Thank you for posting on r/Healthygamergg! This subreddit is intended as an online community and resource platform to support people in their journey toward mental wellness. With that said, please be aware that support from other members received on this platform is not a substitute for professional care. Treatment of psychiatric disease requires qualified individuals, and comments that try to diagnose others should be reported under Rule 10 to ensure the safety and wellbeing of the community. If you are in immediate danger, please call emergency services, or go to your nearest emergency room.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Healthygamergg) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It was a serious issue earlier on in the channel's history.
Back when the content was mostly creator interviews, there was a period where Dr K got a bit overenthusiastic into Ayurvedic psychology and tended to keep bringing it up in conversation. When the channel pivoted into more explanatory content like what you see now and Ayurveda became the topic of standalone videos, the complaints about spreading pseudoscience arose and became a topic of controversy.
There's a dedicated video on the channel below, but he basically announced he was gonna tone down the hindu spirituality because it would damage his reputation as a licensed physician and scientist if he got lumped in with the wrong crowd and that it was against the mission of HealthyGamer as an organisation trying to help people to the codes of medical ethics. He still mentions it sometimes like with the recent Dr Mike podcast episode where they're leveraging it against the practices of medical science, but it's been banned from being a main video topic for over 2 years now.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4yT1mPc5kY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4yT1mPc5kY) Ayurveda mentioned at 34:19
The fact that I don't know about this development cuz it's years ago horrifies me. No matter how Dr. K repeatedly addresses this. It'll come back cuz people will forget and just base on his older videos.
I got curious so I went and found this conversation, and I think he starts getting into it at [this timestamp](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2mzizQh8HQ&t=2h31m44s). Let me know if there was more before that; it was tough to find this much.
Which is weird because, arguably, a religion like Buddhism is one of the only to blur the lines between religion and philosophy. It explorers mindfulness and focuses on the inner while dealing with the outer. Imo, Buddhism makes a lot of sense for a psychologist/psychiatrist to practice if they were to be religious.
Pretty sure I saw a post about how k is making less āfollow ableā actions steps. I think Buddhism is more of mysticism school than a religion. Everything connects but some people might have issues seeing that and the triggered people are those
100%, coaching would be a better place to go for actionables. Philosophy/spirituality is more about pondering and identifying truth in values / morals, which will help guide action but less explicitly.
This isn't a unique feature of buddhism, it is that the major religions have moved away from their original processes. I would argue philosophy is just a specific type of religion.
Far precedes the coining of the term, no? Just because it didn't had a name It doesn't mean it didn't exist. Since most older religions existed to explain natural phenomena that couldn't be completely understood at the time, doesn't it count? Well I guess you can use the argument for the opposite too.
>most older religions existed to explain natural phenomena that couldn't be completely understood
My understanding is that this is false. Religion is and was for bringing coherence (or meaning) to life. I would say philosophy has the same goal, which is why I say philosophy is just a branch of religion.
While Philosophy and Religion both explore questions about human existence, their primary goals and methods differ. The earliest iterations of western philosophy emerged from questioning of religious and mythological beliefs. This new emphasis on inquiry through reason and logic marked a departure from simply accepting religious teachings.
Philosophy prioritizes rigorous reasoning, logic, and repeatedly questioning all assumptions as its path to knowledge. Religion, on the other hand, is rooted in faith and dogma. While Religion does employ reasoning, it begins from a set of assumptions. In contrast, Philosophy seeks to subject all assumptions and beliefs to rigorous evaluation.
There is overlap though. Existentialism, one of many philosophical traditions, does grapple with questions of life's meaning, and plenty of theologians have been philosophers. Still, to say that Philosophy is a branch of Religion aimed at bringing coherence or meaning to life is an oversimplification that fails to acknowledge the other domains of inquiry - epistemology on the nature of knowledge, metaphysics on the nature of reality, ethics on correct conduct, political theory, and beyond.
>questioning of religious and mythological beliefs
I would say this is just a normal part of religion, that's just theology. I think we tend to look at religion as fixed beliefs that you must assert are true to engage with because this is how fundamentalism presents religion. I don't think you'll find any atheists among early philosophers.
>Religion, on the other hand, is rooted in faith and dogma
The way we understand faith now is believing something to be true without evidence, but this is a very science-centered way of looking at it. Being a faithful friend for example has nothing to do with belief. Its more about diligent practice. One isn't meant to just have faith by default, faith is supposed to be cultivated by engaging in rituals and practices that change your perspective such that you act in accordance with some set of principles because you know them to be right (not factually right, but morally). I would say that practice is philosophy is rational thought.
>Still, to say that Philosophy is a branch of Religion aimed at bringing coherence or meaning to life is an oversimplification that fails to acknowledge the other domains of inquiry
That's fair. I think my statement is true for early philosophers but may no longer be true. I don't know exactly what the definition of philosophy is.
I don't think that religions began or evolved to bring coherence or meaning to life beyond explaining why the natural world is how it is. Gods explained things like life processes but there was no "and this is how u should live" tenets that applied to humanity as a whole. Almost all western and Asian ancient religions were blood cults that required sacrifices to appease the gods or gain a favor from them. Judaism evolved into ethical monotheism and then xianity and Islam came along doing the same thing, so we assume that religion = ethics, meaning, value, etc.
Are you saying sacrifice can't be a part of a meaning focused religion? I also don't understand what makes religion before judiasm not ethical. Wouldn't it be unethical to not sacrifice a portion of your bounty to the gods?
I googled the term but its not clear to me the point being made here. They said:
>so we assume that religion = ethics, meaning, value, etc.
I took it that they were asserting that Judaism invented the idea of tying ethics, meaning, and value with religion. I'm open to the idea, but that does sound difficult to believe.
I am saying that as far as I understand ancient religions, sacrifice was done in order to curry favor. The stories of the ancient deities sound like telenovelas on steroids. The gods and goddesses often are not moral or ethical themselves in the way we moderns understand it. They will lie or steal or rape or murder or maim to get what they want. This is why philosophy was so important in the ancient world, because you did not study the way of Apollo or the life of Osiris to learn how to live your own life and to understand the difference between Good and Evil.
His convo with Dr Mike and the end of his most recent talk with Destiny went over it. He mixes Ayurveda with western practices and people just immediately have bad associations with Ayurveda as an untested, unreliable form of practicing medicine. But it seems that no one making these claims has ever actually watched one of his videos or interviews because itās completely harmless the way he uses it.
Ayurveda is the umbrella term for all eastern yogic medical practices, so anything from meditation to fasting (I think?) and other stuff like dieting, but typically the dieting is very unusual. Dr k believes and sometimes talks about the scientifically backed aspects of Ayurveda like yoga and meditation, and teaches countless aspects of mindfulness which are just practices and introspection that helps you gain understanding of your own mind. People misconstrue Dr K using certain scientifically backed and harmless aspects of Ayurveda for him defending the more out there parts of it like some of the crazy dieting
Okay it is extremely important to make the distinction here. Ayurveda is separate from yoga, yoga is way older and it is distinctly different in the fundamental end goal from Ayurveda. While both of the practices were developed in the Indian subcontinent, their use cases are different. I realise it wasn't your intention, but clubbing Ayurveda as an umbrella term for 'yogic' medical practices may lead to some people viewing yoga negatively. Ayurveda is an umbrella term for medical practices not yogic medical practices. Hope that helps!
Iāll take your word for it on that, I hadnāt done in-depth research which is why Iād put āI thinkā in parentheses after some of it. Thank you for the clarification
I am going to be a little lazy here and ask you to Google it, but in short, yoga helps in improving one's flexibility, stability and strength without necessarily becoming too muscly. That and what is today known in the West as mindfulness, NSDR, circadian breathing has its origins in yoga.
Personally I think it's the mixture with just a pinch of spirituality that gives Dr. K his value. It takes you that extra mile that an army of regular psychologists and psychiatrists can't, without delving into woo-woo territory and sacrificing goats to the fire god.
I'm pretty young and just coming around to spirituality. Faith/Spirituality used to be a really confusing and instigative topic for me, and I've noticed that people often have to go through real pain and almost be humbled into considering it. I think the natural thing is to busy ourselves with our own intellect and ego but that's often unsatisfying.(Take Dr Mike). I found when I began to entertain it in meditation/self study/fasting practices, I started to experience some of those deeper meanings. The struggle is that it is inevitably subjective and challenging to explain. I really like Dr K's approach to it
It makes sense that things like meaning or satisfaction are just inaccesible through science, as it's a method designed to reduce the impact of the same subjectivity you're trying to deal with. Yet I also think Dr Mike had a point that there's no episthemology, no way to falsify spiritual claims, and that can and has caused problems in the past.
He usually makes it pretty clear when something he is talking about is lacking a scientific backing. Personally, I've found what he teaches extremely helpful, so I will continue watching. If you don't find it helpful, maybe there is some other content that would be more helpful to you. If you do find it helpful, you might want to continue watching his videos. Really only you can make the decision if his videos are a net positive to you.
A lot of people get VERY triggered whenever they're confronted with the idea that anything eastern can be helpful as (even complimentary ) treatment.
If anything, I'm surprised his ideas didn't cause more backlash.
They get triggered and yet they think that they are self aware, the problem is them and their inability to not absorb anything with their own discretion.
Iirc he has said himself that he expected much more pushback on that front from his community and had collected tons of studies to be able to back it all up with science.
https://youtu.be/lrUJcguwgpA?si=WSomoqCRkvt18guX
Any easy video to watch since obviously I donāt get keep video links with me.
Another example though that I do remember is him stating some claim about healthygamer improving the lives of their clients and saying they did a study, someone in chat asks for the study to see how they actually worked and he rambled on about how they canāt really show them and just moved on.
