All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 19, 2008 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
01:12:21
1215 An FDR Critic Gets His Say... (sequel to FDR1188)
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
found on the chat room until yesterday.
Yesterday I logged on and said if anybody was interested in the economy they might like to look at what George Salente, a CEO of the Trends Research Institute, had to say and I found that no one would take Any stalk in my referral of this man,
even though I have often found people in your chat room interested in this type of thing before, all they did was undercut me and one said that after my last chat with you, how can they believe anything I have to say?
Later in the chat, a person was found to be being abused And I gave advice on the subject based on a book I've read on the same situation that person was facing.
This struck a nerve because of the delicate circumstances this person was facing, but I felt it was important to say to keep this person from harm based upon what the experts in that field had to say.
Some people kept talking to this person about this abuser, and I could tell this was Causing this person discomfort.
Because of this, I whispered to the moderator to change the subject because having the victim have to think about the abuser in this is exactly what the abuser wants in this specific situation.
And since I had already struck a nerve, I looked to the moderator as a figure of authority to do so.
The moderator then said, frankly, I don't believe I should have any reason to believe you about this.
And I responded, frankly, you're extremely rude.
Excuse me for trying to help this person out of this situation.
The moderator then said, I suggest you take a break from the chat room, Johnny.
Later a person said they had thought about killing their mother.
To which this same moderator used a clapping hands emoticon to...
I whispered to the moderator, why would you clap your hands to that?
How is that productive?
To this, he banned me from the chatroom.
I think this is a great case study.
Look, I'm sorry to interrupt you.
I mean, if we wanted to – I don't know any of the details about that, right?
But you had – sorry to interrupt.
Let me finish my thought. You had criticisms before these interactions.
I mean, I don't know what the circumstances were.
I don't – I mean, so – but you had criticisms.
I was about to wrap it up.
Sorry. Please let me finish my thought.
You had criticisms of Free Domain Radio that you wanted to talk about more in our last call, but we kind of got onto other topics.
So rather than, you know, grind through something that I'm not familiar with, why don't you give me the larger picture of the issues that you have with the way that...
Well, the criticisms that you have about what we talk about in terms of philosophy here.
Okay, okay. I just...
Sorry to interrupt you, but I mean specifically, I can only speak to my ideas.
I can't judge interactions that I wasn't part of or anything like that.
Anyway, so go ahead.
Okay. Well, I think that is kind of a good case study of psychology at FDR being very defensive.
It seems to me that shunning people with different philosophies is necessary or done.
I don't think that is a good environment for trying to find truth.
And my main evidence for that is that only a few hours after our last podcast, everyone signed out when I asked for civil feedback.
I expected some flack from our last conversation on the chat room, but more in the form of discussion instead of being shunned and mocked.
What do you think?
I was just wondering, what do you think about everyone signing out after I just said I would love to have some feedback?
Well, I mean, again, you're asking me to...
I think this is...
Sorry, if you're going to ask me a question, give me a chance to respond, right?
I think that you're asking me to comment on things that I don't know anything about.
I mean, I can't talk about specific instances.
Why did everyone sign out?
Well, I don't know. Maybe they all had some place to go.
Maybe they had just said maybe it was lunch break and everybody was in the same time zone.
It could be any number of things, but it also could be because they didn't want to interact with you, right?
And of course... People are perfectly free to do that, right?
We're all into volunteerism, right?
And there is a free market of relationships, right?
So people can choose to interact with you or choose not to interact with you, and that's neither good nor bad, right?
Yeah, but I think it's evidence of the people being very defensive, very not open to discussion.
I was... And I don't think it's a good environment for philosophy.
Okay, so if you say that people are being defensive and not open to a discussion, did you mean about the last call that you and I had?
Yeah, I just asked for feedback.
I mean, I didn't want to argue with anybody.
And what did you do with the feedback you got?
I got feedback from the moderator and And what happened?
Right, so the feedback gave you, the moderator gave you some feedback, and what happened?
Yeah, and he didn't want to talk about it further, so I thanked him for his feedback, and I left the chat room.
Okay, so basically you said, I would like some feedback, the moderator gave you some feedback, and then the moderator just said, here's my feedback, and I don't want to talk about it anymore?
Yes, and then I said, thank you for your feedback.
Okay, and what did you do with the feedback?
Well, I thought about it, and I could definitely see how our last conversation was irritating and frustrating.
I told him as much, but he didn't want to talk about it as much.
Okay, so you accepted at least some of the feedback as valid that you got?
Yeah, but I mean, I... What I... I'm kind of concentrating on the...
I don't think the environment is healthy for discussion.
I think people are...
The psychology at FTR is so defensive because people are very emotionally wrapped up.
Well, okay, but you've got to provide, right?
I mean, this is just theories, right?
You just say that about anything, right?
So what I'm asking, and the reason that I'm trying to give you this feedback is that, in general, if you ask people for feedback and then you don't act on it, right?
So if I do something wrong and someone says to me, this is my feedback, or if I write a book and give it out to people and they say, this is my feedback...
If I basically ignore their feedback or try and talk them out of their feedback or say that they're wrong, then what will happen is people will not want to give me feedback anymore, right?
I did not say that he was wrong.
I didn't argue with him.
Well, sure, but what did you do with the feedback?
I took it into consideration.
I only got feedback from one person.
But I just wanted to...
I mean...
Feedback is good because it helps you see what other people are thinking and then you can see what you may have thought wrong or what you could have done better.
Okay, sorry, so let's talk about the last call because you got some feedback as you say and you had the chance to think about it and I'm sure that you listened to the conversation again so what self-criticisms would you bring to bear about Your side of the conversation that we had last time.
