All Episodes
Previous Next
March 11, 2009 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
01:25:42
1292 Conference Call -- Listener Review of Stef's Liberty Forum Speech

Some thoughts that I had about the conference I attended in New Hampshire.

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Alright. Okay, well thanks everyone.
So yeah, I had a lot of people who were asking me questions about the talk and I guess the conference as a whole and I thought I'd just get people together to ask questions so that it would sort of all be in one place rather than have to do it sort of from here to there.
So I guess, have you guys had a chance to listen to the talk?
Yeah. Or at least I am.
And I guess the first thing I would ask, as I always do, is what you thought, what you liked, what you didn't.
Because it's the first time I've spoken in any real way in public, in libertarian circles.
So, of course, it's important that I get feedback about what worked and what didn't.
The only other talk I've ever given in libertarian circles is the little one I did to, like, a dozen people at a libertarian conference a couple of years ago in a small room, and it wasn't...
They did one on environmentalism, so...
Oh, right. Yeah, so, I mean, this is the first...
I thought it was pretty clear, and you were light and humorous, and I very...
You kept their attention, I think, and kept them laughing, and you...
You speak very well, as always.
Well, thank you. It certainly was quite a high-wire act, right?
Because I was a wireless mic guy.
I was... No topic.
Normally, the structure is an hour to an hour and a half followed by, you know, 20 minutes of questions.
And I just did 20 minutes or half an hour and then did audience participation, which is an exciting thing to contemplate.
And so that was, you know...
The greater the challenge, the greater the progression, I suppose.
So, yeah, I just wanted to get... So, was there anything, Nate, that you thought would be different or better?
I mean, other than some of the answers could have been slightly more fleshed out, but the questions were really great, I thought.
So, you know, when the answer wasn't perfect, you certainly said so.
Yeah, I think you answered the questions better than I could have, but the only thing that...
What sort of bugged me was when you sort of grazed over lightly the non-aggression principle applying to children most of all.
I don't know exactly what you said.
I didn't quite memorize it, but you seemed to sort of...
Give some leeway.
I don't know what I'm trying to say.
Just sort of soften the blow there, I guess.
In what way? In...
As far as the way they might discipline their kids or...
It just seems sort of...
You mean because I didn't come out saying, you know, raise your voice, raise your hand in any way, shape, or form, and you're violating the non-aggression principle, and that's whatever?
Do you mean something like that? Yeah.
Sure, sure. Well, I mean, there was no context to make that, to make that descriptor.
Yeah, I guess. I mean, maybe that would be a better thing to do, but for sure that would have derailed...
the conversation that I was having because basically I'd be like letting off the firebomb of family in the middle of this other conversation.
You can't just drop the bomb of spanking is a violation of the NAP unless you're really willing to go to town, right?
Right, and I wasn't expecting you to drop a bomb so much as not to What's the opposite of that?
I don't remember exactly what you said, but it sounded like...
Well, I said that children are deserving of the protection of the NAP more than any other citizens in society.
Right, you said that, and then you said the way...
You threw in a bunch of caveats, I guess.
Okay, I can't. I mean, I think I'm sort of annoyed, not because it's your fault, but just because we're talking about something that neither of us can remember in any detail, so that's really not my point, right?
Yeah, it's the only thing that stood out for me.
So, I mean, that's something that bugged me, so I'd have to listen.
Yeah, if you could listen to it again, because telling me I should have done something when you can't remember what it is doesn't really lead anywhere.
Yeah, that is kind of annoying.
Yeah. Alright.
Well, thank you. I appreciate that.
And do let me know. I mean, obviously, I knew that we were going right to the edge of the precipice there as far as family stuff went.
But I'm certainly happy to revisit what I said if I backed off.
I certainly do remember saying, you know, I'm not talking about minor discipline and maybe people thought that meant spanking.
But what I meant by that was sort of timeouts and stuff.
But again, the audience would have taken...
For me, I wasn't going to go...
Into a discussion of, you know, spanking or raised voice or name calling as violations of NAP. That would just be Krakatoa in that room, in my opinion, right?
Because a lot of the people there would not be very familiar with that topic at all.
Gun-toed conservatives?