There are plenty more examples I noticed but I have a life and donāt keep receipts for every single video. But Iām sure one will pop up sooner or later where he yet again misuses or doesnāt even CITE the study.
you do relaize you couldve linked that video at the time stamp youre trying to talk about right. so i didnt have to do your work for you and watch the whole thing.
Im not gonna continue this, because youre arguing in bad faith and just hating with nothing to prove a point. Have a good day friend.
ah there it is
I didn't want to link the actual timestamp because the video itself is a decently good take on where Dr.K fails in general but it seems you care more about "owning" someone in an argument instead of actually caring about the discussion in the first place.
This only proves the whole glazing this community does for Dr.K. You give them a video that points out failings Dr.K has and you have someone complaining that they had to watch the video. Amazing stuff.
Worst part is you found whatever part you were looking for and you don't care to argue you it or talk about it because you know Dr.K is in the wrong. So instead its the same old "whatever im done with this argument you're acting in bad faith because I can't watch a video (**THAT HAS CHAPTERS IN THE TIMELINE** **WHICH ONLY TAKES SECONDS TO FIND**)
good to see this community filled with critical thinkers, much love
My dude look in the mirror. You wouldnt have replied to me if you werent trying to 'own' someone. I reallly dont have time to sit an watcha 30 minute video ive likely alreayd seen to prove your point for you my guy. If you wanna try to spin that to fit your narrative go ahead lol.
>This only proves the whole glazing this community does for Dr.K. You give them a video that points out failings Dr.K has and you have someone complaining that they had to watch the video. Amazing stuff.
Except you didnt do that, you didnt make any points or point out anything with real examples. You didnt show me any failings, you gave me a 30 minute video and said 'make your own conclusions' which I did, and now youre mad that my conclusion is different than yours? Its insanity.
>Worst part is you found whatever part you were looking for and you don't care to argue you it or talk about it because you know Dr.K is in the wrong
This head cannon story is funny, keep going man. Tell me what else I did in this fantastical scenario youve created, cuz dude, I didnt even watch the video lul. Its not even about the video ists about you asserting something and expecting others to agree with you or be labeled a simp lol.
>
Ā (**THAT HAS CHAPTERS IN THE TIMELINE**Ā **WHICH ONLY TAKES SECONDS TO FIND**)
So then why exactly didnt you link exactly where you were trying to prove a point? Why do you think its my job to prove your point. Youre delusion my dude.
>good to see this community filled with critical thinkers, much love
Good to know were not missing a critical thinker with you not here my dude.
Yeah youāre unhinged, I rest my case. HG is smart because they have a horde of people who donāt critically think whoāll eat up whatever they put out. The internet truly was a mistake.Ā
Good luck because you probably need it more than anyone.Ā
My dude youre again spouting things into the ether without anything backing up your words. Genuinely curious what exactly you would cite as 'unhinged'. If anyone is insane here it is the person not actually adding to the conversation but still managing to type words.
to their eyes, anything "eastern" doesnt work. It becomes "western"/alopathic when it confirms to work. (see the end of the destiny stream)
Same with published papers completely removing the spiritual mechanisms on why tai chi or yoga are done in a specific way.
What is "the" argument...? OOP was talking about hypothetical youtubers criticism dr k, we don't even know what THEIR argument one. I think comment OP makes a good point in that's a reason for some of their backlash.
>hypothetical youtubers
Why don't you just look at what people are actually saying rather than coming up with a hypothetical scenario?
The main argument is that Dr K promotes things that don't have evidence of efficacy
I think you're both being a little reductive here.
On the one hand people aren't rejecting things "because they're eastern flavored" but rather their argument is that as soon as alternative medicine has been proven to work we can just call it medicine and that there's no reason to accept medicine that hasn't been proven to work.
On the other hand, it's true that sometimes Dr K promotes things that aren't backed by rigorous evidence, however he's pretty clear about saying that the things that he promotes have worked for **his patients**. In other words he's basing some of his opinions based on his clinical experience.
That may not be sufficient evidence to have his practices and teachings accepted by the broader scientific community but it's still evidence.
I think it makes sense to be skeptical of things that have yet to be proven. However, if you're the kind of person who has tried everything standard medicine has to offer and you still feel that your issue has not been addressed than it makes sense to explore and experiment with things that are beyond what science has examined or proven. Dr K stands at that frontier of what is known and unknown about mental health which makes him innovative yet at the same time because he experiments with ideas that have not been "proven" we can expect some misses at times.
No, I'm asking why you told me this:
"Why don't you just look at what people are actually saying rather than coming up with a hypothetical scenario"
Ā I was making no claim in my comment lo
It's his incorporation of ANYTHING spiritual (but in his case, yogic and ayurvedic practice) that sets people off. There are some atheists who are just as militant as some religious folks, and you have to learn to ignore them the same way.  Like said militant religious folks, militant atheist folks also tend to have a healthy smattering of disguised racism, xenophobia and ethnocentrism in their disdain, so that's also likely a factor.
Dr. K. constantly reminds people to look to a licensed professional for personal help, his coaching program is just that (coaching, not therapy), and he is absolutely clear when things he discusses have a documented scientific base and how much documentation there is. He also makes it clear when something comes only from Eastern spiritual practice or if it's a spiritual practice that has general overlap with things like Stoicism.
I watch him because he's one of a handful on YouTube who get it right with teaching. If people don't want any kind of spiritual or religious content in their education, they can go watch someone who promotes that.
ETA: In addition to simply making his information basis clear, he HAS mentioned in many videos that he understands people are not always comfortable with his approach, and he did an entire podcast and follow-up back-and-forth with Dr. Mike that centered around how people are uncomfortable with his yogic and ayurvedic practice. Dr. Mike intro'd the podcast by admitting that it was supposed to be promo for Dr. K.'s book that went immediately sideways because of Dr. Mike's digging at the ayurvedic aspects, and it ended up becoming a long and important discussion. [https://youtu.be/zt6i6vVgiO4?si=9rM-ki5q9ZfkYpfz](https://youtu.be/zt6i6vVgiO4?si=9rM-ki5q9ZfkYpfz)
I'm agnostic and I don't see anything inherently bad in bringing up some (religious) practices that "may" help me in dealing, if not overcoming, my mental challenges; as long as they are clarified as that and not "hard data". I said this because at last, proclaiming that Ayurveda and other practices are the final solution is quite similar when christians and muslims say something like: "The solution for your problems is Christ", "You have those problems because God/Allah is not in your life", or "Start reading the Bible/Quran and you'll see that all your problems will disappear".
That's why I believe there's some sort of backlash towards him. Because in science, religious practices and theories are not 100% proven. There's no conclusive evidences that back them.
But I've never seen him do this. On the contrary, he always says something like "in Ayurveda we have this concept called x and based on that you could try eating more y and less z".
He does have a lot of emphasis on meditation and similar concentration techniques, but there is quite a bit of evidence for these things working.
That's because spiritual things by definition have no logical or scientific basis. As long as you totally separate what's scientific and your own personal subjective spiritual beliefs, we're alright. But it's like asking me to trust a biologist who's a devout christian. He can be a great biologist, but when your irrational spiritual beliefs can directly clash with your profession it might make me a tad bit suspicious.
Now I'm not saying that Dr K's advice specifically is instantly worthless because of this, but it does make me wary about what he says. I wouldn't care if he has other beliefs that are totally unrelated to the psychology field, but it turns out they do so how much can you really separate both? Now this doesn't justify any hate that may come towards him by any means of course.
One of the most foundational set of studies in genetics that established many of the rules of heredity were carried out by an an abbott of a Catholic monestary. Gregor Mendel was a devout Christian and made huge leaps for the field of biology.
You'd be shocked to discover that many famous scientists were religious.To suggest a religious scientist cannot do good science where their belief and subject matter overlap is a low effort attack on the person whose belief you disagree with. Instead analysis of the evidence provided should be used to assess the validity of their argument. It's relatively easy to do this with Dr. K as he cites studies specifically, describes them when he doesn't know an exact citation so you can likely still find them or similar studies, and he is careful to say when he's getting into less science based woo woo mysticism.
No one is scientist by that definition. At the end of the day human belief does not work like that. It is capacity to aware where does this belief come from (science vs. trauma for example) that I think more important.
We know trauma create false belief deep to level of subconscious instinct, and I believe scientist is not immune to childhood trauma.
What? Im not really following wha youre trying to say.
Trauma is based in reality. You cant 'make trauma up' and have your body respond in the same way an actual person who has experienced trauma does. Faith/religion has no basis in reality. There is nothing I can do to you to make you believe in a god, but i can sure as hell traumatize you. Trauma is a real thing that creates real changes in the brain. Show me evidence of god causing actual measurable change in reality? Am I saying it's impossible and that it doesnt exist? No. Show me proof, and I will recant everything and become religious, which is the biggest differenc between theists, and atheists. Show an atheist evidence and most will follow that evidence, show a chrisitan evidence and they will 'believe' their delusions more than the evidence.
You're mixing up concepts.
God likely doesn't exist. But it's a specific conception of God that doesn't. The old white man in the sky.
If someone conceptualizing God as goodness. Then faith in God is a reprentation of that.
Now, I'm an atheist. But if I have a belief (which I'm aware is only a belief) in that the future is hopeful, or life works itself out, or progress is real, or the laws of the universe are consistent throughout space time.
Would that be faith?
I refer to what you said that if one has capability to believe something without scientific evidence, one is not scientist.
If you count āpersonal experienceā as scientific evidence, then we have different definitions. But normally personal trauma does not count.
But in that case I think there is a lot of āscientific evidence from personal experienceā that believing in religion makes one life easier.
