Decoding the Gurus

Cult Season rumbles on as Chris and Matt expand their minds in an attempt to absorb the cosmic insights of spiritual influencer and alleged cult leader Teal Swan (born Mary Teal Bosworth, 1984). Our intrepid hosts explore her recent appearance on the Just Tap In podcast with Emilio “starchild” Ortiz — a beanie-wearing vessel of pure credulity, lobbing softball metaphysical questions gently into the astral winds.
The topic covered is ostensibly “Major 2026 Predictions” but this is really just an entry point for discussion of the ancient origins of AI, multiversal astral contract negotiations, and, of course, the urgent need to discuss masculinity before we spiritually implode.
You will learn insights, such as: how AI will eliminate ageing, guide us to SOURCE, amplify our shadow, and corrupt and deceive us ... all at once. Aliens and other cosmic beings are deeply concerned with and also not really all that bothered with humanity. Also, pop stars are apparently set to receive divine instructions to stabilise the collective psyche in 2026. And how we are all trapped in a planetary pressure cooker that will run at least until 2030. Teal is trying not to scare us, but it doesn’t look great (though it might also be great and lead to utopia).
Expect astral board meetings, sensemaking redefinitions of “power” and “love”, warnings about the painful sacrifices required to join Teal’s “conscious community”, and some distinctly uncomfortable talk about opening gates and reframing mother–son dynamics. As ever, Matt and Chris attempt to decode the elevated vagueness, semantic gliding, and cosmic scaling of very earthly anxieties.
All hail SOURCE!
Decoding Content
Just Tap In Podcast #260: "Teal Swan – Why 2026 Is a Psychological & Relational Tipping Point for Humanity"

Links
The Gateway (Gizmodo Podcast, 2018) - Six-part investigative series by Jennings Brown
The Deep End (Freeform/Hulu, 2022) - Four-part docuseries by Jon Kasbe
Mormon Stories #1607: Growing Up with Teal Swan - Diana Hansen Ribera - Interview with Teal's childhood best friend
Mormon Stories #1328-1331: Leaving Mormonism to Join Teal Swan's Cult - Jared Dobson
BBC- Teal Swan: The woman encouraging her followers to visualise death
Scam Goddess: The Culty Con of Teal Swan w/ Sarah Marshall

In this Decoding Academia episode, we take a look at a 2025 paper by Daria Ovsyannikova, Victoria Olden, and Mickey Inzlicht, asking a question that might make some people uncomfortable/angry, specifically, are AI-generated responses perceived as more empathetic than those written by actual humans?
We walk through the design in detail (including why this is a genuinely severe test), hand out deserved open-science brownie points, and discuss why AI seems to excel particularly when responding to negative or distress-laden prompts. Along the way, Chris reflects on his unsettlingly intense relationship with Google’s semi-sentient customer-service agent “Bubbles,” and we ask whether infinite patience, maximal effort, and zero social awkwardness might be doing most of the work here.
This is not a paper about replacing therapists, outsourcing friendship, or mass-producing compassion at scale. It is a careful demonstration that fluent, effortful, emotionally calibrated text is often enough to convince people they are being understood, which might explain some of the appeal of the Gurus.
Source
Ovsyannikova, D., de Mello, V. O., & Inzlicht, M. (2025). Third-party evaluators perceive AI as more compassionate than expert humans. Communications Psychology, 3(1), 4.
Decoding Academia 34: Empathetic AIs?
01:40 Introducing the Paper
10:29 Study Methodology
14:21 Chris's meaningful relationship with YouTube AI agent Bubbles
16:23 Open Science Brownie Points
17:50 Empathetic Prompt Engineering: Humans and AIs
21:17 Study 1 and 2
31:35 Study 3 and 4
37:00 Study Conclusions
42:27 Severe Hypothesis Testing
45:11 Seeking out Disconfirming Evidence
47:06 Why do AIs do better on negative prompts?
54:48 Final Thoughts

In this interview episode, we are joined by physicists Sam Gregson (Bad Boy of Science YouTube channel) and Tim Henke to examine the rise of science populism: a style of science communication that borrows the tactics of political populism, including grievance narratives, institutional distrust, and conspiratorial framing, while presenting its advocates as lone truth-tellers battling a corrupt academic elite.
We discuss how DTG favourites like Sabine Hossenfelder and Eric Weinstein, as well as fresh new faces Brian Keating and Avi Loeb, deploy selective truths about physics to fuel self-aggrandising, anti-expert narratives.
Along the way, we also cover stuff like why “physics hasn’t progressed in 50 years”, cranks are useful props for populist arguments, and the strange obsession with Nobel Prizes.
If you are interested in guru dynamics, science communication, and physics crankery, this might be an episode for you.
Links
Bad Boy of Science (Sam Gregson)
Tim's Profile Website
Bad Boy of Science – The Rise of Physics Populisers
Theories of Everything (Kurt Jaimungal)
Losing the Nobel Prize – Brian Keating
Into the Impossible (Brian Keating)
Sabine Hossenfelder’s YouTube Channel
The Portal (Eric Weinstein)
The Galileo Project (Avi Loeb)
Sean Carroll – Mindscape / Preposterous Universe
Not Even Wrong (Peter Woit)