And maybe you don't have any.
That's totally fine.
I'm just curious what your experience was of processing that.
Okay. I thought that...
First off, I shouldn't have been smoking the entire conversation because it sounded like I was breathing very heavy.
And... I liked some of the points you made.
I thought they were, you know, pretty good.
But... I thought I did okay.
And I didn't change my opinions, but I always...
I did like to listen to it.
Anyway... So nothing changed for you as a result of our last conversation, right?
No. Now, you did say to me that I made some excellent points and so on, but those didn't affect your opinion?
No, I thought I made good points as well.
Did you?
Did I?
About the conversation?
Sorry, you said did I. I'm not sure what you mean.
What did you think?
Oh, I thought you were a good debater.
I thought that some of your points weren't too well thought through, and I found you kind of immovable as far as that goes.
But at the end of that conversation, you had criticisms about the role of parents or how things are talked about.
With parents at FDR. And you mentioned that there were a couple of parents on, I don't know, some other board who were complaining about FDR. And I think that's what you wanted to talk about more, if I remember rightly.
Yeah. Okay, so let's hear the criticism.
All right. I have a few other points, if I can get to them first, about...
Some of the psychology.
My first one is about the dream analysis, and I think that does apply to psychology because it's an important part of everybody's psyche.
As entertaining as these dreams analysis can be, I can't help but think that the symbology in these dreams could be used to mean almost anything.
Okay, and what is your experience in studying or researching or being trained on dream analysis?
Well, I've seen what some spiritual people have to say about dreams, and I've seen a little bit, but I thought that it was just kind of a Amateur dream analysis based on kind of what you thought the symbology meant.
Okay, sorry to interrupt you, but when you say amateur dream analysis, again, you could be completely right.
But amateur compared to what, right?
I mean, I've read, I don't know, probably two dozen books on dream analysis from Freud and from Jung and other thinkers, and I've studied Nathaniel Brandon.
And, of course, I was in therapy for years, and a lot of what I did in therapy was work with the therapist to analyze and understand dreams.
So I've had years and years of experience looking at this and doing a fair amount of, a huge amount of reading on it.
So, and maybe that makes me an amateur, but if you're going to judge my years of experience and direct working with my own dreams in a therapeutic situation, then I need to know whether you just, whether you have an opinion or whether you're coming from a position of expertise.
No, it's an opinion.
Um, I've always thought that the symbology in dreams could be used to mean almost anything.
Sorry to interrupt you again, but that's just another opinion.
Can you tell me what research or facts or evidence that you have worked with, and this doesn't have to be science, because dream analysis is more art than science, but have you read any of the psychological or other kinds of literature about dream analysis?
From people who are recognized or respected in the field, like Freud or Jung or the other big luminaries?
Well, since you obviously have more experience, I'll just take your word for it.
Well, no. See, I'm not asking you to take my word for it.
I'm trying to point out something, which is that, I mean, I'm sure you find it annoying because, I mean, you know about economics, right?
So when people come up and say stuff about economics as if it's true when they've actually read nothing about the field and they're just going off instinct or gut field, you find that annoying, right?
Yeah, because I'm very passionate about that.
Right. So when you come and you say, well, I think this about dream analysis and it's amateur and I think that, and I ask you on what grounds you think this, and you've not read anything as far as I can tell on dream analysis, I sort of experience the same thing that you do when people say, well, without the government, we'd have monopolies and there would be no roads.
And you ask them, well, what have you read or what do you know about economics?
And they say, well, I've not read anything about economics.
This is just what I think.
Well, that's why I'm saying I'm taking your word for it because you just told me that you've done years of research.
No, no, no. There's no point taking my word for it because if you think – it's just a way of thinking that I'm trying to – I'm not talking about the dream analysis stuff itself.
It's just a way of thinking, right?
Which is that, I mean, obviously people can criticize, people can say, Steph, you're wrong.
I mean, of course, right? But I'm not, I didn't wander off the corn patch and start doing dream analysis, right?
I've been working on it with myself and with a very competent and expert therapist for years.
I mean, I have a lot of knowledge, a lot of direct personal experience about this.
And of course, I always say, this is all just a theory.
It may or may not be true.
There's certainly no proof in dream analysis other than does it help Does it help illuminate one's own psychology to oneself?
And so this is just...
I'm sorry, I'll just end here and I'll let you continue.
I'm sorry to ramble on, but it's just a way of thinking, right?
Which is that if you say, well, I think the dream analysis are amateur and could mean anything, and you haven't done any research in it, that then...
That's not good, right, fundamentally.
It may be that my dream analysis are nonsense and amateur, but just stating it without doing any research or having any understanding of quite a huge amount of literature, scientific and professional literature on the field, is not productive as a way of approaching things,
if that makes sense. So, would you say that since it can't Be based on the fact that these dreams analysis should be more taken as entertainment as I saw them?
Or, I mean, you know, what do you think?
No, certainly not just as entertainment.
Absolutely not. There is an enormous amount of rich psychological material that can be available in dreams.
I mean, nothing in the mind is purely accidental, right?
I mean, when you dream about one thing versus another… It's not completely accidental.
Now, just because something can't be objectively proved does not mean that it then becomes completely subjective and just for entertainment purposes.
People have had very significant breakthroughs in terms of self-knowledge and focus and ambitions and goals and love in life through these dream analyses.
So, no, it's not purely subjective.
Yeah, I agree with that.
The dreams analysis that you do always, the symbology always seems to come back and point, you know, kind of directly at FDR and philosophy.