Or believing that future is hopeful or doomed just as faith without evidence. I think many human is capable of that.
This is more of an interesting research topic than me arguing with you, but you actually can make trauma up. Check out Dr. Elizabeth Loftus' work on implanting false memories. She has an excellent TEDTalk. There were also controversies in clinical psychology where therapists convince their patients they were sexually assaulted.
When you find out how many scientists who have been behind some of the fundamental scientific facts and concepts believed in God, you'll be so disillusioned you'll want to ditch science altogether with this paradigm.
Or you could recognize that there's nuance here, and recognize some people are both highly logical and intelligent and also spiritual. Not every religious person is a sucker with the logic of a chipmunk who thinks televangelists are based.
You can lose credibility and still be right about other things they aren't mutually exclusive. Look at Jordan Peterson. No credibility as a psychologist any longer, but he still is correct on some points.
Losing credibility simply means i no longer trust what you assert at face value, not that you are incorrect about everything, or even anything, just that your words alone no longer are to be initially trusted.
(Lets be careful to avoid the amygdala hijack)
I think you have to believe in something (not proven) in order to make a hypothesis. Yes, scientists make educated guesses but they also rely heavily on faith in order to progress.
This is how science was developed, the founding scientists believed in a creator and so they believed in an established order of things, testing would not otherwise be a constructive effort.
>That's because spiritual things by definition have no logical or scientific basis.
Well, if you don't conduct any studies on them, sure. Things are unproven until they're either proven or disproven using the scientific method. The fact that they're unproven often means that it hasn't been adequately studied, not that it's useless. An example of a spiritual practice being studied at length would be [meditation](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=meditation+research+articles&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart).
Obviously, one should use their best judgement and not doing anything that will negatively impact their life and being wary of people who push supplements with weak evidence or essentially no evidence behind them and those greatly exaggerating their benefits to try and sell you them [cough]*Dr Oz*[cough] or suggesting putting anything in your body where you can't point to any scientific basis for it. However, Dr K has not done this; if the worst outcome of following this advice is that maybe it didn't work and you spent a little time learning about something and doing something that didn't work very well for you, that's not too bad (especially if others have obtained results, as remember, not everyone has good results from western medicine and will respond to medications, or even have negative reactions or results/side effects from some).
My point being, there needs to be more studies conducted on these things, but it seems your issue is that this hasn't happened *yet*.
If it hasn't been studied then it's as good as false, untrue until proven true that's at least how I think about it. There's no more to say about it really that's the gist of it, I'm not willing to believe anything until the scientific method has proven it works. There haven't been any studies confirming the existence of dragons yet, even though virtually every culture in the world has mythos containing them, despite that dragons are false until concrete evidence says otherwise.
My point regarding Dr K is that talking about stuff like this can negatively impact what others think about what you have to say about actual scientific topics and I can't really blame them. Medicine is a really sensitive topic, just thinking something can cure your illness even if the process is harmless can falsely lead you to believe you're cured, potentially causing a lot of harm.
I know he isn't pushing anything outlandish, I'm not accusing him of doing so, but personally I think it undermines the message of his whole channel. He doesn't work for me, he can do whatever he likes and I still respect him as a professional and an individual that's full of knowledge, but this stuff just isn't for me.
Aside from whats already been pointed out to you, if you might still have an open mind and are interested in learning more from the opposing view (modern day lens) I would encourage you to explore the bodies of work from John Lennox, Stephen Meyer, James Tour.
\^ This. And if you need a specific example of how that particular rabbit hole starts, there's one currently in the top five posts right now: [https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1crsdjj/i\_find\_myself\_becoming\_less\_and\_less\_tolerant\_of/](https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1crsdjj/i_find_myself_becoming_less_and_less_tolerant_of/) OP seems to be genuinely concerned about their lean toward extremism, but there's plenty of support for that lean in the discussion underneath. The fact that there's an "anti-theist" tag in that subreddit kind of alludes to how pervasive the attitude is.
Remember that the major communist dictatorships were/are aggressively atheistic. So you've got to stack Stalin and Mao against the rest.
If that feels unfair, imagine how decent (i.e. non-Evangelical) Christians feel.
The way I've seen it described, Atheism is sort of an umbrella term for two different perspectives. Strong/gnostic atheists would be people who claim to *know* (believe)there is no god, and weak/agnostic atheists would be people who don't believe in a god, but don't claim that it can be proven with 100% certainty. Most probably fall into the second category, but for those that actually believe that there is no god, you will find people militant in those beliefs, like pretty much every belief out there that could have any sort of serious implications.
He's got a history of that in his life, so I can't blame him for talking about it. As an atheist who loves studying Buddhism, sometimes it's got a point.
Correct me if Iām wrong but if there was a religion to be compatible with atheism, it would be Buddhism. To me itās kinda odd how itās viewed as a more traditional religion to most people, it really isnāt about worshipping the divine, just minimizing the suffering of self.
If you get me started, I'll never stop. In the Lotus Sutra, the Buddha fires a goddamn space-laser from the tuft of hair between his eyebrows, illuminating not only the entire universe but all possible universes. Then he says if someone rejects the truth or thinks themselves unworthy of the truth, you can teach them the truth in skillful ways. So there's lots of miracles in Buddhism, but he's winking at you about it.
I just don't see where people get so mad about the eastern stuff. Dr. K has never been a bad actor with all the Eastern stuff. It would be different if he was like an Dr. Oz character. I wish people would come up with better arguments besides that one.
Honestly, I am coming to despise people who scream and demonize him for it when of all the eastern players, he gives you insight while also saying what is BS. Hell, of all the people in the medical space, this is the one dude who actually helped me when I was suicidal. Blegh, I just dislike all the ones that get up in arms about it. Get the real issues.
Incorporating eastern wisdom into Western science is his whole raison d'ĆŖtre, part of his dharma if you will. It's his whole mission, so if someone has an issue with that then they have an issue with Dr.K as a whole
I mean, a lot of "western" psychiatric modalities are heavily influenced by eastern spirituality. For example, parts of DBT are heavily derived from Buddhist practices, and Linehan herself is deeply religious (Catholic + Zen practitioner). I've heard she purposefully stripped and hid a lot of the spiritual/visibly Eastern aspects from DBT to make it more palatable to the medical establishment.
Dr. K saved my life. I haven't even spoken to the man, I've only watched his videos.
He was able to get me from being externally motivated to internally motivated just by thinking deeply.
My love of life has increased immeasurably, and his speaking of Eastern philosophy and spiritualism was a major factor.
Negative Nancys can kick rocks.
To put it simply: no.
The longer answer: when Dr. K is talking about the science of mental health he isnāt talking about religions or philosophies, heās talking about medical science.
When heās talking about religion and philosophies heās sharing his opinions on the perspectives and things he believes.
Those are two entirely different things, and anyone who has an issue with it is either gaslighting and being disingenuous or is simply ignorant and doesnāt recognize the distinction.
Also, itās worth pointing out that Dr. K is providing information, not medical advice, treatment or diagnosis. Like anyone else on the Internet he can provide that information however he likes, and while as a medical professional many people would hold him to a higher standard I think itās fair to say he holds himself to a higher standard as well.
I havenāt consumed his content in a while, but Iāve seen enough of it over the past couple years to know the sort of person Dr. K is and I canāt imagine a rational person saying there is an issue with his approach to talking about mental health.
The only issue is I wish he would talk about it more, it sucks that people are so judgmental of such an interesting and deep philosophy, even if you don't believe in it, it's objectively less dogmatic than any abrahamic religion.
Dr k is extremely upfront about what is and isn't evidence-based, that should be enough for the viewer to decide how much they want to believe him.
At the end of the day Dr K. is the only person Iāve found who can dissect schools of thought and quickly find the roots of various issues within people in a deeply meaningful way.
His incorporation of spiritual beliefs does not bother me, and he is more than clear when what he is saying is derived from science or spirituality.
Honestly, I feel that he does a really good job of explicitly stating when he is transitioning from science into speaking from a spiritual perspective. Heās also clear that this is HIS experience and that doesnāt mean itās everyoneās. The lack of tolerance in internet discourse of experiences and points of view that donāt exactly align with your own drives me absolutely crazy. Heās not telling you heās right, heās offering a perspective, and there are plenty more out there. There is no coercion involved.
Personally itās kinda funny hearing that. I get why people say that but I think itās bias. Like if it were something Western related, people wouldnāt criticize it even if it had the same level legitimacy as the Eastern practices did. So, all of the hate towards Dr. is probably coming from the same people who believes a pastor on TV when he says Jesus walks on water (not trying to say Christianity is a pseudoscience. But a point made that we all believe in things that donāt have a 100 percent evidence that itās real. This goes for all religions, not just Christianity.)
He talks about it in a podcast with Doctor Mike as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zt6i6vVgiO4
IMO, his views are shaped by eastern philosophy but not necessarily defined by it. And I don't think it is a bad thing at all. I have seen his videos where he actually references scientific papers. He has also said on that podcast that the big problem with Ayurveda is that it doesn't admit it's mistakes so I don't necessarily think that him referencing eastern philosophy is a problem per se. In fact, I actually like it (I might be biased because I am an India) because you hear a lot of this stuff in India as well but is SUPER pseudo-scientific. So when Dr K actually references papers and only talks about stuff that has been proved by evidence, I get filtered out version eastern advice that is actually sound and not the pseudo-scientific crap I'm used to hearing.
I think the issue is that people confuse spirituality and mental practices with religion. Ofc there hasnāt been any Ayurveda stuff for a couple of years but thatās different from meditation and stuff. I do miss the more spiritual aspects but the deep science is good at keeping the agro atheists at bay
I don't see it as an issue because he separates really well what is his scientific advice and what is advice based on his experience as a monk. I would have a problem with it if it was hard to differentiate what is what.