Well, yeah, I mean, I wouldn't want to speculate about their histories without knowing them in any detail, but, you know, in any group that is a highly controversial place, to start talking from.
Yeah, that's what I figured that you would go off the precipice.
I was expecting you to drop the family bomb, but I didn't know that you could go, you know, just to the edge there.
So I was wondering how you felt about just going to the edge of the precipice and not going, you know, to the ultimate, you know, incarnation of your philosophy.
Oh, I felt good. I felt good about that.
But tell me how you felt. Well, I felt kind of cheated, but in terms of public speaking, you probably could read the audience better than I could.
Actually, I thought they would not take kindly to the family bomb either, and wondered how you were going to handle that, and it looks like you did.
Well, I mean, I certainly did say that the NAP applies to children more so than any other members of society, and I would have no problem with force being used against parents who were abusing their children.
I mean, that seems to me pretty...
I mean, that was fairly unequivocal.
And now, of course, I didn't define what that abuse would be and did put caveats in, for sure.
Because, you know, physically restraining children who are about to jump off the roof and, you know, timeouts, which may involve lifting, don't particularly strike me as violations of the NAP. But that's a really gray area, and I would not go into...
A crowd where that would almost doubtlessly bring great hostility without a good deal more preparation, if that makes sense.
I agree, yeah.
I don't think even an audience exists in the world.
It could be, and maybe that wasn't.
And, of course, I didn't bring it up.
It came out of a question specifically around what you do in terms of child abuse.
And, of course, I did refer people to podcasts and to...
To articles that I'd written in Practical Anarchy and so on.
So they definitely can go there.
And I certainly was, I think, pretty clear about the principle.
But yeah, I was not going to go into...
You know, my particular thought, and this is perhaps just a gross generalization and I have no proof for it, so it's just my gut sense, is that people who open carry probably did not have the gentlest of upbringings.
You know, that's just my... My way of thinking.
I'm at a place where there's people openly displaying weaponry.
If that theory has truth to it, that people who want to carry weapons in a peaceful, philosophical venue...
I mean, it's not like these guys were wandering down dark alleys with bags of money stapled to their foreheads.
These people were in a peaceful, voluntaristic group...
Of like-minded individuals and still felt the need to open carry.
If the theory is true that people who were...
And of course the whole conference started off with a gathering at a firing range.
And again, this is just no proof, just theory.
People who are wildly into guns and like to open carry, I don't imagine had the most gentle, kind and nurturing of upbringings.
And so I was not going to go into a definition of violations of the NAP, which, if that theory is true, would have struck just about everybody in the audience.
And I think that's irresponsible because there's no context and it may cause people to get very upset and defensive or angry.
And I just think it's irresponsible.
If they are interested and want to pursue the topic, there's no shortage of material.
But I just don't think, if those are existing wounds, I just think ripping them off in a public forum like that is not responsible.
Can I comment on the gun culture?
Sure. I feel like I can speak objectively as an outsider because I was born and raised in Los Angeles and I had never actually seen a gun until I moved to New Hampshire a year and a half ago.
But I have since bought a gun, or two of them actually, and I intend to try to start open carrying at events specifically designed for it, like the open carry litter pickup, purely for philosophical reasons and as a form of political action to accustom people to the idea that people have the right to defend themselves and that they can responsibly handle guns.
So I would hesitate before characterizing anyone open carrying as being a gun nut or having a violent background.
Because a lot of people, for them, it's simply very much a practical manifestation of a philosophy, just like you take your philosophy seriously.
So I would say that a large number of people fall into that category.
They're not expecting to get attacked.
They're just very, very proud of being able to Practically manifest the philosophy in that way.
I completely agree with you, and I have heard that discussed at the weekend, and I certainly think there is that aspect to it.
I'm not sure that's everyone who's involved in this kind of culture, but I can tell you that there is a philosophical aspect to it that is important.
And of course, I just found it very interesting.
Certainly, I did not feel any threat or worry, but found it very interesting Just to see this kind.
Because of course in Canada there's no such thing as open carry unless you're in costume.
So I agree with you, and that's an excellent point.
Also, regarding the parenting angle...
The which? Oh, the parenting angle.
Sorry, go on. The parenting angle.