And I always thought that that may be a stretch.
I'm sorry to interrupt you.
I just want to make sure I'm following what you're saying.
The symbology points back to FDR. I'm not sure what that means.
When you do the dream analysis, Okay, but I'm not sure what you mean by that.
The symbology in their dreams, when you do the analysis, is always about FDR, right?
Well, no, that's what you're saying, but I still don't understand what you mean.
Do you mean, like, I think they're dreaming about the website URL? I mean, I'm not sure what you mean when you say it points back to FDR. The philosophy.
Okay, but can you give me an example?
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. - Okay.
Like, when, I think there was one dream about some kind of post-apocalyptic world It was a really cool dream.
Somebody was in a car and everything.
Did this all...
It all seemed to...
You seemed to apply to...
The philosophy of Freedom Man Radio, and as I said, you've done a lot more research on this, but I thought that the symbology could be used to mean almost anything, or it could just be a random jumble of thoughts.
Sure, but when you say it always seems to point back to FDR or the philosophy of FDR or whatever, I'm still not sure what that means.
What aspects of the philosophy do you feel may be unjustly reinforced through the dreams or the dream analysis?
Well, Well, every time that there's a dream character that's, you know, female or male and it's doing something, oftentimes you female or male and it's doing something, oftentimes you do apply that directly to the family.
And I'm not saying that that's...
I don't know if that's valid or not, but it does seem that dream characters often do apply it directly to the family.
Well, and certainly, if a man says, I dreamt about my father, do you think it's unreasonable to think that he's...
No, I don't think that's quite unreasonable at all.
Okay, again, I don't think we're getting anywhere on this, so perhaps you could go to an issue.
Okay, I'll go to my next issue.
In our last conversation, you seem to think the...
Me bringing up the self-guided meditation was kind of silly, but I don't think it's fair to say that me saying that a self-guided meditation could plant a seed of doubt in people's minds about their past...
You know, I'm not saying that the...
Ten minutes of self-guided meditation is going to change their entire view on their childhood.
I'm saying that it would plant a seed of doubt and you'll make them view it a little bit differently.
Okay, and again, sorry to interrupt you.
So for this kind of stuff, rather than making a blanket assertion, I think it's important to do some research, right?
Because these things are not just subjective and up to our opinion.
So if you feel that If you feel that a meditation can somehow affect someone's or rewrite someone's history or have an effect on their perception of their history with their family, then you need to do some research because there's lots of research into meditation.
There's lots of research into those kinds of things, and you need to see, okay, well, is there any evidence that Right.
And again, it's just going back to the facts, going back to the studying, going back to the psychology.
The evidence to me seems obvious in this case because I started to do the self-guided meditation and I was getting into it.
And when I got to the part about looking at my seven-year-old child and saying, oh, everything is...
I know how...
I stopped because I thought to myself, well, I don't remember my childhood being very bad.
I mean, I had some issues with my parents in my teenage years, but my childhood was just fine.
So, for me, I had to stop the meditation.
But I think other people would not.
Sorry, why would you stop meditation?
That seems obvious to me that it would, you know, make them view their childhood a little differently.
But you said that it didn't make you view your childhood any differently.
Yeah, that's because I stopped the meditation.
I was about to, I mean, I was about to do all this stuff, and then I was like, wait, wait, wait, no.
No, I didn't have that bad of a childhood.
Okay, so you're evidence of the fact that meditation do not affect people's view of their childhoods.
So I'm not sure how you get from that, that meditation does affect people's view of their childhoods.
And it seems that you would be evidence to the opposite of what you claim.
Right, but...
I was just one case.
I'm sure the majority of people would not stop in the middle of the podcast.
But why are you sure?
How are you sure?
This is what I keep asking you, Johnny.
How are you sure?
Have you done research?
Do you know? Have you asked around?
Or do you just put stuff forward saying it's true without any research or any facts whatsoever?
Or any evidence other than the fact that it didn't affect you in terms of your view of your childhood?
this is what I'm trying to get across to you.
The evidence seems more common sense to me.
I don't see it as too much of a stretch.
You don't see it as too much of a stretch, really?
No, to say that you're doing a meditation, you talk to your past child about how hard they are, and then, you know, you...
You go off into philosophy and all that.
I don't see how that's much of a stretch.
Let me help you to see how it is a stretch.
First of all, people found the meditation very helpful.
Second of all, you, who say it did not apply to your childhood, did not finish the meditation.
Thirdly, there's no evidence whatsoever in any psychological journaling that a 10-minute meditation can rewrite your memories or affect your memories of your childhood in any way.
So what seems like common sense to you is exactly what seems like common sense to a lot of people, that we need a government, that there would be no roads, without a government that there'd be no charity.
That seems like common sense to people, but it's totally wrong.
I mean, just on the economic side, right?
And you don't want to make that same mistake, right?
You want to have that as a principle.
But just because it might make sense to you doesn't mean that you can leap to say, "This is now established fact," right?
Well, I didn't say it's an established fact, but I think it would make sense that that would happen.
Okay, are you hearing anything that I'm saying?
You think it might make sense?
Like, I'm giving you evidence of the contrary, but you don't seem to be processing it all.
And then you say that FDR is defensive and rejects truth, right?
Well, I know that it was, at least for certain people, because it happened to me, as far as the FDR is defensive.
But you see that you may not have a very strong leg to stand on, because here, like with regards to the dream analysis, with regards to this meditation, and throughout our last conversation, I kept giving you evidence and strong arguments as to why you didn't have an empirical basis to stand on to assert the sort of facts that you're asserting.