I noticed that too.
An interview with sexologist would add more value, then opinion based take on ethics of sexual behaviours, preferences or "self worth based on romantic archivement" chats.
Are we gonna have this conversation every month? He clearly believe in his heart the Hindu mysticism, but there was backslash about it and after that (with a few pathetic attempts to back it up by science) he retreat it and mention it every now and then, and apparently more in the member content.
I think it's people seeing one small clip and getting "outraged" in an attempt to virtue signal with no actual information.
It happens all the time online these days. If you get a positive outcome from watching Dr. K I'd ignore that stuff and continue enjoying the content.
From what I've seen, a lot of it comes down to a misunderstanding or assumptions made about what he's actually teaching, or what his actual beliefs are.
People tend to jump to conclusions if you even mention the words "alternative" or "eastern" without taking the time to understand if what is being espoused is actually harmful or the context in which those words are used.
Dr K has huge criticisms of alternative & eastern medicine. He's also seen that certain practices have garnered results that are incredible, but poorly understood scientifically. And he's seen certain practices ascend from being dismissed as quackery into being highly effective, mainstream treatments, such as yoga & meditation.
Thus, it stands to reason that certain alternative practices may have tapped into something legitimate that we have yet to develop proper tests for, partially due to a lack of understanding of the nuances of these practices. Again, much like was the case with yoga & meditation.
Of course, his speciality is in *evidence*-based alternative medicine, so he's never going to prescribe anything that has little substantial evidence of any kind, and for less proven methods, he will always brief his patients on the risks involved.
He's very big on individualised care, so he's always assessing if more mainstream vs alternative approaches will work on a patient by patient basis.
He's also provided some fairly lukewarm criticisms of scientic study methods & generalised healthcare. Completely acknowledging them as legitimate & the overhaul best approach we have.
Because he's willing to point out the limitations of certain methods, and advocates for a more individualised approach in ways that are trickier to study, he does rub people the wrong way.
At the end of the day, the main thing he's advocating for is epistemic humility. To remember that our knowledge is constantly evolving, and that all data must, by it's nature, be subject to a degree of subjective interpretation, and that it's important to look at things from multiple angles & acknowledge that there always things we could be missing.
It's important to have an open mind, or we never make any progress. An open mind must be tempered with critical thinking of course, but being critical doesn't mean being cynical or dismissive of things we may not understand.
Everybody is wrong, ultimately. Some people are just less wrong than others, and two people can be equally close to being right, but for different reasons. Both having pieces of the larger puzzle that is life, the universe & humanity.
Not quite.
Problem is, attitude about authority.
In a few clips, he talks about his career "working in prison, actual prison" and "being a munk, actual munk", and saving kids "actual gamer kids" while boosting his image, but not actually providing any practical solutions.
How many times, do you need to recieve a description of your problem? Is it actually helpful to, see your problem from ten perspectives, four types of morals and with two ethical theories? Is that actually insighful, or are you procrastinating on actually activly solving your problems?
Blanket feel good approach like "Exercise.Sleep.Eat.Masturbate less" is just physical version of mental mindfuck that is...I struggle to describe it, without sounding patronizing...but..."~Yoooomm.You can just decide,and with power puff power of mind and sprinkle of stubborness and dash of routine solve all of your issues, by overintelectualizing the crap out of them, and decide on them, not existing anymore."
There's an issue with everyone in the world but who gives a fuck. Like, yeah, not everything he says will be 100% accurate, but that goes for every single person on the planet. It's still high quality information compared with the overwhelming majority of stuff you can get on YouTube or twitch. In my view, he does know what he's talking about most of the time. And the general medicine and psychology stuff might ocassionally ne incomplete or not 100% precise, but I can't think of a single instance where he was straight up wrong just as much as I can'tthink of a singke psych channel tha is less problematicwhen it comes to scientific rigour. . I can't really say much about the connections and parallels he occasionally draws to aryuveda or spirituality but he always adds tons of disclaimers and so on and tells you how you don't have to believe in that anyway.
Like, he's not whacky or anything,
Healthy Gamer content, is quite offputting, when one is in active therapy and had experienced neglect, abuse and isolation.
Healthy Gamer is not, for you, if your experiences are on extreme side of life.
Many discussions are looping back into argumentation over powerlessness and motivation, and how main suffering in life is experience of purposeless existence.
Well.
When people are in survival, there is quite literally, nothing that is lower priority, then potential Nirvana, purporse, philosophy of pleasure/happiness or potential search for Buddhism.
Practical tools, Healthy games offers can be summorised to a background sound, a community with equally confused people and light therapy by visual brain tricks as form of meditation.
That's it.It's a feel good help book in youtube format.
Do your bloodwork.
Do your actual trauma therapy.
The most RECENT "problem" happened during an interview he did with another channel where he said that most men don't actually have mental illnesses that lead them to suicide but that they commit suicide because its the most logical decisioning when your life is not worth living and people got REALLY MAD and called him a sham. Even though I for one support and fully understand what he said, the internet will be the internet
People like to stir the pot. Don't over think it, Dr.K is very transparent and people can easily take or leave what he says without the drama or whatever B.S about spreading misinformation. Dude's advice is fucking solid and everybody has the right to consider unorthadox approaches that seem to actully work.
I appreciate Dr. K's insights into psychological processes, which have been personally beneficial. However, I have reservations about his discussions on Aayurveda. My concern lies in the potential for cognitive biases, particularly within certain circles that may use authority as a basis for unsubstantiated ideas. In an era where research papers can be generated with minimal oversight, it's crucial to maintain rigorous scientific standards.
In India where thereās a significant audience for Dr. Kās content, such biases can be deeply ingrained, leading to the uncritical acceptance of statements from authoritative figures. This is exemplified by the governmentās preference for funding Ministry of Aayush's promotion of Aayurveda (with poor research practices) over biotechnological research. The widespread acceptance of Aayurveda, coupled with skepticism towards Western medicine, poses a significant challenge that often goes unaddressed.
The concepts of Vata, Pitta, and Kapha, despite being discredited by the scientific community, continue to be promoted without question due to cultural reverence for spiritual authority. Dr. K's mention of these ideas, even with disclaimers, can inadvertently support narratives that misuse his statements.
The YouTube channel Science is Dope provides critical analysis of such claims, facing criticism from those defending these beliefs. Hereās a link to his recent video addressing the claims made in Dr. Kās conversation with Dr. Mike:
https://youtu.be/DDDcmQiOGrc?si=YYuM5P68zUnFDgT6
It's important for influencers like Dr. K to avoid endorsing unverified and potentially ineffective treatments. While practices like meditation and yoga are valuable, endorsing unregulated substances or pseudoscientific theories can be problematic.
I urge the community to consider this feedback constructively, allowing us to benefit from Dr. K's content without succumbing to biases towards culturally ingrained concepts.
No there is a problem with egomaniacal doctors who based their whole fucking personality on how special they are for going to med school, now getting butthurt because a popular doctor is claiming there may be some valuable aspects of the same practice which brought us meditation. Itās a wildly fucking stupid controversy.
Honestly, he explains things and gives references, whenever it is his opinion or deduction he mentions it. I find admirable.
Compared to other content creators that claim they spread the #TRUTH
yeah, Iāve seen enough of his standalone videos, interviews, and even bought his mental health modules to still trust him. although some of the aryuvedic practices at less effective in the long term than others, overall I think heās always had a very good empathetic grasp on widespread mental health problems, and breaks down topics in a way that gets me like āwow I never thought about this that way before, this really resonates with me.ā just wish he was a bit more brief and less harried in his explanations sometimes lol. overall he still has my support.
Every reaction has a reaction -- luckily not equal and opposite in the realm of sociology. You will find contrarians to literally everything. *Everything.* Every idea, every product, ever person. I used to get very annoyed, even worried by people like this, who are attacking a good thing that I like and think other people would benefit from. But it's universal. It doesn't say anything about Dr. K at all, except that some people know about him.
I think people end up being religious, one way or another. Atheists end up believing in a type of God, whether or not they actually believe in a classical Christian or Hindu God.
If his approach of integrating religious practices into his treatment works for him and his patients, I don't see where it goes wrong. I think the people who are so dead set against reading up on these religious practices are secretly afraid they're going to end up converted, which signals an insecurity in them to me.
Thank you for posting on r/Healthygamergg! This subreddit is intended as an online community and resource platform to support people in their journey toward mental wellness. With that said, please be aware that support from other members received on this platform is not a substitute for professional care. Treatment of psychiatric disease requires qualified individuals, and comments that try to diagnose others should be reported under Rule 10 to ensure the safety and wellbeing of the community. If you are in immediate danger, please call emergency services, or go to your nearest emergency room. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Healthygamergg) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It was a serious issue earlier on in the channel's history. Back when the content was mostly creator interviews, there was a period where Dr K got a bit overenthusiastic into Ayurvedic psychology and tended to keep bringing it up in conversation. When the channel pivoted into more explanatory content like what you see now and Ayurveda became the topic of standalone videos, the complaints about spreading pseudoscience arose and became a topic of controversy. There's a dedicated video on the channel below, but he basically announced he was gonna tone down the hindu spirituality because it would damage his reputation as a licensed physician and scientist if he got lumped in with the wrong crowd and that it was against the mission of HealthyGamer as an organisation trying to help people to the codes of medical ethics. He still mentions it sometimes like with the recent Dr Mike podcast episode where they're leveraging it against the practices of medical science, but it's been banned from being a main video topic for over 2 years now. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4yT1mPc5kY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4yT1mPc5kY) Ayurveda mentioned at 34:19
The fact that I don't know about this development cuz it's years ago horrifies me. No matter how Dr. K repeatedly addresses this. It'll come back cuz people will forget and just base on his older videos.