Specifically, the idea that the non-aggression principle morally justifies protecting small children from the actions of their own parents, even if that's morally true, and it probably is, we're nowhere near the point where that can be practiced in any practical sense.
We'd have to wait until most people realize it, and then methods of doing so will start to appear.
Until then, you can't really do anything.
Right. If I wanted to make the responsible case in front of a non-expert crowd or a crowd who had not explored family issues or psychology or self-knowledge, if I wanted to make the case against corporal punishment of any kind or raised voices or name-calling towards children, I wouldn't drop it casually into the conversation.
I would build the case using the science, using the parenting theories, using the philosophy, Yeah, Yeah, it deserves its own talk.
It absolutely deserves its own talk.
And it's sort of like going to a Republican convention and saying, I like anarchy.
All it's going to do is freak people out and have them not take you seriously, as opposed to going, getting the talk, time, building the case and so on.
Anyone else who's listened to the talk who had feedback or things they liked or didn't?
Thank you.
Well, you mentioned this call started because a lot of people were asking questions and you wanted to make that happen efficiently.
Yes. So, who had what questions?
Well, the question was just, you know, what was it like?
But I just wanted to get the stuff, the feedback from the speech first, because that's always important to me.
Because, I mean, I'm certainly not the community, but...
This was the first time that I've given a speech like this, and I, in a small way, do represent the community, of course, right?
So I just wanted to get feedback as far as that goes.
I mean, if people don't have feedback, that's fine.
We can go on to the general. If anybody had any general questions, or I could just sort of go through the questions that people had.
What was your... Did you tailor the answers to fit the people who were asking them?
At one point, a young man asked you or gave the argument that you are in favor of anarchy, anarchy will kill people, therefore I should shoot you, and you gave him like a softball answer and wondered if it was because he was such a young guy.
Well, yeah. I mean, the answer, just for those who haven't heard the answer that I gave him, was if somebody was playing that devil's advocate position or if somebody actually had that position, I would just ask that person to define anarchy and, you know, explain it to me like I'm three years old, because for those who have knowledge of these principles, quite the opposite is true, right?
That statism is peace and anarchy is violence.
Quite the opposite is true. And so I would just get that.
That was the answer that I gave.
What to you would have been a more hardcore answer?
Well, the answer you gave was more along the lines of advice.
You said that you should ask questions of the person who's using that argument.
And I don't know.
Well, it was a tough one. I couldn't think of an answer either until a couple hours later.
That's good. What was the answer that you thought of a couple hours later?
It was the... I would lead them along the lines that, well, you believe ideas are important, so that then more ideas should be out there so that one idea doesn't get taken to extremes.
Along that line, ideas are important, therefore there should be a free market for them.
Okay. Instead of stationism, which, you know, only forces everyone down one path, down one idea.
Oh, right, right, so sort of competing solutions kind of thing?
Yeah, right. Okay, that's a good answer, for sure.
I think somebody else started talking just a little earlier.
I don't know if you had more comments or questions or feedback.
I was just going to ask if you could compare and contrast your feeling of the crowd during the conference as a whole versus your feeling of the crowd on the last day when you gave your presentation, the crowd at the presentation itself.
How you kind of felt about it?
What your sort of impressions were of them?
Well, I... I thought they were a great group to give a speech to.
I don't think it would have been as great a group to give a speech to if I hadn't given them more of a chance for the back and forward.
I thought that they were really engaged.
I thought that they were really intelligent questions.
Very challenging questions.
Nothing was a softball.
Nothing was a soft lob.
You know, when you are You know, the tiny two-bit celebrity that I am in this sort of arena, it's a little tough to have more relaxed conversations because people are, you know, they either don't know you, in which case you can, or they do, in which case it's more about them talking to someone that they already know as opposed to me not.
So I certainly did really enjoy the energy in the room during the talk that I was giving.
And I thought that, I mean, I certainly think that the audience enjoyed it the most of the talks that I was at least part of.
So I would say that I found them more engaging as a group than I did individually, if that makes sense.
That's interesting. Can you go into that a little more?
No, I don't think I can, because I don't know how to put it in any more detail.
Okay. You felt more comfortable?
Let me put it this way.
I had better conversations while giving the speech with people about ideas than I did with individuals at the conference.