We descend once more into the Gurusphere, encountering secret peasant archmages, decline narratives, Epstein emails, and endless moral panics.
The full episode is available to Patreon subscribers (1 hour, 37 minutes).
Join us at: https://www.patreon.com/DecodingTheGurus
00:00 SM 44 PF
00:23 Introduction
01:30 Konstantin Kisin: Not Left Or Right, Just Right
05:20 Boghossian is shocked by pessimistic French people
08:50 Konstantin and Warren Smith as relics of the anti-SJW era
12:45 A PSA! Hyper Capitalism Tier Update!
18:36 Matt's AV Setup
20:01 Recommendation: Successville (British version)
21:40 My peasant farmer dad is secretly an Archmage!
28:14 Scott Galloway talks with Gwyneth Paltrow
40:18 American Capitalist Culture and the Gurus
48:54 Bryan Johnson vs AG1
51:45 Bryan Johnson & Epstein Schmoozing
58:09 Bari Weiss's Peter Attia Woes
59:14 Epstein and QAnon Conspiracies
01:03:23 Overinterpreting Epstein emails
01:09:04 Shermer promotes Dave Rubin to hawk his book on Truth
01:10:37 Conspiracy Theory prevalence on left and riht
01:17:44 Jonathan Haidt and his anti-social media crusade
01:23:15 Plato on the Corruption of the Youth
01:24:30 The Eternal Appeal of Decline Narratives
01:26:22 They won't let you enjoy things anymore...
01:30:24 Matt's laissez-faire parenting tips
01:31:45 Life lessons from Lord of the Rings
01:34:17 The Witch King of Angmar defeated by a Woke White Women
Sources
Konstantin Kisin on not being left or right
Boghossian and Kisin bemoan civilisational decline narratives
The Guardian on Bari Weiss’s new CBS “Podcastistan” hires
Niall Ferguson on how Trump “won Davos”
The Guardian: Elon Musk had more extensive ties to Epstein than previously known
My Farmer Dad Is Secretly an Archmage – viral short-form fantasy drama
Behind the Scenes of My Farmer Dad Is Secretly an Archmage
Original Chinese version of

In a rare departure from our usual diet of online weirdos, this episode features an academic who is very much not a guru. We’re joined by Julia Rohrer, a psychologist at Leipzig University whose work straddles the disciplinary boundaries of open science, research transparency, and causal inference. Julia is also an editor at Psychological Science and has spent much of the last decade politely pointing out that psychologists often don’t quite know what they’re estimating, why, or under which assumptions.
We talk about the state of psychology after the replication crisis, whether open science reforms have genuinely improved research practice (or just added new boxes to tick), and why causal thinking is unavoidable even when researchers insist they are “only describing associations.” Julia explains why the standard dance of imply causality → deny causality → add boilerplate disclaimer is unhelpful, and argues instead for being explicit about the causal questions researchers actually care about and the assumptions required to answer them.
Along the way we discuss images of scientists in the public and amongst the gurus, how post-treatment bias sneaks into even well-intentioned experimental designs, why specifying the estimand matters more than running ever-fancier models, and how psychology’s current norms can potentially punish honesty about uncertainty. We also touch on her work on birth-order effects and offer some possible reasons for optimism.
With all the guru talk, people sometimes ask us to recommend things that we like, and Julia's work is one such example!
Links
Julia Rohrer’s website
The 100% CI blog
Rohrer, J. M. (2024). Causal inference for psychologists who think that causal inference is not for them. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 18(3), e12948.
Rohrer, J. M., Tierney, W., Uhlmann, E. L., DeBruine, L. M., Heyman, T., Jones, B., ... & Yarkoni, T. (2021). Putting the self in self-correction: Findings from the loss-of-confidence project. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(6), 1255-1269.
Rohrer, J. M., Egloff, B., & Schmukle, S. C. (2015). Examining the effects of birth order on personality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(46), 14224-14229.
BEMC MAY 2024 - Julia Rohrer - "Causal confusions correlate with casual conclusions"
Dr. Tobias Dienlin - Less casual causal inference for experiments and longitudinal data: Research talk by Julia Rohrer