And I'm doing that now here as well, and you're not accepting anything that I'm saying, right?
No, I get where you're coming from.
And all I'm saying, I don't think that is bad.
And, you know, I've said before, I think you should make a caveat that this is only for people who have a bad childhood.
But, I mean, I listen to hundreds of your podcasts, right?
You know, I found them very helpful.
And so when I see this dream analysis come along, I mean, if I hadn't already thought, you know, maybe there are some little flaws that I was, you know, that I felt I should point out that I would have probably just gone straight along and, you know, not stopped in the middle of the dream analysis.
That's what I'm saying. Yeah, I don't know what that means as far as truth states.
I mean, I know that can't be subjectively proven, I guess, but I think it makes sense to me.
Well, but you understand, if you say, I think it makes sense to me, that means nothing, right?
It does make sense. No, but it means nothing, because you have no evidence, you have no science, you have no training, you have no studying, you have no direct experience with the dream analysis, right?
So, saying it makes sense to me...
It's not philosophy, right?
It's just bigotry, right?
It makes sense to me, despite the facts, despite the evidence, despite the theory, despite the science, it just makes sense to me.
The evidence in my life, you know, there was a time where I would have not stopped in the middle of that dream analysis.
Sorry, are we talking about dream analysis or meditation?
Oh, sorry. Self-doubted meditation.
Okay. But still, when you say this is a fact that a 10-minute meditation can alter people's perception of their history, and then when I challenge you on the facts and ask for evidence, you say, well, it just makes sense to me.
But those two things have nothing to do with each other, right?
It's a fact versus it makes sense to me with no evidence and despite evidence.
Nothing to do with each other.
I mean, personal evidence is what I just...
No, because your personal evidence, Johnny, was that you were not affected by the meditation because you stopped.
That's your personal evidence.
So your personal evidence contradicts the thesis that you're putting forward, that it will affect people, right?
The only reason I stopped is because I already, you know, I've questioned a few other things that I thought might be wrong.
Do you want to go on to the next point?
Okay, we'll do one more point, but I think I'm getting a bit of a pattern here.
But sure, let's do one more point.
Just one more? Sure.
Let's talk about the parent stuff that came up at the end of the...
Let's talk about the parents, then.
Yeah, let's talk about parents. Okay.
So you said that, if I remember rightly, you said that there are four parents who are upset because children have separated from the parents for, you know, whatever period of time it has occurred.
You said that there are four parents somewhere out there on the internet who are upset about this, is that right?
Yeah, I was looking the other day and I found one or two more case studies Or whatever you want to call them.
People that I've found that have also had a similar experience.
The one that I found yesterday was a wife of somebody who almost ended up getting a divorce because of...
I think he almost left her Because she wasn't exactly, you know, she didn't believe in the exact same type of philosophy, you know, the anarcho-capitalism and all that stuff.
She didn't believe in exactly the same kind of philosophy that people like to talk about on the FDR boards.
But he changed his mind, and she managed to change his mind.
But she had a... Another friend who was his friend who did end up leaving his wife.
But she did not end up losing her husband.
And she said it was because of the reason that her friend Ended up leaving his wife was because she couldn't go along with all this philosophy, you know, the way that he kind of wanted to.
Sorry, let me just make sure, because it's a complicated thing.
Okay, so we've got two women.
One says, let's call her A, and then we'll call the other woman B. So A says she almost got divorced...
Because of philosophical differences with her husband, but they worked it out, right?
Right. Okay, now B is reported by A. A is talking about B, who did split up with her husband, and according to A, it's philosophical differences?
Yes. Okay, I mean, again, I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm not saying they're wrong, but when people are going through breakups, They will often...
And again, this is no proof.
I'm just talking skepticism, right?
Based on quite a bit of experience with talking with people about this.
A marriage that...
And it's sort of like memories of your childhood, right?
Like a marriage wherein the introduction of philosophy causes a big problem in the relationship.
The problem is not philosophy, right?
It's like if someone has an affair, it's not...
The other woman who is the problem, right?
The problem is within the marriage, and it's being acted out with reference to an affair or with reference to philosophy, if that makes sense.
And this is not my opinion.
I mean, there's no psychologist in the world who will say that an affair, say, is not a symptom of a problem in a marriage.
It is a symptom of a problem in a marriage.
It is not the problem within the marriage, if that makes sense.
What are you... Sorry, how do affairs have to do with...
Well, because what we're doing is we're saying that if a woman says, I left my husband because he had an affair, and that's the only thing that was wrong with our marriage, then we know she's not telling the whole truth.
Right? Because the husband has an affair because there's a problem with the marriage.
Right? I don't see how that pertains.
Okay, that's alright. I'll stitch it in.
So if a woman says, my husband left me over minor differences in philosophy, I can guarantee you that is not the cause of the problem or the problems in the marriage.
Well, okay.
What if they weren't having problems before...
You mean if they weren't having problems before the introduction of philosophy?
Yeah. Well, that's not possible, though, because either the philosophical differences are very large, right?
And significant, right?
Like, the husband wants to beat the children and the wife doesn't, right?
I mean, that's pretty significant, right?
I'm not saying this is true, but either the philosophical differences are really big or the philosophical differences are really small, right?
Now, if they're really big...
Philosophy has not created those but rather just identified them, right?
Like I mean if your doctor says you have cancer, he doesn't create it, he just identifies it, right?
So philosophy isn't creating those differences, it's merely giving language to them.
Now if the philosophical differences are very small, Like, I don't know, a totally tiny, objectivist kind of government versus an anarchic kind of government, then there's going to be a lively debate with mutual respect, there's going to be a negotiation, there's going to be a continued enjoyment.