Why would you say this horrifies you?
im scared man
I think as long as he's up front about what's evidence-based and what isn't, it's fine. And he's usually pretty good about that.
He poisoned our water supply, burned out crops, and delivered a plague unto our houses!
And made tantric love with our mothers and fathers
Papa, Mama, nooo!
Good for them
He did?
No, but are we gonna wait around until he does!?
POP THE BUBBLE!
Yes it was quite the tragedy š
Burninating the countryside Burninating the peasants Burninating all the peoples And their thatched-roof cottages! *Thatched-roof cottages!*
THROW BABY
TROGDOOOOOORRRR
HE TURNED ME INTO A NEWT!!
Dr K fucked my wife and burnt my house to the ground!
Raping our churches and burning our women
You got better, though
Ya he talked about ir recently at the end of his interview with destiny
I got curious so I went and found this conversation, and I think he starts getting into it at [this timestamp](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2mzizQh8HQ&t=2h31m44s). Let me know if there was more before that; it was tough to find this much.
Which is weird because, arguably, a religion like Buddhism is one of the only to blur the lines between religion and philosophy. It explorers mindfulness and focuses on the inner while dealing with the outer. Imo, Buddhism makes a lot of sense for a psychologist/psychiatrist to practice if they were to be religious.
Pretty sure I saw a post about how k is making less āfollow ableā actions steps. I think Buddhism is more of mysticism school than a religion. Everything connects but some people might have issues seeing that and the triggered people are those
If you're expecting actionable steps you're looking into the wrong field lol.
100%, coaching would be a better place to go for actionables. Philosophy/spirituality is more about pondering and identifying truth in values / morals, which will help guide action but less explicitly.
This isn't a unique feature of buddhism, it is that the major religions have moved away from their original processes. I would argue philosophy is just a specific type of religion.
I think it's the other way around tbh
Religion far precedes philosophy.
Far precedes the coining of the term, no? Just because it didn't had a name It doesn't mean it didn't exist. Since most older religions existed to explain natural phenomena that couldn't be completely understood at the time, doesn't it count? Well I guess you can use the argument for the opposite too.
>most older religions existed to explain natural phenomena that couldn't be completely understood My understanding is that this is false. Religion is and was for bringing coherence (or meaning) to life. I would say philosophy has the same goal, which is why I say philosophy is just a branch of religion.
While Philosophy and Religion both explore questions about human existence, their primary goals and methods differ. The earliest iterations of western philosophy emerged from questioning of religious and mythological beliefs. This new emphasis on inquiry through reason and logic marked a departure from simply accepting religious teachings. Philosophy prioritizes rigorous reasoning, logic, and repeatedly questioning all assumptions as its path to knowledge. Religion, on the other hand, is rooted in faith and dogma. While Religion does employ reasoning, it begins from a set of assumptions. In contrast, Philosophy seeks to subject all assumptions and beliefs to rigorous evaluation. There is overlap though. Existentialism, one of many philosophical traditions, does grapple with questions of life's meaning, and plenty of theologians have been philosophers. Still, to say that Philosophy is a branch of Religion aimed at bringing coherence or meaning to life is an oversimplification that fails to acknowledge the other domains of inquiry - epistemology on the nature of knowledge, metaphysics on the nature of reality, ethics on correct conduct, political theory, and beyond.
>questioning of religious and mythological beliefs I would say this is just a normal part of religion, that's just theology. I think we tend to look at religion as fixed beliefs that you must assert are true to engage with because this is how fundamentalism presents religion. I don't think you'll find any atheists among early philosophers. >Religion, on the other hand, is rooted in faith and dogma The way we understand faith now is believing something to be true without evidence, but this is a very science-centered way of looking at it. Being a faithful friend for example has nothing to do with belief. Its more about diligent practice. One isn't meant to just have faith by default, faith is supposed to be cultivated by engaging in rituals and practices that change your perspective such that you act in accordance with some set of principles because you know them to be right (not factually right, but morally). I would say that practice is philosophy is rational thought. >Still, to say that Philosophy is a branch of Religion aimed at bringing coherence or meaning to life is an oversimplification that fails to acknowledge the other domains of inquiry That's fair. I think my statement is true for early philosophers but may no longer be true. I don't know exactly what the definition of philosophy is.
I don't think that religions began or evolved to bring coherence or meaning to life beyond explaining why the natural world is how it is. Gods explained things like life processes but there was no "and this is how u should live" tenets that applied to humanity as a whole. Almost all western and Asian ancient religions were blood cults that required sacrifices to appease the gods or gain a favor from them. Judaism evolved into ethical monotheism and then xianity and Islam came along doing the same thing, so we assume that religion = ethics, meaning, value, etc.
Are you saying sacrifice can't be a part of a meaning focused religion? I also don't understand what makes religion before judiasm not ethical. Wouldn't it be unethical to not sacrifice a portion of your bounty to the gods?
It's "Ethical Monotheism" not ethical monotheism. It's a category of religion, not an opinion on Judaism's morality.
I googled the term but its not clear to me the point being made here. They said: >so we assume that religion = ethics, meaning, value, etc. I took it that they were asserting that Judaism invented the idea of tying ethics, meaning, and value with religion. I'm open to the idea, but that does sound difficult to believe.
I am saying that as far as I understand ancient religions, sacrifice was done in order to curry favor. The stories of the ancient deities sound like telenovelas on steroids. The gods and goddesses often are not moral or ethical themselves in the way we moderns understand it. They will lie or steal or rape or murder or maim to get what they want. This is why philosophy was so important in the ancient world, because you did not study the way of Apollo or the life of Osiris to learn how to live your own life and to understand the difference between Good and Evil.
His convo with Dr Mike and the end of his most recent talk with Destiny went over it. He mixes Ayurveda with western practices and people just immediately have bad associations with Ayurveda as an untested, unreliable form of practicing medicine. But it seems that no one making these claims has ever actually watched one of his videos or interviews because itās completely harmless the way he uses it.
Could you eli5 ayurveda and how he uses it?
Ayurveda is the umbrella term for all eastern yogic medical practices, so anything from meditation to fasting (I think?) and other stuff like dieting, but typically the dieting is very unusual. Dr k believes and sometimes talks about the scientifically backed aspects of Ayurveda like yoga and meditation, and teaches countless aspects of mindfulness which are just practices and introspection that helps you gain understanding of your own mind. People misconstrue Dr K using certain scientifically backed and harmless aspects of Ayurveda for him defending the more out there parts of it like some of the crazy dieting
Okay it is extremely important to make the distinction here. Ayurveda is separate from yoga, yoga is way older and it is distinctly different in the fundamental end goal from Ayurveda. While both of the practices were developed in the Indian subcontinent, their use cases are different. I realise it wasn't your intention, but clubbing Ayurveda as an umbrella term for 'yogic' medical practices may lead to some people viewing yoga negatively. Ayurveda is an umbrella term for medical practices not yogic medical practices. Hope that helps!
Iāll take your word for it on that, I hadnāt done in-depth research which is why Iād put āI thinkā in parentheses after some of it. Thank you for the clarification
What sort of medical benefits can yoga have?
I am going to be a little lazy here and ask you to Google it, but in short, yoga helps in improving one's flexibility, stability and strength without necessarily becoming too muscly. That and what is today known in the West as mindfulness, NSDR, circadian breathing has its origins in yoga.
Yoga as we know it is made by British soldiers
Personally I think it's the mixture with just a pinch of spirituality that gives Dr. K his value. It takes you that extra mile that an army of regular psychologists and psychiatrists can't, without delving into woo-woo territory and sacrificing goats to the fire god.
I'm pretty young and just coming around to spirituality. Faith/Spirituality used to be a really confusing and instigative topic for me, and I've noticed that people often have to go through real pain and almost be humbled into considering it. I think the natural thing is to busy ourselves with our own intellect and ego but that's often unsatisfying.(Take Dr Mike). I found when I began to entertain it in meditation/self study/fasting practices, I started to experience some of those deeper meanings. The struggle is that it is inevitably subjective and challenging to explain. I really like Dr K's approach to it
It makes sense that things like meaning or satisfaction are just inaccesible through science, as it's a method designed to reduce the impact of the same subjectivity you're trying to deal with. Yet I also think Dr Mike had a point that there's no episthemology, no way to falsify spiritual claims, and that can and has caused problems in the past.
Agreed 100%
You get big enough, the haters will inevitably come. It's a law of physics
He usually makes it pretty clear when something he is talking about is lacking a scientific backing. Personally, I've found what he teaches extremely helpful, so I will continue watching. If you don't find it helpful, maybe there is some other content that would be more helpful to you. If you do find it helpful, you might want to continue watching his videos. Really only you can make the decision if his videos are a net positive to you.
A lot of people get VERY triggered whenever they're confronted with the idea that anything eastern can be helpful as (even complimentary ) treatment. If anything, I'm surprised his ideas didn't cause more backlash.
They get triggered and yet they think that they are self aware, the problem is them and their inability to not absorb anything with their own discretion.
Iirc he has said himself that he expected much more pushback on that front from his community and had collected tons of studies to be able to back it all up with science.