Yeah, that makes sense.
I mean, I think, Greg, you were there when one woman was talking about her career as a Celebrity helper.
Yeah. And her desire for kids and so on, none of which was particularly bad to hear, but what I sort of experienced was that I did not get any really philosophical ideas going.
There was general chit-chat outside of the speech that I gave, and then within the speech we got really going into some deep ideas, but I did not find that And this is no blame, it's just an observation.
I did not find that I was able to get any kind of deep conversations or meaningful conversations going outside of the speech.
But when I gave the speech, I thought that it was a real meeting of minds, if that made sense.
Yeah, that squares with my experience as well.
I mean, for the most part, the conversations could have been with it could have been conversations with anyone as opposed to libertarians or anti-state people or whatever.
Right.
I thought because I've not been to one of these, sorry, because I've not been to one of these things before, I thought that there would be more.
You know, this approach was good.
What do you think of this?
But a lot of it was just conversations you'd have with just about anyone, if that makes sense.
I mean, that could be entirely my fault, but that's just sort of what I noticed.
Generic socializing.
Yeah, generic socializing.
And... Which isn't necessarily bad, but still.
Well, I think it is, myself.
I mean, I think if you're going to go to a conference with like-minded people, then you should talk about the ideas that are the most important to you.
I think it's almost like everyone has this habit of pretending they're not a libertarian or something like that, and then they get together with a bunch of other libertarians and talk about everything.
And I thought that was a bit of a missed opportunity for people.
But, again, that could just be me.
I think that's a good point. That does happen a lot.
Yeah, someone's almost afraid to bring up what they really care about, maybe because they're so used to it being taboo or ignored or making other people uncomfortable or whatever.
But I thought that'd be sort of more, you know, not exactly table-pounding, eye-locked, intense conversations.
More conversations about, you know, it's like going to a philosophy conference and hearing everyone talk about their vacation.
It just seems like not quite...
I go to the atheist meetups in Houston and you would think when atheists meet up they would talk about religion or something.
But I find that often I end up being the guy that gets things going or there's some kind of hesitation or Carefulness around the subject of religion,
and you can tell that just based on a lot of their stories, they've got parents who are religious, and they were raised fundamentalist religion, and they're sort of still behaving as if they're around their families, which they probably are.
Yeah, it's like everybody's scared to talk about it, even with like-minded people.
Yeah, it's like A model railroading convention.
Don't bring your trains. Don't talk about trains.
It's like, but...
It's the model rail.
And it could be just that everyone's waiting for everyone else to take the first step.
I don't know. But that is...
Even when I found that I did talk about some principles, I just found people...
I mean, I'd get some polite nods or whatever, but it wouldn't be hugely different from being in a general social setting.
Well, actually...
Actually, I had the opposite experience at the one libertarian meetup I went to.
It was such a relief to be around people where you don't have to explain everything, but you can actually talk about issues or you can cover this topic.
I found it very pleasant, but it's an interesting observation, I think.
Might you be spoiled by the tight focus of Free Domain Radio's community?
Tight focus in what way?
Well, I mean, Free Domain Radio has a very tight focus by the fact that it's your site, so it's sort of...
It's completely affected by your personality and by also your mission statement, in that all the philosophy starts from first principles, There's a lot of background material that everyone on the board is familiar with.
So the topics tend to be very focused on philosophy.
There's a common wealth of material that everyone refers to and argues over.
Versus this Libertarian Conference, you've got people from all over the spectrum.
Probably everyone's read at least one book that no one else has heard of.
Some people are religious, some are atheists, some are there for the social, some are there for the intellectual.
So it's not as rigorous and it's not as tightly focused as Free Domain Radio, and you spend most of your time on Free Domain Radio, so maybe you're spoiled in a good way.
You know, it could be. I think that we're probably a lot less focused than people in the New State Project.
You know, who kind of have a particular, when we do art, psychology, history, war, you know, philosophy, economics.
So we have a pretty wide focus at FDR. But I mean, and you could be right, of course, but the test for that for me was I would sit down with a group of people and just listen, right?
And of course, if I'm just listening, then people should be.
I mean, if I'm not influencing the conversation by saying, hi, I'm Steph from Free Domain Radio, blah, blah, blah.
