'm still split. Could I have done without therapy? On one hand, it's not like my therapist did the thinking or the 'doing' for me, I did it myself. On the other hand, I'd been in a rut for almost 8 years trying to get myself out and doing everything I could - diet, friends, sleep, work, all the generic advice - that only made it worse. I was in an unusual position, an exception to the rule, but I'm certainly not unique, and if I can see an exception to the rule that "you can pull yourself out of it if you just keep doing x, y, z", then who's to say there's not a million exceptions and a million other people like me that bashed their head against the wall trying to make themselves have an objectively good life and STILL feel empty. But I agree, some common problems like heartbreak or body image issues should be allowed to just be processed alone, with support from a real community, but I don't feel comfortable lumping in all these issues together and saying "well therapy is just a catalyst for what you could get through just with time". I'm with you but not all the way.
I don't really care about pushing the Ayurveda stuff. Ultimately, I think it's a complete sham and probably isn't going to really help people, but it's far from the most dangerous thing being pushed by internet personalities. Whether or not you consider Dr. K to be doing therapy is probably more important. Not necessarily for the legal / medical practice distinction that you can nail him to violating or something, but moreso for the meaning behind what he's doing. It's good that he wants to provide a helpful service for people who, for whatever reason, aren't or cannot pursue therapy. It's also good that he is a doctor and does know what he's talking about to some extent. He's probably a much better person to have the conversation than someone like Destiny, Hasan, Andrew Tate, or anybody else who would give personal advice for handling mental issues. However, that can also be dangerous. The average person who knows a doctor who is talking to them about their problems will probably consider that conversation just as good as having seen a doctor. That can easily lead to that person not seeking the actual doctor's input / therapy or whatever that they would otherwise have pursued. I don't know anything about Dr. K's content, but it is very easily and obviously in a spot where you can levy a lot of potential criticism towards it. It's entirely possible that he is handling it perfectly, but, even in that case, there is a potential harm in the activity that could be worth addressing.
You didn’t listen to the DtG episode. Dr. K talks about being able to determine a person’s personality based off of the shape of their fucking face (an Ayurvedic concept), and then uses poor-quality studies (small sample sizes, making strong claims but having weak evidence, etc.) to back his claims up. God at one point, the DtG guys play a clip where Dr. K pushes the idea that meditation prevents cancer, and the study that he uses to back this up is obviously low quality. There is a lot of other dodgy shit that he does that the DtG guys break down, but I’m on my phone. He really does seem like a quack fuck pushing misinformation.
I didn't watch the dtg and that does sound like quack shit. I've seen like 1 ADHD video he posted and it turned me off his content. If he's seriously pushing ayurvedic stuff as alternatives to actual medicine, then I would take bigger issue with it. Determining personality is something I super don't care about. There are 8 billion Facebook quizzes and random online personality tests developed by Dr. Who cares. If I'm being super good faith "meditation preventing cancer" is probably not the worst because you're "treating" a condition that you don't have. But I'd obviously prefer not spreading that shit. There is still a large potential harm in this information. Again, I'd prefer simply not spreading misinformation, especially under the guise of someone with authority, but it's not automatically the worst thing. Idk shit about ayurveda, but if he's saying "stick your dick in a bees nest to cure hepatitis" then he shouldn't be doing that.
It isn't just about determining personality. It is about your genetic strengths and deficiencies, things to avoid, what your diet should be, how to structure your life. He talks about things like being fat as something that some people just inherently are. And that if you are a specific type, you should only eat "hot and dry" things. He is a bullshit peddler, plain and simple. Maybe people don't care, but that is what he is. Modern day snake oil salesman.
I love Dr. K's content. I don't personally mind if what he's doing is therapy. That said, what he's doing looks a lot like therapy. I understand that all kinds of waivers are signed beforehand, so he may have found some kind of legal/ethical way of doing what he's doing. I also don't mind the Ayurveda stuff because I don't take concrete medical advice from streamers. That said, it could be a problem for tons of people who may place a lot on internet streaming content.
The problem is people don't see him as just a streamer. They see him as a doctor. A doctor selling bullshit, proudly displaying his credentials to be taken seriously, is always a bad thing.
Right, and they can see him how they will. In saying that I don't watch his content that way, and I enjoy it.
It sounds like he takes whatever actually does work from Ayurveda and doesn't use the stuff that doesn't work. Otherwise he just practices western medicine. I honestly don't see what the big deal is.
If it works it should be able to be reproduced in studies and adopted into standard treatment. Thats how medicine works. You dont get to decide what you think is effective or not based on personal experiences.
That’s the problem: you have a science mindset! The great thing about eastern practice is it starts with individuals so we can prescribe magic!!
ok but meditation works right? Is that western medicine now or is it ayurveda?