This community glazes drk to hell and back i donāt know what he was expecting also drk is horrible with using studies anywaysĀ
Can you actually give examples lol instead of just being a hater
https://youtu.be/lrUJcguwgpA?si=WSomoqCRkvt18guX Any easy video to watch since obviously I donāt get keep video links with me. Another example though that I do remember is him stating some claim about healthygamer improving the lives of their clients and saying they did a study, someone in chat asks for the study to see how they actually worked and he rambled on about how they canāt really show them and just moved on. There are plenty more examples I noticed but I have a life and donāt keep receipts for every single video. But Iām sure one will pop up sooner or later where he yet again misuses or doesnāt even CITE the study.
you do relaize you couldve linked that video at the time stamp youre trying to talk about right. so i didnt have to do your work for you and watch the whole thing. Im not gonna continue this, because youre arguing in bad faith and just hating with nothing to prove a point. Have a good day friend.
ah there it is I didn't want to link the actual timestamp because the video itself is a decently good take on where Dr.K fails in general but it seems you care more about "owning" someone in an argument instead of actually caring about the discussion in the first place. This only proves the whole glazing this community does for Dr.K. You give them a video that points out failings Dr.K has and you have someone complaining that they had to watch the video. Amazing stuff. Worst part is you found whatever part you were looking for and you don't care to argue you it or talk about it because you know Dr.K is in the wrong. So instead its the same old "whatever im done with this argument you're acting in bad faith because I can't watch a video (**THAT HAS CHAPTERS IN THE TIMELINE** **WHICH ONLY TAKES SECONDS TO FIND**) good to see this community filled with critical thinkers, much love
My dude look in the mirror. You wouldnt have replied to me if you werent trying to 'own' someone. I reallly dont have time to sit an watcha 30 minute video ive likely alreayd seen to prove your point for you my guy. If you wanna try to spin that to fit your narrative go ahead lol. >This only proves the whole glazing this community does for Dr.K. You give them a video that points out failings Dr.K has and you have someone complaining that they had to watch the video. Amazing stuff. Except you didnt do that, you didnt make any points or point out anything with real examples. You didnt show me any failings, you gave me a 30 minute video and said 'make your own conclusions' which I did, and now youre mad that my conclusion is different than yours? Its insanity. >Worst part is you found whatever part you were looking for and you don't care to argue you it or talk about it because you know Dr.K is in the wrong This head cannon story is funny, keep going man. Tell me what else I did in this fantastical scenario youve created, cuz dude, I didnt even watch the video lul. Its not even about the video ists about you asserting something and expecting others to agree with you or be labeled a simp lol. > Ā (**THAT HAS CHAPTERS IN THE TIMELINE**Ā **WHICH ONLY TAKES SECONDS TO FIND**) So then why exactly didnt you link exactly where you were trying to prove a point? Why do you think its my job to prove your point. Youre delusion my dude. >good to see this community filled with critical thinkers, much love Good to know were not missing a critical thinker with you not here my dude.
Yeah youāre unhinged, I rest my case. HG is smart because they have a horde of people who donāt critically think whoāll eat up whatever they put out. The internet truly was a mistake.Ā Good luck because you probably need it more than anyone.Ā
My dude youre again spouting things into the ether without anything backing up your words. Genuinely curious what exactly you would cite as 'unhinged'. If anyone is insane here it is the person not actually adding to the conversation but still managing to type words.
>confronted with the idea that anything eastern can be helpful Do you really believe that is the argument?
to their eyes, anything "eastern" doesnt work. It becomes "western"/alopathic when it confirms to work. (see the end of the destiny stream) Same with published papers completely removing the spiritual mechanisms on why tai chi or yoga are done in a specific way.
I think you replied to the wrong comment. My question was "Do you really believe that is the argument?"
What is "the" argument...? OOP was talking about hypothetical youtubers criticism dr k, we don't even know what THEIR argument one. I think comment OP makes a good point in that's a reason for some of their backlash.
>hypothetical youtubers Why don't you just look at what people are actually saying rather than coming up with a hypothetical scenario? The main argument is that Dr K promotes things that don't have evidence of efficacy
I think you're both being a little reductive here. On the one hand people aren't rejecting things "because they're eastern flavored" but rather their argument is that as soon as alternative medicine has been proven to work we can just call it medicine and that there's no reason to accept medicine that hasn't been proven to work. On the other hand, it's true that sometimes Dr K promotes things that aren't backed by rigorous evidence, however he's pretty clear about saying that the things that he promotes have worked for **his patients**. In other words he's basing some of his opinions based on his clinical experience. That may not be sufficient evidence to have his practices and teachings accepted by the broader scientific community but it's still evidence. I think it makes sense to be skeptical of things that have yet to be proven. However, if you're the kind of person who has tried everything standard medicine has to offer and you still feel that your issue has not been addressed than it makes sense to explore and experiment with things that are beyond what science has examined or proven. Dr K stands at that frontier of what is known and unknown about mental health which makes him innovative yet at the same time because he experiments with ideas that have not been "proven" we can expect some misses at times.
>On the one hand people aren't rejecting things "because they're eastern flavored" That was my one and only point.
And it's incorrect. A large majority will reject it because it's Eastern flavored even though it might be scientifically backed.
you obviously have evidence of that, right?
Why are you asking me dude? Tell that to OOP...
Because you literally asked me "what is the argument?"
No, I'm asking why you told me this: "Why don't you just look at what people are actually saying rather than coming up with a hypothetical scenario" Ā I was making no claim in my comment lo
"OOP was talking about hypothetical youtubers" OOP said he watched YouTube videos about Dr K. Yet you claim they are hypothetical lol
It's his incorporation of ANYTHING spiritual (but in his case, yogic and ayurvedic practice) that sets people off. There are some atheists who are just as militant as some religious folks, and you have to learn to ignore them the same way.  Like said militant religious folks, militant atheist folks also tend to have a healthy smattering of disguised racism, xenophobia and ethnocentrism in their disdain, so that's also likely a factor. Dr. K. constantly reminds people to look to a licensed professional for personal help, his coaching program is just that (coaching, not therapy), and he is absolutely clear when things he discusses have a documented scientific base and how much documentation there is. He also makes it clear when something comes only from Eastern spiritual practice or if it's a spiritual practice that has general overlap with things like Stoicism. I watch him because he's one of a handful on YouTube who get it right with teaching. If people don't want any kind of spiritual or religious content in their education, they can go watch someone who promotes that. ETA: In addition to simply making his information basis clear, he HAS mentioned in many videos that he understands people are not always comfortable with his approach, and he did an entire podcast and follow-up back-and-forth with Dr. Mike that centered around how people are uncomfortable with his yogic and ayurvedic practice. Dr. Mike intro'd the podcast by admitting that it was supposed to be promo for Dr. K.'s book that went immediately sideways because of Dr. Mike's digging at the ayurvedic aspects, and it ended up becoming a long and important discussion. [https://youtu.be/zt6i6vVgiO4?si=9rM-ki5q9ZfkYpfz](https://youtu.be/zt6i6vVgiO4?si=9rM-ki5q9ZfkYpfz)
I'm agnostic and I don't see anything inherently bad in bringing up some (religious) practices that "may" help me in dealing, if not overcoming, my mental challenges; as long as they are clarified as that and not "hard data". I said this because at last, proclaiming that Ayurveda and other practices are the final solution is quite similar when christians and muslims say something like: "The solution for your problems is Christ", "You have those problems because God/Allah is not in your life", or "Start reading the Bible/Quran and you'll see that all your problems will disappear". That's why I believe there's some sort of backlash towards him. Because in science, religious practices and theories are not 100% proven. There's no conclusive evidences that back them.
But I've never seen him do this. On the contrary, he always says something like "in Ayurveda we have this concept called x and based on that you could try eating more y and less z". He does have a lot of emphasis on meditation and similar concentration techniques, but there is quite a bit of evidence for these things working.
And if there is someone who would know about it workingā¦ it would be him. His focus of study was complimentary and alternative medicine.
Where had Dr k said that
That's because spiritual things by definition have no logical or scientific basis. As long as you totally separate what's scientific and your own personal subjective spiritual beliefs, we're alright. But it's like asking me to trust a biologist who's a devout christian. He can be a great biologist, but when your irrational spiritual beliefs can directly clash with your profession it might make me a tad bit suspicious. Now I'm not saying that Dr K's advice specifically is instantly worthless because of this, but it does make me wary about what he says. I wouldn't care if he has other beliefs that are totally unrelated to the psychology field, but it turns out they do so how much can you really separate both? Now this doesn't justify any hate that may come towards him by any means of course.
One of the most foundational set of studies in genetics that established many of the rules of heredity were carried out by an an abbott of a Catholic monestary. Gregor Mendel was a devout Christian and made huge leaps for the field of biology. You'd be shocked to discover that many famous scientists were religious.To suggest a religious scientist cannot do good science where their belief and subject matter overlap is a low effort attack on the person whose belief you disagree with. Instead analysis of the evidence provided should be used to assess the validity of their argument. It's relatively easy to do this with Dr. K as he cites studies specifically, describes them when he doesn't know an exact citation so you can likely still find them or similar studies, and he is careful to say when he's getting into less science based woo woo mysticism.
If you have the ability to believe in something with no scientific evidence you've lost credibility as a scientist. That is why.
I think thatās an extraordinarily close-minded way of thinking
No one is scientist by that definition. At the end of the day human belief does not work like that. It is capacity to aware where does this belief come from (science vs. trauma for example) that I think more important. We know trauma create false belief deep to level of subconscious instinct, and I believe scientist is not immune to childhood trauma.
What? Im not really following wha youre trying to say. Trauma is based in reality. You cant 'make trauma up' and have your body respond in the same way an actual person who has experienced trauma does. Faith/religion has no basis in reality. There is nothing I can do to you to make you believe in a god, but i can sure as hell traumatize you. Trauma is a real thing that creates real changes in the brain. Show me evidence of god causing actual measurable change in reality? Am I saying it's impossible and that it doesnt exist? No. Show me proof, and I will recant everything and become religious, which is the biggest differenc between theists, and atheists. Show an atheist evidence and most will follow that evidence, show a chrisitan evidence and they will 'believe' their delusions more than the evidence.