Yeah. To test that theory, they should then be talking about the issues that they've come there for, but I didn't find that to be the case, even when I would just sit and listen.
So, again, you could be right, but that's just what I noticed.
My own experience kind of corroborates that.
It didn't occur to me that it was a more universal phenomenon, I was actually trying to engage the people that I sat with, like on Thursday especially, and try to talk to them about FDR and how much they might know about you or anarchism in general and whatnot.
And people were very much with the one-word answers, kind of glancing around the room, you know, sort of not really engaged.
And the one time they did was when they got into an argument over When this one group got into an argument over who was better, George Washington or Cornwallis as a general, and at that point I started looking around the room.
Right, right. I could imagine that it's sometimes a matter that you're so used to being attacked that you're kind of fixed in your position.
And it's very uncommon to be attacked from basically the other side.
So you don't really know how to deal with that maybe.
I think, I mean, I think you're right.
I think that there's not a lot of habits of people being able to just comfortably talk because, you know, we all pretty battle scarred from dealing with the general population.
So I think that's...
I mean, and the reason that I wanted to note that for myself is that I thought, gosh, if we ever do one of these for FDR, that would be something which I'd like to address sort of at the beginning.
I thought it was brilliant the way you used the audio.
Audience participation to fill up the art, you know, to get people more engaged in the subject and have them think of their own arguments.
That was really great.
I don't think any other speakers came close to that.
Yeah, I think so. And I think, you know, it's easy to sit and listen and say, well, that argument makes sense.
But then when you try to apply it, it can be tougher.
And of course, people did come up with situations where it would have been tough to apply that argument in the way that I had stated it.
So... You know, kudos to the audience.
It was just fantastic as far as that went.
How does this situation compare to the FDR barbecue and stuff like that?
In what way? Like, say, the last barbecue we had.
You mean in terms of talking about real issues?
Yeah. I think people talked about real issues.
I think it was a good mix at the barbecue, people talking about real issues.
And people just sort of not, or talking about other things, or just, you know, general chit-chat.
So I thought it was a good mix myself, but I didn't feel that people were too nervous or disconcerted about bringing up more important issues.
So there's no improvement for the next one?
I mean, I don't think so, but tell me what, I mean, those who were at the last barbecue, or I guess the last two, tell me what you guys think.
I mean, where I did notice that people didn't have...
Like, Colleen didn't talk about stuff that she wanted to, so I tried to make sure that I did before she left.
But tell me what you guys thought about the mix of Sirius and Chit Chat at the barbecues.
Well, I really don't think that the barbecues are a good analog to this.
A better comparison would have been the Symposium, I think.
I think the first dinner at the symposium, I thought, was while we were sitting outside by the pool.
I thought that was a really good conversation full of a lot of very interesting and funny and relevant topics.
Yeah, it's interesting because that's kind of what I was hoping for on Thursday night when I showed up too, but it really wasn't there.
Why would Why would you have expected that?
Or hoped for that?
Oh, well, I mean, just in terms of a more relaxed atmosphere around issue-oriented discussions, right?
Because they're all like-minded people, right?
Right. And instead, it was basically chit-chat about the travel and then people kind of just waiting around for the comedian to show up.
And at the time, I thought that it was because I was bringing up Stefan Molyneux, and I was bringing up FDR, and that's kind of a scary subject for people.
But then when I saw the reception you got at the speech itself, that kind of created a little cognitive dissonance for me, and then I started wondering, maybe it was my Maybe it was me or my approach or...
No, it's... Maybe it was the setting or...
FDR is like a slutty, dirty secret for people.
I mean, it just is.
I'm the other woman. But it was, I mean, it was hugely positive and hugely relaxed at the speech, right?
I mean, I couldn't really feel the same kind of tension I felt, for example, sitting in Mark's speech.
Yes, yes, for sure, for sure.
For sure.
And why do you think that was?
Well, that's a good question.
I'm not sure if it was tension I was feeling from Mark or from the crowd.
It seemed to me like it was from the crowd.
But it could just have been a reflection off of Mark because when he started going over some of the stuff about rights, you know, He lost about half that crowd.
Yeah, no citizens, no country, no rights.
