This might be a personal issue, but to me the vibes feel off with him. I’m not against someone self promoting, it just seems like every video of his I’ve seen has him wedging his $75 guide and $600 “group coaching” into conversations whenever he can. I’m not saying he’s wrong about anything or that his videos aren’t useful, he just comes off as very used car salesman to me.

[–] Falafels@aussie.zone 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

A lot of his approach seems to be based on vedic philosophy, and all that is available free if you don't want to go through him. You can walk into a temple and leave with free books because they believe knowledge should be free. All they ask is you pass the book on when you're finished.

I've got nothing against the guy though, I don't know enough about him, just pointing out that you can get the knowledge free if you want to.

[–] malle_yeno@pawb.social 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I like Dr. K and think the content he puts out is important and useful, but there are a few items with his approach that I don't appreciate. In a few of his earlier videos, he uses an example of a farmer vs. a hunter (or something thereabouts) to explain why certain unproductive thoughts can be reoccurring in people. I find that this has a lot of overlap with evolutionary psychology, which has an evidence problem and is often employed by "mindset grifters" to move product. I'm not saying that Dr. K is one of those grifters, but I'm concerned that his employment of it might "soften up" viewers to that kind of logic. So that when an actual grifter employs it, the person would be more receptive to being scammed.

But even so, I still want to stress that I think there's a lot of good in his content and I think offering as much free content as he does is a public service.

Edit: sorry, i forgot to tie this back to your comment. He often in his earlier videos tied back those evolutionary psychology examples to concepts in Vedic philosophy and meditation. I think that could be dangerous for the reasons above, with the added issue of tying evidence-based science to things that can't be evidenced (like someone having a certain tendency present in Vedic thought). I have the same objections to that as I would astrology. But of course if people find either of those things helpful to their mental health journey, more power to them.

[–] mojo@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Why is that wrong? He also has an insane amount of free content on YouTube.

[–] Rodeo@lemmy.ca 12 points 1 year ago (3 children)

It's not wrong but any time someone is giving advice and selling something at the same time, it calls into question their motives and integrity.

Just means we should be suspicious, that's all. Lots of scammers out there.

[–] lemann@lemmy.one 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Slightly off topic - describes most social media influencers in a nutshell... particularly sponsored reviews lol

Edit: clarification

[–] mojo@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

He's literally a licensed therapist

[–] Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And someone can't be licensed and potentially be pushing their own products for financial gain?

Not really saying that's exactly what he's doing but just saying they're licensed doesn't put a person above reproach, especially when it comes to selling things to people.

[–] mojo@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You just described having a job lol. People use their licenses to make money, that's the whole point!

[–] Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Bruh, actually doing the job, not selling books or "not group therapy" group therapy sessions lmao

[–] mojo@lemm.ee -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't know why you are so negative about a therapist trying to do therapy lol. And it is group therapy, so idk what you're on about. This convo really isn't going anywhere.

[–] Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

I'm literally not, I'm just trying to explain to you what the previous posters point was but you clearly can't understand a conflict of interest.

[–] ondoyant@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

and Dr. Oz is a cardiac surgeon. not to say healthygamergg is scamming or anything, but medical professionals with media careers should be treated with at least a little skepticism.

[–] mojo@lemm.ee -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's a really extreme and insulting comparison. Can you post an example of anything that's remotely questionable content from healthygamersgg?

[–] Ashelyn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean that thing where he said to stop eating any/all spicy food and eat plain yogurt if you have anger issues seemed a little weird. Like can offer some plausible deniability but it seems like the notion comes more from "traditional medicine" and iirc there's not much research on the subject. One of his chatters challenged him on it and he basically told them that maybe some of the ancient wisdom actually has a point, the science just hasn't caught up yet, trust him on this one. I don't disagree with the sentiment in general, science won't always have the answer to a specific question, but I do get weary when people use try to use that to offer their specific remedies.

[–] mojo@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Source??

[–] Nobsi@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

Do you have a source on that?

Source?

A source. I need a source.

Sorry, I mean I need a source that explicitly states your argument. This is just tangential to the discussion.

No, you can't make inferences and observations from the sources you've gathered. Any additional comments from you MUST be a subset of the information from the sources you've gathered.

You can't make normative statements from empirical evidence.

Do you have a degree in that field?

A college degree? In that field?

Then your arguments are invalid.

No, it doesn't matter how close those data points are correlated. Correlation does not equal causation.

Correlation does not equal causation.

CORRELATION. DOES. NOT. EQUAL. CAUSATION.

You still haven't provided me a valid source yet.

Nope, still haven't.

I just looked through all 308 pages of your user history, figures I'm debating a glormpf supporter. A moron.

[–] Omniraptor@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Maybe something like the sponsorblock addon could help

[–] T156@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Although that only hides the sponsored segments, they're still there, and potentially influencing the advice he gives.

[–] Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If he wants to sell his guides for $75, yeah I think that's overpriced but he can set the price he wants. It's the whole group coaching thing that seems most sketch to me. A group of up to 7 people all having what he legally can't imply is group therapy, but the website advertises that it helps reduce anxiety and depression. His brand is all about mental health, and to me it just skirts too close to doing a bait and switch.

I'm also not a huge fan of the math on their customer cost:coach payment. For group sessions it's $30/session/person, but their coach base salary is $20/hour and "up to" $37.50/hour. There aren't any insurance costs or office rent or anything else like this being eaten up here.

All of this stuff is technically legal, I just find it distasteful and it makes me suspicious.

[–] mojo@lemm.ee -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Also if you think $75 for a guide is expensive, a single therapy session can be $90+

[–] Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 year ago

I've paid more than that for therapy sessions, I'm well aware of how fucked the costs are. But they aren't comparable. Therapy is a one on one session with a licensed professional who is providing you with an evaluation and potentially treatment, versus an ebook written by a doctor. I'm not saying it's useless information, but you can probably get comparable books from your local library for free.