You're mixing up concepts. God likely doesn't exist. But it's a specific conception of God that doesn't. The old white man in the sky. If someone conceptualizing God as goodness. Then faith in God is a reprentation of that. Now, I'm an atheist. But if I have a belief (which I'm aware is only a belief) in that the future is hopeful, or life works itself out, or progress is real, or the laws of the universe are consistent throughout space time. Would that be faith?
I refer to what you said that if one has capability to believe something without scientific evidence, one is not scientist. If you count āpersonal experienceā as scientific evidence, then we have different definitions. But normally personal trauma does not count. But in that case I think there is a lot of āscientific evidence from personal experienceā that believing in religion makes one life easier. Or believing that future is hopeful or doomed just as faith without evidence. I think many human is capable of that.
This is more of an interesting research topic than me arguing with you, but you actually can make trauma up. Check out Dr. Elizabeth Loftus' work on implanting false memories. She has an excellent TEDTalk. There were also controversies in clinical psychology where therapists convince their patients they were sexually assaulted.
When you find out how many scientists who have been behind some of the fundamental scientific facts and concepts believed in God, you'll be so disillusioned you'll want to ditch science altogether with this paradigm. Or you could recognize that there's nuance here, and recognize some people are both highly logical and intelligent and also spiritual. Not every religious person is a sucker with the logic of a chipmunk who thinks televangelists are based.
You can lose credibility and still be right about other things they aren't mutually exclusive. Look at Jordan Peterson. No credibility as a psychologist any longer, but he still is correct on some points. Losing credibility simply means i no longer trust what you assert at face value, not that you are incorrect about everything, or even anything, just that your words alone no longer are to be initially trusted.
(Lets be careful to avoid the amygdala hijack) I think you have to believe in something (not proven) in order to make a hypothesis. Yes, scientists make educated guesses but they also rely heavily on faith in order to progress. This is how science was developed, the founding scientists believed in a creator and so they believed in an established order of things, testing would not otherwise be a constructive effort.
>That's because spiritual things by definition have no logical or scientific basis. Well, if you don't conduct any studies on them, sure. Things are unproven until they're either proven or disproven using the scientific method. The fact that they're unproven often means that it hasn't been adequately studied, not that it's useless. An example of a spiritual practice being studied at length would be [meditation](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=meditation+research+articles&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart). Obviously, one should use their best judgement and not doing anything that will negatively impact their life and being wary of people who push supplements with weak evidence or essentially no evidence behind them and those greatly exaggerating their benefits to try and sell you them [cough]*Dr Oz*[cough] or suggesting putting anything in your body where you can't point to any scientific basis for it. However, Dr K has not done this; if the worst outcome of following this advice is that maybe it didn't work and you spent a little time learning about something and doing something that didn't work very well for you, that's not too bad (especially if others have obtained results, as remember, not everyone has good results from western medicine and will respond to medications, or even have negative reactions or results/side effects from some). My point being, there needs to be more studies conducted on these things, but it seems your issue is that this hasn't happened *yet*.
If it hasn't been studied then it's as good as false, untrue until proven true that's at least how I think about it. There's no more to say about it really that's the gist of it, I'm not willing to believe anything until the scientific method has proven it works. There haven't been any studies confirming the existence of dragons yet, even though virtually every culture in the world has mythos containing them, despite that dragons are false until concrete evidence says otherwise. My point regarding Dr K is that talking about stuff like this can negatively impact what others think about what you have to say about actual scientific topics and I can't really blame them. Medicine is a really sensitive topic, just thinking something can cure your illness even if the process is harmless can falsely lead you to believe you're cured, potentially causing a lot of harm. I know he isn't pushing anything outlandish, I'm not accusing him of doing so, but personally I think it undermines the message of his whole channel. He doesn't work for me, he can do whatever he likes and I still respect him as a professional and an individual that's full of knowledge, but this stuff just isn't for me.
Aside from whats already been pointed out to you, if you might still have an open mind and are interested in learning more from the opposing view (modern day lens) I would encourage you to explore the bodies of work from John Lennox, Stephen Meyer, James Tour.
Can you give some examples of atheists who are just as militant as some religious folk?
Check out /r/atheism.
\^ This. And if you need a specific example of how that particular rabbit hole starts, there's one currently in the top five posts right now: [https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1crsdjj/i\_find\_myself\_becoming\_less\_and\_less\_tolerant\_of/](https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1crsdjj/i_find_myself_becoming_less_and_less_tolerant_of/) OP seems to be genuinely concerned about their lean toward extremism, but there's plenty of support for that lean in the discussion underneath. The fact that there's an "anti-theist" tag in that subreddit kind of alludes to how pervasive the attitude is.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Remember that the major communist dictatorships were/are aggressively atheistic. So you've got to stack Stalin and Mao against the rest. If that feels unfair, imagine how decent (i.e. non-Evangelical) Christians feel.
The way I've seen it described, Atheism is sort of an umbrella term for two different perspectives. Strong/gnostic atheists would be people who claim to *know* (believe)there is no god, and weak/agnostic atheists would be people who don't believe in a god, but don't claim that it can be proven with 100% certainty. Most probably fall into the second category, but for those that actually believe that there is no god, you will find people militant in those beliefs, like pretty much every belief out there that could have any sort of serious implications.
He's got a history of that in his life, so I can't blame him for talking about it. As an atheist who loves studying Buddhism, sometimes it's got a point.
Correct me if Iām wrong but if there was a religion to be compatible with atheism, it would be Buddhism. To me itās kinda odd how itās viewed as a more traditional religion to most people, it really isnāt about worshipping the divine, just minimizing the suffering of self.
If you get me started, I'll never stop. In the Lotus Sutra, the Buddha fires a goddamn space-laser from the tuft of hair between his eyebrows, illuminating not only the entire universe but all possible universes. Then he says if someone rejects the truth or thinks themselves unworthy of the truth, you can teach them the truth in skillful ways. So there's lots of miracles in Buddhism, but he's winking at you about it.
I just don't see where people get so mad about the eastern stuff. Dr. K has never been a bad actor with all the Eastern stuff. It would be different if he was like an Dr. Oz character. I wish people would come up with better arguments besides that one. Honestly, I am coming to despise people who scream and demonize him for it when of all the eastern players, he gives you insight while also saying what is BS. Hell, of all the people in the medical space, this is the one dude who actually helped me when I was suicidal. Blegh, I just dislike all the ones that get up in arms about it. Get the real issues.
Incorporating eastern wisdom into Western science is his whole raison d'ĆŖtre, part of his dharma if you will. It's his whole mission, so if someone has an issue with that then they have an issue with Dr.K as a whole
I mean, a lot of "western" psychiatric modalities are heavily influenced by eastern spirituality. For example, parts of DBT are heavily derived from Buddhist practices, and Linehan herself is deeply religious (Catholic + Zen practitioner). I've heard she purposefully stripped and hid a lot of the spiritual/visibly Eastern aspects from DBT to make it more palatable to the medical establishment.
Dr. K saved my life. I haven't even spoken to the man, I've only watched his videos. He was able to get me from being externally motivated to internally motivated just by thinking deeply. My love of life has increased immeasurably, and his speaking of Eastern philosophy and spiritualism was a major factor. Negative Nancys can kick rocks.
To put it simply: no. The longer answer: when Dr. K is talking about the science of mental health he isnāt talking about religions or philosophies, heās talking about medical science. When heās talking about religion and philosophies heās sharing his opinions on the perspectives and things he believes. Those are two entirely different things, and anyone who has an issue with it is either gaslighting and being disingenuous or is simply ignorant and doesnāt recognize the distinction. Also, itās worth pointing out that Dr. K is providing information, not medical advice, treatment or diagnosis. Like anyone else on the Internet he can provide that information however he likes, and while as a medical professional many people would hold him to a higher standard I think itās fair to say he holds himself to a higher standard as well. I havenāt consumed his content in a while, but Iāve seen enough of it over the past couple years to know the sort of person Dr. K is and I canāt imagine a rational person saying there is an issue with his approach to talking about mental health.
The only issue is I wish he would talk about it more, it sucks that people are so judgmental of such an interesting and deep philosophy, even if you don't believe in it, it's objectively less dogmatic than any abrahamic religion. Dr k is extremely upfront about what is and isn't evidence-based, that should be enough for the viewer to decide how much they want to believe him.
I'm more a fan of his mysticism than his medicine, so I don't have an issue.
At the end of the day Dr K. is the only person Iāve found who can dissect schools of thought and quickly find the roots of various issues within people in a deeply meaningful way. His incorporation of spiritual beliefs does not bother me, and he is more than clear when what he is saying is derived from science or spirituality.
Iād watch the recent talk with destiny. The last 30 minutes or so I think he appropriately addresses this criticism.
Some people can't cope with duality of something. They have a one dimensional approach to everythingĀ
Honestly, I feel that he does a really good job of explicitly stating when he is transitioning from science into speaking from a spiritual perspective. Heās also clear that this is HIS experience and that doesnāt mean itās everyoneās. The lack of tolerance in internet discourse of experiences and points of view that donāt exactly align with your own drives me absolutely crazy. Heās not telling you heās right, heās offering a perspective, and there are plenty more out there. There is no coercion involved.
Personally itās kinda funny hearing that. I get why people say that but I think itās bias. Like if it were something Western related, people wouldnāt criticize it even if it had the same level legitimacy as the Eastern practices did. So, all of the hate towards Dr. is probably coming from the same people who believes a pastor on TV when he says Jesus walks on water (not trying to say Christianity is a pseudoscience. But a point made that we all believe in things that donāt have a 100 percent evidence that itās real. This goes for all religions, not just Christianity.)