I have a lot of respect for Mark, and I certainly enjoyed his speech the most of the ones that I saw.
But I don't think that you want to...
I mean, this is going back to the spanking or discipline of children stuff, which Nate and Lauren were talking about earlier.
You don't want to introduce...
Really startling ideas to people without giving them a chance to cross-examine you, which is kind of what I was doing.
You just don't. Because you either build the case so laboriously that it's exhausting and takes 1,500 podcasts, or you simply state it as if it's a conclusion and move on, which doesn't convince anyone and only annihilates those who are bothered by it.
So I think if you're going to I mean, you know, that would be my criticism of Mark's speech, that he went, you know, he had 90 minutes and he went 92 minutes and then left with no chance for questions, really.
And I think that if you are introducing really unusual ideas to people, ideas which are going to startle or upset them, you need to give them a chance to voice their objections.
I think that's just respectful to the listener.
Right. And he did sort of go right to the core of his own approach to this philosophy as well.
And you just know that that's going to cause a lot of dissonance in a group like this, right?
Well, there's a basic thing that occurs.
If a speaker makes a joke and people don't laugh, the speaker has one or two choices, right?
You can either say, well, that's not a good way to start, or you can say, you know, these are the jokes, people.
It's time to laugh, you know, and sort of get upset with the audience in a way.
And I think it's sort of incumbent upon the speaker, if you're going to try for humor, you know, you're the seller and nobody has to buy it.
You were really on your feet in such a way that was intimidating for me.
That was one experience that I had.
I'll wait until you see the video.
you actually get to see dance? - Oh.
I just, I get this feeling of intimidation when you're so on your feet with the kinds of questions that were being launched at you and you were handling so well.
I just, like how could I possibly take this and, and, And I know you've had many more years of practice and that's probably a very large part.
It's just that I want to do that.
Right, so you feel a desire plus an anxiety, right?
Like you picture yourself up there and you say, well, gosh, I'm not sure how.
Then you experience the anxiety as if you were up there and not having the answers.
Is that right? Right.
I would be curious to how you prepared for the speech, maybe compared to the podcast or compared to other audiences.
I'm not sure if I should hand out all of these professional secrets.
I didn't prepare for the speech.
I jotted down five bullets of the major points I wanted to touch on.
I did mull back and forth about whether I wanted to start out with a joke or not, and I ran the jokes past Christina and Greg just to see what they thought, and I generally ran, I think, once or twice Greg past a couple of different intros that I was thinking of, but other than that, I didn't prepare.
I mean, I've been doing this for years now, and I've You can't prepare for audience answers because I wouldn't have guessed the questions that they would have come up with.
With all the Sunday shows and the listener conversations and so on, plus the fact that I've already done the Against Me speech at least twice in the podcast series and on video, if that's not enough preparation, I don't know what is, if that makes sense.
Yeah, you had 1,500 podcasts of preparation.
Yeah, and a lot of them are interactive podcasts, right?
And so I didn't really prepare at all.
I did, of course. Christina reminded me just before I went in.
She said, you know, remember not to go too quickly.
And I actually found that much easier.
I actually felt much more comfortable in front of 200 or 250 people than I did in front of 8 or 10.
I'm pretty much amazed about this answer.
Maybe because I do some speech training on the side, trying to improve myself, but just from listening to the audio recording of Greg, My impression was that you had a very natural interaction with the people and the amount of fun was great and it felt very, very natural. And I'm looking forward for the video with perfect audio quality to see it again.
It was pretty much amazing, I would say.
Well, thank you. I certainly appreciate that.
I was very pleased with the speech.
In fact, I was overjoyed with the speech myself.
I was completely thrilled because I've never done anything like that before.
And I thought to hit it out of the park on my first go.
To me, this was a very, very important speech for us as a community.
I've never done anything singularly more important to do with FDR. So I think that this was a very, I mean, at least this is the way that I approached it, that this was a crucial and critical moment for our community.
And there was nothing more important in any one day than I'd done before, even in the interactions with the media.
So I was completely over the moon with how well it went.
So I thank you. I'm glad that other people think so too.
Would you be willing to do it again?
Oh yeah, absolutely.
Absolutely. Good, because there are so many more topics I'd love to see you cover specifically for this audience.