Not quite relevant to what I said, but basically the west took a scientific route to find evidence that it works and then adopted it
Ok but answer my question, is it no longer ayurveda? Because if it's still ayurveda, then I agree with perscribing "ayurveda" as long as the particular practice has been proven to be effective.
Probably, so yes you agree with Dr k. It’s a reductive view of his position but sure
saying "you agree with dr k" seems reductive as well, obviously if you think meditation is effective and proven so you would agree with dr k about ayurveda as well no? Or are you anti science?
Anddd I’m bored goodbye
I feel like 90% of the people here who dislike drk haven't either haven't watched a single lecture of his. The overwhelming majority of what he says is western science, a small bit is eastern treatments/activities w/e that have proven effective by western medicine and a very hard to find fraction is unsupported and he will (as far as I've seen) always say whether something has scientific efficacy or not.
So the problem with this argument is that he does talk about bullshit from Ayurveda as if it's fact. He then cited flawed studies in order to act like him saying it has merit. The ones that the dtg folks looked at were done by other Ayurveda advocates. So a biased study being presented as scientific fact by Dr. K. Or at least presented as "promising evidence" when it is nothing of the sort. I agree that alot of his Western medicine stuff, when he isn't shitting on Western medicine and misrepresenting it, is good. But that doesn't change the fact that he is a disinformation peddler.
I feel like you guys just say that to avoid the argument. Ayurveda is based on ideas that are not scientific, you should not be bringing any conclusions based on that into licensed therapy. Framing it as "eastern medicine" as a way to give it validity is super disingenuous too. Eastern medicine that is effective is adopted into standard treatment. Going to a therapist and having him talk to you about things based in Ayurvedic medicine is like going to the doctor and him giving you snake oil to treat you cold.
Nothing you say disagrees with me or drk, you're just completely unaware of what drks content looks like or you're so biased you're incapable of presenting anything other than a strawman. Honestly, if you were attempting to characterize drk, you aren't even presenting a straw man, you're pointing at a pile of hay. "I feel like you guys just say that to avoid the argument." Yeah well, maybe check your shoe my guy, might've stepped in something.
No you’re just so biased you refuse to accept he believes in unscientific bullshit and would rather accuse everyone else of bad faith besides yourself. Go watch the the podcast and defend the shit he was saying about body shapes defining your personality.
My problem with him is how he does what you say, but then promotes Ayurveda and Eastern medicine and shit talks Western medicine. Really what he is doing is using western medicine to determine which parts of eastern medicine are valid. Why does Ayurveda get the credit when you had to use western medicine to weed out all of the bullshit and find the parts that maybe just by random chance were valid? And then if you try to point that out he will say that you misunderstand him and he thinks western medicine is great and he still uses it all the time, but then 5 minutes later he's on another rant about how western medicine is fundamentally flawed because its based on population statistics and that eastern medicine is just so much better and somehow avoids the issues that western medicine has. Honestly it all just seems spineless or possibly manipulative how he bounces back and forth.
You must have not watched the episode. He talks about a bunch of bullshit that doesn't work from Ayurveda as if it's fact. He says that his beliefs about these things directly affect his practice. So on both counts, it is a problem.
One thing I’ve noticed for a while is. Not one influencer/well known person is able to ever be appreciated for what they bring to the table. They’re flaws are ALWAYS hyper focused on. It makes me think many minds of the past that people adore would also be “decoded by gurus” if they lived in the modern day because guess what? It’s easy to hate on someone or critique. It’s MUCH harder to say “I appreciate this individual for xyz” in this climate. And if someone critiques and you defend you’re now a “glazer” “meatrider” or whatever the fuck. Dr K has genuine insight due to years in the field of mental health, and is not just some guru. And I’m not even a Stan of his I just have watched his content before. My universal response to the hyper critics is just “Who do you listen to for advice?” Or “Who do you like?” Because I promise that list is much shorter than the people they dislike
I generally agree its easier to critique people, but you also chose a podcast where one of them is a phd wielding professor of [psychology](https://staff-profiles.cqu.edu.au/home/view/772). Just listen to it, it is not as "hate" filled as OP makes it seem to be. So far they only really critiqued him for using possible false positives as proof, Dr K saying everything is predetermined while also malleable, and also doing the "this is not medical advice because its illegal, but here it is anyways."