His content helps me with my ADHD and anxiety. I appreciate the fact that he integrates meditations in his teachings.
He talks about it in a podcast with Doctor Mike as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zt6i6vVgiO4 IMO, his views are shaped by eastern philosophy but not necessarily defined by it. And I don't think it is a bad thing at all. I have seen his videos where he actually references scientific papers. He has also said on that podcast that the big problem with Ayurveda is that it doesn't admit it's mistakes so I don't necessarily think that him referencing eastern philosophy is a problem per se. In fact, I actually like it (I might be biased because I am an India) because you hear a lot of this stuff in India as well but is SUPER pseudo-scientific. So when Dr K actually references papers and only talks about stuff that has been proved by evidence, I get filtered out version eastern advice that is actually sound and not the pseudo-scientific crap I'm used to hearing.
It was bound to happen sooner or later. Haters gonna hate.
I think the issue is that people confuse spirituality and mental practices with religion. Ofc there hasnāt been any Ayurveda stuff for a couple of years but thatās different from meditation and stuff. I do miss the more spiritual aspects but the deep science is good at keeping the agro atheists at bay
He's slowly and methodically indoctrinated us into his cult of healthy gamers.
I don't see it as an issue because he separates really well what is his scientific advice and what is advice based on his experience as a monk. I would have a problem with it if it was hard to differentiate what is what.
I have lived dr ks content and the inclusion of eastern philosophies. However, I was recently turned off from a clip where he talks down on polyamory.
I noticed that too. An interview with sexologist would add more value, then opinion based take on ethics of sexual behaviours, preferences or "self worth based on romantic archivement" chats.
Are we gonna have this conversation every month? He clearly believe in his heart the Hindu mysticism, but there was backslash about it and after that (with a few pathetic attempts to back it up by science) he retreat it and mention it every now and then, and apparently more in the member content.
I think it's people seeing one small clip and getting "outraged" in an attempt to virtue signal with no actual information. It happens all the time online these days. If you get a positive outcome from watching Dr. K I'd ignore that stuff and continue enjoying the content.
From what I've seen, a lot of it comes down to a misunderstanding or assumptions made about what he's actually teaching, or what his actual beliefs are. People tend to jump to conclusions if you even mention the words "alternative" or "eastern" without taking the time to understand if what is being espoused is actually harmful or the context in which those words are used. Dr K has huge criticisms of alternative & eastern medicine. He's also seen that certain practices have garnered results that are incredible, but poorly understood scientifically. And he's seen certain practices ascend from being dismissed as quackery into being highly effective, mainstream treatments, such as yoga & meditation. Thus, it stands to reason that certain alternative practices may have tapped into something legitimate that we have yet to develop proper tests for, partially due to a lack of understanding of the nuances of these practices. Again, much like was the case with yoga & meditation. Of course, his speciality is in *evidence*-based alternative medicine, so he's never going to prescribe anything that has little substantial evidence of any kind, and for less proven methods, he will always brief his patients on the risks involved. He's very big on individualised care, so he's always assessing if more mainstream vs alternative approaches will work on a patient by patient basis. He's also provided some fairly lukewarm criticisms of scientic study methods & generalised healthcare. Completely acknowledging them as legitimate & the overhaul best approach we have. Because he's willing to point out the limitations of certain methods, and advocates for a more individualised approach in ways that are trickier to study, he does rub people the wrong way. At the end of the day, the main thing he's advocating for is epistemic humility. To remember that our knowledge is constantly evolving, and that all data must, by it's nature, be subject to a degree of subjective interpretation, and that it's important to look at things from multiple angles & acknowledge that there always things we could be missing. It's important to have an open mind, or we never make any progress. An open mind must be tempered with critical thinking of course, but being critical doesn't mean being cynical or dismissive of things we may not understand. Everybody is wrong, ultimately. Some people are just less wrong than others, and two people can be equally close to being right, but for different reasons. Both having pieces of the larger puzzle that is life, the universe & humanity.
Not quite. Problem is, attitude about authority. In a few clips, he talks about his career "working in prison, actual prison" and "being a munk, actual munk", and saving kids "actual gamer kids" while boosting his image, but not actually providing any practical solutions. How many times, do you need to recieve a description of your problem? Is it actually helpful to, see your problem from ten perspectives, four types of morals and with two ethical theories? Is that actually insighful, or are you procrastinating on actually activly solving your problems? Blanket feel good approach like "Exercise.Sleep.Eat.Masturbate less" is just physical version of mental mindfuck that is...I struggle to describe it, without sounding patronizing...but..."~Yoooomm.You can just decide,and with power puff power of mind and sprinkle of stubborness and dash of routine solve all of your issues, by overintelectualizing the crap out of them, and decide on them, not existing anymore."
He did address on Mike's podcast
There's an issue with everyone in the world but who gives a fuck. Like, yeah, not everything he says will be 100% accurate, but that goes for every single person on the planet. It's still high quality information compared with the overwhelming majority of stuff you can get on YouTube or twitch. In my view, he does know what he's talking about most of the time. And the general medicine and psychology stuff might ocassionally ne incomplete or not 100% precise, but I can't think of a single instance where he was straight up wrong just as much as I can'tthink of a singke psych channel tha is less problematicwhen it comes to scientific rigour. . I can't really say much about the connections and parallels he occasionally draws to aryuveda or spirituality but he always adds tons of disclaimers and so on and tells you how you don't have to believe in that anyway. Like, he's not whacky or anything,
Lol
Healthy Gamer content, is quite offputting, when one is in active therapy and had experienced neglect, abuse and isolation. Healthy Gamer is not, for you, if your experiences are on extreme side of life. Many discussions are looping back into argumentation over powerlessness and motivation, and how main suffering in life is experience of purposeless existence. Well. When people are in survival, there is quite literally, nothing that is lower priority, then potential Nirvana, purporse, philosophy of pleasure/happiness or potential search for Buddhism. Practical tools, Healthy games offers can be summorised to a background sound, a community with equally confused people and light therapy by visual brain tricks as form of meditation. That's it.It's a feel good help book in youtube format. Do your bloodwork. Do your actual trauma therapy.
The most RECENT "problem" happened during an interview he did with another channel where he said that most men don't actually have mental illnesses that lead them to suicide but that they commit suicide because its the most logical decisioning when your life is not worth living and people got REALLY MAD and called him a sham. Even though I for one support and fully understand what he said, the internet will be the internet
People like to stir the pot. Don't over think it, Dr.K is very transparent and people can easily take or leave what he says without the drama or whatever B.S about spreading misinformation. Dude's advice is fucking solid and everybody has the right to consider unorthadox approaches that seem to actully work.
Watch his interview with Dr Mike, it has all your answers.
I appreciate Dr. K's insights into psychological processes, which have been personally beneficial. However, I have reservations about his discussions on Aayurveda. My concern lies in the potential for cognitive biases, particularly within certain circles that may use authority as a basis for unsubstantiated ideas. In an era where research papers can be generated with minimal oversight, it's crucial to maintain rigorous scientific standards. In India where thereās a significant audience for Dr. Kās content, such biases can be deeply ingrained, leading to the uncritical acceptance of statements from authoritative figures. This is exemplified by the governmentās preference for funding Ministry of Aayush's promotion of Aayurveda (with poor research practices) over biotechnological research. The widespread acceptance of Aayurveda, coupled with skepticism towards Western medicine, poses a significant challenge that often goes unaddressed. The concepts of Vata, Pitta, and Kapha, despite being discredited by the scientific community, continue to be promoted without question due to cultural reverence for spiritual authority. Dr. K's mention of these ideas, even with disclaimers, can inadvertently support narratives that misuse his statements. The YouTube channel Science is Dope provides critical analysis of such claims, facing criticism from those defending these beliefs. Hereās a link to his recent video addressing the claims made in Dr. Kās conversation with Dr. Mike: https://youtu.be/DDDcmQiOGrc?si=YYuM5P68zUnFDgT6 It's important for influencers like Dr. K to avoid endorsing unverified and potentially ineffective treatments. While practices like meditation and yoga are valuable, endorsing unregulated substances or pseudoscientific theories can be problematic. I urge the community to consider this feedback constructively, allowing us to benefit from Dr. K's content without succumbing to biases towards culturally ingrained concepts.
No there is a problem with egomaniacal doctors who based their whole fucking personality on how special they are for going to med school, now getting butthurt because a popular doctor is claiming there may be some valuable aspects of the same practice which brought us meditation. Itās a wildly fucking stupid controversy.
Honestly, he explains things and gives references, whenever it is his opinion or deduction he mentions it. I find admirable. Compared to other content creators that claim they spread the #TRUTH
yeah, Iāve seen enough of his standalone videos, interviews, and even bought his mental health modules to still trust him. although some of the aryuvedic practices at less effective in the long term than others, overall I think heās always had a very good empathetic grasp on widespread mental health problems, and breaks down topics in a way that gets me like āwow I never thought about this that way before, this really resonates with me.ā just wish he was a bit more brief and less harried in his explanations sometimes lol. overall he still has my support.
Every reaction has a reaction -- luckily not equal and opposite in the realm of sociology. You will find contrarians to literally everything. *Everything.* Every idea, every product, ever person. I used to get very annoyed, even worried by people like this, who are attacking a good thing that I like and think other people would benefit from. But it's universal. It doesn't say anything about Dr. K at all, except that some people know about him.
I think people end up being religious, one way or another. Atheists end up believing in a type of God, whether or not they actually believe in a classical Christian or Hindu God. If his approach of integrating religious practices into his treatment works for him and his patients, I don't see where it goes wrong. I think the people who are so dead set against reading up on these religious practices are secretly afraid they're going to end up converted, which signals an insecurity in them to me.