Discussion about this post

User's avatar
H.•. Ourobóros's avatar

Hi Dan,

I’ve been following your work as a subscriber, and I’d like to share some honest feedback. I write this with respect, but also with the intention of being direct, because while your writing is engaging, I also find it deeply problematic.

What strikes me most is the number of logical and rhetorical flaws in your discourse. You present your framework as a path to higher consciousness, but in reality it reads more like a marketing strategy wrapped in pop philosophy.

You’re not a psychologist or a behavioral scientist. You’re, first and foremost, an expert in marketing — and it shows. You’re very good at selling a narrative of transformation, but there is little scientific rigor behind it. You oversimplify extremely complex processes — identity, survival, change — into catchy formulas. That’s not pedagogy, that’s reductionism. You rely on strong metaphors (“the house that rots,” “error as a compass”), which are rhetorically effective, but they don’t reflect a deep or accurate understanding of how the human mind actually works.

Another major issue is that you completely ignore structural factors that shape people’s lives. Your message seems directed at a very specific audience: privileged white men, who don’t have to deal with systemic racism, gender violence, or poverty. For them, your method works as an ego booster — telling them the only thing missing is optimization and self-reprogramming. But for people who live with real, material inequalities, this narrative is insulting, because it erases their reality. In fact, it ends up reproducing those very structures, by blaming the individual for their pain instead of questioning the systems that create it.

Your emphasis on hyper-optimization is also troubling. Life is not meant to be a continuous performance laboratory. Turning every mistake, every decision, every experience into material for “hacks” creates a toxic mindset of endless self-blame and insufficiency.

And finally, your claim that “transcending ideology” is the path to freedom is, frankly, misleading. Lack of ideology is not consciousness — it is often unconsciousness. And it is contradictory to denounce ideology while promoting what is, in fact, a very clear ideology: extreme neoliberalism. Radical individualism, the idea that success or failure depends entirely on the subject, the erasure of social conditions, and the promise of salvation through optimization — these are not neutral ideas. They are an ideology of their own.

So what at first looked like an inspiring framework ends up being, in my view, a machine to reproduce neoliberal logic under the guise of spirituality and self-development. That is not only disappointing, but potentially harmful.

I don’t write this to “win an argument,” but to dispel an illusion. Because your style is seductive, but what many people need is not more limitless optimization — it’s a sense of collective responsibility, critical awareness, and a way of living that is not measured only in terms of performance.

Expand full comment
The Independent Skeptic's avatar

This is soo helpful. Excellent piece.

Expand full comment
12 more comments...

No posts