I mean, my wife and I debate stuff all the time.
We certainly don't agree about everything.
And it's a positive and lively and fun part of our marriage, and this is true for a lot of the debates that I get into.
Mm-hmm. So if the differences are major, it's not the fault of philosophy.
It just means that they didn't work out these differences before they got married, and you can't blame philosophy for pointing that out.
If the differences are minor, then if they're going to split up over minor differences, it's because they don't know how to negotiate.
They're not treating each other with respect.
They're not approaching the debate in good faith and with an honorable recognition that the truth is valuable and so on.
They're rigid and they're confrontational and they're making mountains out of molehills.
Again, that doesn't get created by philosophy.
That's something that's already existent within the marriage.
Okay. Alright, getting back to the parents...
They, uh...
Yeah, uh...
I think that, uh...
You know, well, on that, what we were just talking about, um...
Don't you think that...
Uh...
A lot of people...
Don't want to talk to, uh...
People that are different, that have, you know, different viewpoints, though, I mean, like, they're, like, they didn't seem open to me, so, you know, at all, after I talked with you,
and, so I don't, I see, you know, that could be kind of applied to the situation with, Family and friends, too.
They didn't seem open with me after I had opposing viewpoints.
So maybe...
And they kind of shunned me, so why could that not happen in other situations?
I'm sure it could. I think it does happen in other situations.
I'm sure that it could.
And you believe, you genuinely believe, that you were shunned because you had...
Because you had differences of opinion with people.
Yes. No other reason?
It's not anything to do with what you did or didn't do.
It is only because other people can't handle the differences of opinion.
Well, I mean...
I mean, it's because I served...
You know, I mean, it's because of our discussion.
It was the reason.
But yeah, I wasn't asking for a debate.
I was just asking for feedback.
And, you know, when everyone on the chat room logs out except the moderators, it's kind of obvious what's going on.
Right. I understand that.
But what I'm saying is, and I'm not trying to catch you, I'm just trying to genuinely understand where you're coming from, that It was dishonorable or unfair or unjust or wrong or bad or whatever, negative, for other people to not want to interact with you after, not just our last chat, but after a lot of interactions that people have had with you in the chat room.
It's nothing to do with what you're doing.
It's just because other people are defensive and other people are unfair and other people are insecure and don't want to discuss alternate viewpoints.
Um... I would say it is a little bit of...
Well, I mean, before I had the discussion with you, I was bringing my views into the chatroom and no one shunned me.
And then after I had the discussion with you, I did.
So... I don't...
You know...
That's...
That kind of seems as evidence to me.
I mean, I enjoyed, you know, debating, you know, and, well, okay, let's go back to, you know, somebody says, oh, you know, I've felt like killing my mother.
I mean, don't we all, I mean, we've all, you know, said we've thought about doing that.
But on a philosophy website, I don't think it's proper for...
No, no, no, sorry. Look, I've got to interrupt you here, because you're trying a great thing here, which is trying to drag me back into an interaction that I don't know anything about.
So, what I'm asking you...
Alright, we won't do that. So, stay with the original question, if you don't mind.
Okay. Yeah, I mean, I think that they weren't open...
And that's why they left the show.
Right. And again, I'm not trying to badger you.
I'm really just trying to understand where you're coming from.
You're saying that it has nothing to do with your actions or your choices that people didn't want to interact with you.
Yeah, it had to do with my actions and my choices because I was, you know, I had...
Opposing viewpoints.
Right, but it's not because you did anything wrong or negative that people didn't want to interact with you.
I don't think I did anything wrong.
Okay. Now, if this is true, right, I mean, there's ways of thinking about this stuff objectively, right?
Now, I think it's fairly safe to say that FDR presents a number, a huge number, I think, of very challenging ideas to people, right?
People in the libertarian movement, people who are religious, people who are statists of various kinds, right?
And why do you think it is, if the principle is, at FDR or wherever, if the principle is that a difference of opinion results in shunning, how could FDR Exist at all.
Why wouldn't, when I come into the room, people shun me?
Because I certainly hugely disagree with people sometimes.
How could FDR as a radical kind of – a new radical or whatever your philosophy, how could it exist at all if the principle is people don't like challenging ideas?
Because FDR, I mean whether you like it or you hate it, it's full of challenging ideas, right?
This is true.
So help me understand why it affects you but not me.
You know, I guess maybe because you're the part I got.
But I mean, you...
You, I mean, you're the one that has done, you know, all the groundbreaking and wrote the books, and I was the one that was questioning it all, and I guess that's why.
Well, no, no, but the books themselves question a lot, right?
Well, those, what do you mean that they, yeah, but those are the series, and they, you know, everyone kind of...
Well, that's not true at all.
I get lots of disagreements in the chat.
Well, yeah, that's true.
I mean, there's a Marxist in there, right?
and people interact with him.
And I know that this is an annoying set of questions and I'm doing this not because I want to make you uncomfortable or prove you wrong or anything like that, I genuinely want you to appeal to people.
I want you to come into the chat room and for people to say, great, Johnny's here.
Rather than, as you say, scatter like crows before a shotgun.
Yeah, literally.
I want you to have that experience, and I'm telling you, If it's everyone else's fault, there's nothing you can do to change that.
And empirically, it just doesn't work, right?
Because there are people who are challenging, who have different ideas, who oppose a lot of what is talked about, that people do want to interact with.
And if you're not one of them, and you say, well, it's everyone else's fault because they can't handle differences of opinions, Then there's no possibility that you have any effect on whether people want to interact with you or not.