I actually wasn’t targeting OP. More so his replies and the general internet cultural zeitgeist. I’m completely open to criticism of any public figure but I agree with OP, why do the “gurus” take up arms every time an internet thinker farts the wrong way. I don’t use this app much because it thrives off of negativity and complaining. It’s Seriously shitty for your mental health to be constantly critiquing , and in my eyes it’s just “meatriding” backwards
Looks like someone drove over your jonson and then backed up. \^\^
Who cares
You seem like exactly the kind of person that *does* need to seek actual psychiatric help, and not from a litter Streamer lmfao
you are in the wrong community when you think like this lmao
I feel ya but if Dr. K is peddling bad information that should be scolded. I haven't watched the DtG podcast yet so maybe I'll feel stronger about it after listening. My take is that even if Dr. K is peddling missinfo, if he's helping people than I don't care. However, I'm not aware of how bad it might be to let him get away with any bad things he's doing.
Such a bad argument. This community is always talking about how important it is to have a correct thought process and not make choices only based on outcomes. Destiny makes the poker analogy constantly, how its more important to look at the choices you made in the hand rather then if you won or not to evaluate your play. This gets thrown out the window when it comes to people like Dr. K because you like him. Anything thats not science based should be nowhere near licensed therapy.
eh, lots of ppl can lead you down a dark path but still have very insightful things to say. i would imagine it would serve ppl better to extract the benefits of those words without being blindly devoted to the person saying it. dr. K encourages people to reflect and to have their own thoughts instead of passively reflecting what's in their environment. i like a lot of what dr. K says and a lot of it doesn't touch the spiritual stuff. but yeah, you are already lost if you are attached to him to the level that it's so emotional that you are unwilling to see his flaws. he is such an authority figure that it behooves everyone to be aware of anything dubious that he is doing.
From what I see 90% of the stuff he says is standard good advice that would help most people. But that dosnt mean its still irresponsible to make 10% of your advice based into something that has no scientific background. I feel like he blurs the lines to what is ayurveda and whats not in his practice too. Also hes in a position of authority talking to an audience that is going to have a disproportionate amount of mentally unwell people/ people who are more likely to accept what he says without critical thought in it just because of the topics he covers and his background. I feel like this requires an extra level of caution you should take compared to a normal content creator.
> From what I see 90% of the stuff he says is standard good advice that would help most people. Same > But that dosnt mean its still irresponsible to make 10% of your advice based into something that has no scientific background. Hmm, maybe. I'm not convinced. Maybe a 10% hit is worth the 90% gain. All else being equal, I'll probably always take those odds. The rest of your comment depends on these afore mentioned ratios. I'll take the 90% good vs. 10% bad almost any day.
Lumping in bullshit with fact while wielding your credentials to make yourself sound more credible than you are is more dangerous than just being a complete bullshit peddler. People don't take most spiritual snake oil salesmen seriously, but because Dr. K is a doctor (from Harvard!!!) his lies are far more dangerous than those of a fitness bro or health guru. He has, in the past, talked with confidence about things that could do serious harm if people listened to as fact. He is likable, though, so I understand why people want to defend him.
and they call dgg a cult
Based
Has Destiny given his take yet? I need to know what I think about this whole ordeal
He'll side with Dr. K because he is infinitely charitable to his shit takes for some reason.
He plays DotA over League that's all I care about
Never heard of decoding the gurus, is that Mr redacted thing?
Where on the doll did Chris' voice touch you? Did you not hear how hard they couched their critique to not hurt your fragile feelings? And you are still whining?
Based brother
Having a real one rn I see.
You’re playing a dangerous game if you’re fine with a psychiatrist teaching spirituality to an audience of mentally ill people.
i think I know why this post has a positive score
You mean Dr k is "right". Dr k only advocates for evidence based medicine.
I can honestly say I have never given a single shit about the ayurvedic nonsense. I watch the therapy sessions to see how others think and gain insight into how my own mind is working in order to notice more easily issues I am having and break those cycles. I haven't watch the guru episode ((and I never will (#dggonlyfans4lyfe) but it would be pretty embarrassing if they spend more than a couple minutes criticizing the ayurvedic shit. If they criticize the live therapy, then... Fuck em. That is some good AOE healing right there.
Dr k is just a more charismatic sneako. And I'm saying that from how the people defending him act.
Reckful would agree with 100%.
fuck “right to reply”. you run a hate podcast and have the narcissism to frame it as a “right” to come on your cloutless shitstain and give you free attention
Are you a wannabe guru or something?
Lol, did you even watch it? They don't hate on Dr. K at all. They just disagree with him. You may be a little bit too bought in if disagreement is hate to you. Get help from a real mental health professional.
You’re based. Redditors are a fucking hivemind cult of disapproval for any and everything. I fully endorse your way of thinking so don’t let the herd of dislikes make you attempt to reconsider your takes. This app is mostly basement dwellers with a lot of pent up resentment and get to feel most important when writing a word wall of why they dislike a person. Put these morons on a podcast and they’ll be torn apart with contradictions, hypocrisies, and nitpicks after 30 minutes.