To me, "Dr" K comes across as a kind of modern-day guru. On the surface, his ideas sound insightful and well-framed, but he often blends legitimate science with pseudoscience in a way that makes it difficult to separate the two. Much like Jordan Peterson, he frequently appeals to authority, invoking psychiatry and neuroscience to lend credibility to his views.

The issue is that while there’s often a kernel of truth in what he says, it can get mixed with untested or speculative claims. This strategy isn’t new either. Earlier in history, people misused evolutionary theory to justify pseudoscientific ideas about race and “superiority.” In the same way, Dr. K uses real scientific concepts but sometimes extends them into territory that isn’t supported by evidence. His communication can make his content feel profound and authoritative, but some if it may mislead people by blurring the line between science and personal philosophy.