And just blaming other people, right?
It doesn't work.
I never...
I mean, I have...
I think that it's because they, you know...
You know, just don't...
I mean, I don't know why...
Oh, no, no, no. You said you didn't know why, right?
You said it's because they were unjust, defensive ideas, right?
Well, I mean, yeah. I just asked for feedback.
That's all I did. I understand, but that's not all that happened, right?
It's not all that happened.
When people don't want to interact with you, and you just look at, well, all I did was this thing right before they didn't want to interact with me, To take a silly example, it's like you're in a marriage and you come home and you forget the cheese.
You're going to go buy some groceries and you forget the cheese.
And your wife says, that's it, I'm leaving you, because you forgot the cheese.
I mean, no sane person would think it's about the cheese, right?
Well, I mean, I thought it was about...
I mean, it wasn't about the question, it was about the podcast, really.
No, it was not just about a podcast.
It was about a long history of people's interactions with you.
And I would submit to you that you have the most power in your life if you say, I have created this shunning through my actions.
I'm not going to sit down and say, well, I didn't do anything and other people just shunned me and make up all these stories.
Because don't you get that people understand that you're insulting them?
That when you say, well, all I did was ask for a little feedback and everyone shunned me because they're defensive and unjust and it's a cult, right?
And when you say that, you're really insulting people, right?
I never said that it was a cult.
Sorry, you're right. You didn't say it was a cult.
But you said that people are defensive, that they're unjust, that they're doing wrong, that they don't want to interact with you because they can't handle differences of opinions, right?
That's pretty insulting, right?
Yeah. Now, why would people interact with you if you're insulting them?
I've already been banned.
But I'm trying to give you a sense of how it occurs, not for FDR, but for your life as a whole, right?
Why would people want to interact with you if you insult them?
I don't think I didn't insult them.
Yes, because everybody knows everything.
Everybody gets where you're coming from.
Right? You have to give, I mean, you don't have to, but I'm telling you it's true that people totally understand where you're coming from.
And if you think ill of people, they will get it.
If you think that people are defensive and insecure and whatever, all the things that you say, they will get it.
Every time you type something into the chat room, every time you say something, every time you pause, people understand where you're coming from deep down in their gullet, so to speak, right?
And so when I'm saying when people don't want to interact with you, that is the sum of a long series of interactions where your thoughts about them have been communicated to them very clearly whether you like it or not.
It's nothing to do with psychology.
Sorry, it's nothing to do with psychic.
I don't believe in any of that stuff.
But... Human communication is very rich, very complex, right?
Ninety to ninety-five percent of communication is non-verbal, and that's true even in the chat room.
It's just based on what you say, when you say it, how you approach it.
People get where you're coming from.
I'm just telling you this, right, because that way it will be less incomprehensible to you why you're shunned and other people aren't.
Why you're shunned for disagreeing with a little bit, while people who are Marxists, they're not shunned even when they disagree with a lot.
I'm just trying to give you some understanding that what you think about people clearly indicates itself in how you interact.
I think it was because I've been questioning, I guess, what's been the most sensitive issue, you know, the whole...
Defoo and parenting thing.
And I know the people over there are very, you know, I guess they're tired of people questioning that.
Okay, so you don't believe anything that I'm saying.
That's fine, right? But here's the thing, too, right?
I know.
You're right. People will listen to this podcast that you and I are having, and they will see that you have advanced a whole series of objections or criticisms, and then when you're asked for proof or evidence or reasoning, you have none, right?
And I'm just telling you this, right?
This is what people will take from this, right?
Just so things aren't incomprehensible to you, right?
So... What people will take for this is Johnny says stuff without evidence.
And then, when you confront him on the evidence, he'll grudgingly admit something, change the topic, and it won't have any effect on what he thinks or believes.
And that's why people don't want to interact with you.
Because it doesn't make any difference.
Because credibility, as I've talked about before, is so essential when you're communicating with people about the big philosophical ideas.
And I can tell you that your credibility, when you come up with criticisms and I ask for evidence and you haven't read anything and you don't have any knowledge and you are, you know, with the meditation thing, you are a contradiction to your own thesis, your experience.
Then what happens is people say, they listen to this and they say, okay, so this guy just says stuff and then when you ask him for evidence, he doesn't have any but he doesn't change his mind.
Well, of course people don't want to interact with that anymore than you want to throw money down a mineshaft, right?
Because it doesn't go anywhere.
Well, I have evidence for what I'm saying.
You know, with the dream analysis thing, I said that there was a time where I wouldn't have stopped in the middle of the dream analysis.
You mean the meditation?
Yes, yes, yes, the meditation.
And I mean, even if they do think it's throwing a penny down a mineshaft, You know, I mean, I had a long chat with you and they listened to it.
You know, the guy, I mean, all I asked was for feedback.
I mean, on a philosophy forum, don't you think that, you know, even if they may think that I'm, you know, I mean, don't you think they would Well, they did say something. They said something very clear, right?
If you phone someone and they hang up, they're telling you something, right?
And you may say, well, they shouldn't, or it should be different, or whatever, right?
But then all you're saying is that it doesn't matter what you do, other people are obligated to interact with you, and they're not.
We're all about volunteerism.
If people don't want to interact with you, you can say, well, it's because they're defensive and they're unjust and they're this.
And all that happens is it means that people aren't going to want to interact with you in the future because it's all other people's fault.
It's nothing to do with what you do, right?
Hmm. And look, I'm not expecting you to – you can – this may be all complete nonsense, right?
And I'm not expecting you to concede anything.
I'm just saying it's a possibility.
I think – I mean the way that I approach things, rightly or wrongly, is if something goes wrong in a relationship, I will first and foremost say, what am I doing that's the problem, right?
And if it's consistent, right, like if every time I log into the chat room, everyone logs out, I'm going to review my behavior over the past couple of months and say, what have I done to create it?
I mean, I know that there's, you know, individuals who don't like me or whatever, and that's fine.
But if everyone is doing kind of the same thing, then it's more likely to be me than if it's just like one person out of a thousand who doesn't like me, right?
Because that just could happen for whatever reason, right?
So I'm just, I mean, I know it's comforting to say, well, it's other people's fault and they're being defensive and they're obliged to interact with me because it's a philosophy forum and all I did was ask for feedback and blah, blah, blah.
But that doesn't give you any power.
It doesn't give you any possibility to affect the outcome of your interactions, right?
I mean, I know that there's consolation in saying it's everyone else's fault.
The only drawback is that you end up just repeating it and repeating it and repeating it, right?
I'm just saying it's something to think on, right?
I could be completely full of crap, right?
I'm just saying it's a possibility to think on.
Okay. Um...
All right.
Uh... Alright, let's just not talk about that.
Well, I just get very angry when I see the way...
Just like, you know, people treat parents and just...
I don't know.
I just don't like it.
Anyway... About those parents we were talking about last time...
You know, they said they didn't get any warning, didn't get any talk, didn't get any you need to see a therapist, didn't get any any of that.
And they didn't even know why they'd left, you know, why their children had left for a while until they...
And then they found out, and so they researched it and all that, and now they're posting on some sub-forum, you know, Libby, or whatever you want to call it.
Let me, yeah.
And, you know, this happens.
I saw your, you know, I think I saw your little post about the, you know, The percentage of parents that you think defuse or whatever.
Yeah, just for those who don't know this, this is basically, the math goes like, over the course of FDR, we've had about 50,000 fairly consistent listeners, which means, of course, potentially 100,000 parents.
We can take that down by 10% because of death or estrangement, maybe 90,000 parents.
There have been about 20 defus that I know of, and of course, maybe there's more, but I can only deal with what I know about.
And each defu affects, well, at one point, Eight, but let's say two parents, right?
So thus we've had 40 parents out of 90,000 parents who've been affected by family separation, or 0.044% of parents.
So one out of 2,250 parents involved with FDR have had a family separation that I know of.
And sociopaths are 4% of the population, thus there should be 3,600 sociopathic parents out of 90,000.
That means that it would be reasonable that 3600 DFUs should have occurred, statistically, but we've had 20 or 1.11% of the potential DFUs and so it's tiny.
It's something that people know because it's big and it's dramatic and people talk about it and the parents get upset, but it's totally tiny.
And statistically far below where it should be, right?
But of course all that happens is people say, well FDR breaks up families without looking at the number of families whose relationships have been improved.
And it's the same thing through RTR or FDR or whatever, right?
Or therapy that people go to.
Because people don't write in that much and we don't really notice it that much to say, I had a good relationship.
My relationship with my mother or my father improved as a result of talking more honestly, more openly about what I feel, which we all recognize is a good thing.
It's just like economics, right?
So when you have a government program that creates 500 jobs, everyone says, yay, right?
But nobody notices the 2,000 jobs that aren't created because nobody talks about them.
And in the same way, the 20-odd defoos that have occurred through FDR are very prominent and they stick in people's minds and the parents get up in arms and so on.
But out of 50,000 families, I mean, 20?
Is this... I mean, we've got to think more clearly about the reality of the statistics.
Yeah. Alright, I know you'd want to get that out.
Well, I think there are problems with that, definitely.
When you're talking about defoing from parents, I'm sure you only know about I'm sure you don't know about them all.
Maybe it's double. Maybe it's double, but then maybe it's still only 2% of sociopaths and less than 1% of total family.
But I mean, that's not taking into account that person's entire family.
That's not taking into account all the friends.
Sorry, what do you mean their entire family?
In most cases, they aren't just going to defoe from two members of their family.
Oh, sorry, but statistically that doesn't affect things at all, right?
If you say instead of two parents, there are 20 families involved...
20 family members involved.
It doesn't change the statistics at all, right?
Because there are 20 family members who aren't defued from in 99.8% of FDR families, right?
So it doesn't change the statistics at all.
And we have to work with the facts, right?
Not just what seems shocking, right?
Well, it adds a lot more people to that.
I'm sorry? That would add a lot more people.
No, but it would also add the total number of people.
Like, if you say a family is not two people, but 20 people, then sure, more people are affected by the DFU, but more people are affected by the maintenance of family stability, so the ratio between the two doesn't change, right?
Like, 2% is 2 out of 100, and it's also 20 out of 1,000.
It's still 2%, right?
So it doesn't matter. If you inflate both numbers, it doesn't change the ratio.
Mm-hmm. Alright.
Well, I know you'd want to get that out there at some point, but...
I'm sorry, what do you mean, like, you'd want to get that out there?
You're the one who brought up the parents.
Yeah, yeah. So, you're driving this.
Don't tell me I've got a destination, right?
Okay. Um...
So, what...
I mean, don't you think that there's, you know, because of a lot of the very, you know, rigid philosophical standard that you hold parents up to at FDR,
don't you think that Well, I mean,
that's a I mean, that's just a negative term, right?
Compared to other views of families...
Sorry, do you think there are views of families that say it's very important to lie about what you think and feel?
So what other views are you comparing it to?
Well, I mean, you seem to hold parents up to the very high standard.
Okay, can you give me an example of the very high standard that I hold parents up to?
Yeah, like if there was a traumatic, you know, let's say your mom or your dad cussed you out for something small that you did.
You might suggest talking to them about something that happened I'm sorry,
I'm trying to figure out what you're saying because I don't follow it at all.
Are you saying that I've ordered people to talk about stuff which is unimportant to them?
Right? Because if you were cast out by your dad and you're still upset about it, I think it's important to be honest about how you feel, right?
I mean, is honesty not a good thing in relationships?
is hiding your feelings and pretending that you're feeling something other than what you're actually feeling.
Do you feel that's a better standard?
Well, no, but you seem to, I mean, it seems focused on a lot of the negative things.
No, no, no, no, no. All you're doing, see, let me tell you what you're doing.
What you're doing is you're just using adjectives, like rigid, high standards, it seems, focusing on the negative.
And whenever I ask you for evidence, you say, well, it seems like you might, like you're just making stuff up.
No, I'm not. Yes, you are, because you're not giving me evidence of where I say you must talk to your family about being cussed out or this or that or whatever, right?
I'm saying if it bothers you, you should talk...
Well, isn't that what real-time relationships is about?
It's about what? What is real-time relationships about?
I mean, isn't that about talking about your emotions and all that all the time, you know?
Yeah, being honest with people about how you feel and what you think.
Absolutely. Yeah, but I mean, when you, you know, when you are focusing on the negatives of parenting, I think, you know, then you're...
Wait, wait, wait, wait. How do you get from me saying you should be honest with your parents to that's focusing on the negative?
Yeah. No, I said when you're focusing on the negative...
Who is focusing on the negative?
Me? By saying be honest with your family?
Am I saying focus on the negative?
Am I saying only talk about things that are negative and never tell them things that are positive?
I don't say any of that.
I say be honest with the people in your life.
Where do you get focusing on the negative there?
Honesty is neutral. It simply says...
Be honest about what you feel.
I never say focus on the negative.
I say focus on the truth, right?
So help me understand where you get focus on the negative.
From... You know, from...
You know, who's the DeMars guy?
What's his name? Lloyd DeMars?
Lloyd DeMars, you know, and all...
You know, and all that other stuff.
You know, it's very, you know, focused on the negative appearance.
No, but you're talking about RTR, right?
And you're talking about what I say, not what Damas says, right?
Because his stuff, if you've got an issue with DeMoss and the scientific and sociological research that he's done with his PhD from Cornell and all these hundreds of researchers around the world who've been working for decades, if you have an issue with what DeMoss says, you need to bring it up with DeMoss.
but you're talking to me and you're saying that I am doing something destructive towards families, which is a very serious allegation, which I take very seriously.
So I'm asking you for evidence as to how I'm harming families by telling people to be honest with each other.
Well, if you're...
You know, you talk about a lot of the negative things about parenting a lot, and when people listen to that...
Okay, can you give me an example?
It would make them want to be honest and open, but it would make it...
I mean, about... Anything, you know, anything bad that happened, you know, a long time ago, and everyone has had, you know, bad things that happened, you know, but I don't see why.
It seems like you, you know, really focus, focus on that.
Okay, look, I mean, if you're going to use the word seems like, then, yeah, okay, you can make up, and it seems like the world is flat, and it seems like clouds are the eyebrows of Zeus.
It seems like that. Well, I like to say seems because I don't like to sound like I'm, you know...
No, it's because you don't have any evidence.
Because you don't have any evidence.
I'm giving you...
You know, you're not giving me any evidence.
At all. I never say focus on the negative.
I never say only talk about the bad things.
That's ridiculous. I say be honest, and if the honesty includes bad things, that's still what you have to deal with, because that's the reality of the experience, right?
Well, what about when you said, what do you think would be philosophically...
The right amount of restitution for a wrong, right?
And you said that you believe that reason and evidence says that the right amount of restitution for a wrong is exactly what ever happened to you should be repaid and if it's a loved one, maybe a little bit. Extra.
And that's common. That goes back thousands of years.
That's part of Anglo-Saxon and Greek and Roman, right?
Okay, and you also said that for every one day that you felt like the relationship was bad, you should have ten days of good And that is a generally accepted psychological rule of thumb, which is not something I invented, but go on.
That, I mean, that is evidence that it would be focused on the negative, because you equate one day of, you know, maybe where you're arguing with, let's say, a friend, where you have to have...
Ten days of really good friendship to believe that...
Right, and as I say, this is not something that I have invented.
This is a generally accepted psychological rule of thumb.
It's not precise, of course, but...
So if you're upset with me for reporting generally accepted things in psychology, then what you have an issue with is not me, but you have an issue with psychology, and you should go and talk to the people who have done the research And it is a significant amount of research that has gone into this.
You should go to those people, and you should examine their source data, and you should tell them how they're incorrect, because all I'm doing is reporting the results of research, right?
Well, okay then.
So if a parent makes you go to church for 10 years, and that's, you know, horrible, Would that take a hundred years to make up for that?
Okay, look, I'm going to stop here because we're obviously not getting anywhere, right?
At least I know that we're not getting anywhere.
Maybe you feel that we do. And I think that you've certainly made your case.
I've provided my rebuttals, but nothing seems to stick.
Actually, nothing does stick. I'm not even going to say seems to.
So I do appreciate it.
I mean, I know that it was a tough call in some ways.
I do appreciate the time that you spent.
I think that I certainly have made my responses to what it is that you say that is bad that is going on, but I don't have any desire to continue the conversation any further.
So thank you so much for your time.
I do appreciate it, and all the best.
▲
Export Selection