Oh, yeah. I mean, I could have done a speech on every single one of those questions, which were all great.
So, no, I would be very happy to do it again.
I think that in the future I would probably bungee in for a day and bungee out rather than do four or five days, which with a baby is, you know, it's a day to pack, a day to drive, you know, four days of the conference, a day to drive back, a day to unpack and wash everything and so on.
It's... It's a bit of an overtime investment for two hours of talking, but no, absolutely, I would do it again with happiness.
Excellent. Any other comments or questions or suggestions or feedback?
Maybe the obvious one.
Has there been an increased interest in FDR after the speech or has there been a bunch of more accesses to the podcast series or some recognizable reaction?
It's been about a 25% bump in the number of visits to FDR. I haven't checked podcast downloads.
Everything is kind of warped by the fact that we have this 180 meg I think it was a good enough I mean,
I shouldn't say speech because it really wasn't a speech, but it was a good enough presentation or interaction that I'm hoping that it will, I mean, not exactly go viral, but will be an enjoyable enough thing to see for people that it will, you know, remind people that I'm not nutty, if that makes any sense.
You know, that I'm friendly and knowledgeable and, you know, admit when I have not given a perfect answer and promised to follow up and so on, right?
That I know my stuff, that I'm willing to take risks.
Sorry? I was just going to say all that, those little things I noticed, which I thought were really good and are going to have a huge effect on how people, you know, what they've heard is not what It might not be accurate, so they'll go check it out.
They'll be curious, you know, because their experience of you is totally different.
As I saw it, the speech was half about teaching and half about selling yourself so that you could continue to teach later.
Yeah, I mean, selling myself, I hadn't really thought of it that way, but really just being myself, right?
Oh, that's a form of selling yourself.
It's an honest form of selling yourself.
That may be semantics, but yeah, okay.
I mean, I definitely wanted to be up there and I didn't want to be a different person, you know, because I talk a lot about authenticity and self-confidence and so on and treat people the best you can the first time you deal with them, right?
So I wanted to put, you know, I wanted to put all of those principles and, you know, maintain all of those principles even in a high-stakes poker game like I was about to say,
you're now live approved and so probably get more invitations to other similar events.
Yeah, I'm not sure about that.
I'm not sure about that. I mean, I think that I should, but I don't know that I will, if that makes any sense.
No. Well, what are your guys' predictions?
I mean, you guys know this community, I think, better than I do.
What are your predictions? I don't think there are too many other events of a similar nature that you can be invited to.
There are lots of political action events.
There are a lot of issue events, but most of those are within the framework of statism.
In terms of a forum that's actually open to the complete exploration of libertarian philosophy down to anarchy, Liberty Forum is definitely the biggest and best and possibly close to unique.
Most of the other events are more probably the traditional conservatism ones or a libertarian party get-together.
Mostly, probably not the kind of stuff you're particularly interested in.
What about Porkfest?
I don't know what else is, but I was under the impression that there are some other events in a similar concept.
Porkfest is a blast, but it's kind of an open house for the Free State Project to come check it out if you want to move.
Less on the philosophy side.
That's the purpose of the Liberty Forum.
Yeah, I mean, there could be crossover potential if The video is popular and people find out, like, I'm an atheist, then, I mean, there's a lot more atheist gatherings than there are anarchist gatherings.
But that would require a bit of cross-pollination, so we'll see.
Can I ask a bit of a tangential question of the group?
I won't go too far off on this.
But I was just curious what, for everyone on this call, what their emotional experience of this conference was at first.
Sorry, when you say the conference.
You mean this conference, this call today?
This telephone. Oh, sorry. Yeah, this Skype call.
Yeah, the Skype call.
Especially, I'm mostly curious about Nate and Lauren.
Well, I could say that I felt...
At first I think I just felt anxious.
And then just something wasn't being said or something was missing.
I don't know what it was.
Would that be what you were feeling?
Something was wrong or off.
Something was definitely off, and I think I have an idea what it was, but I'm just sort of probing for general experiences at the moment.
I was just curious.
That's why I was here. Okay.
Well, the observation that I have is this.
It was pretty much right as the call began, most of the questions directed towards Steph were critical in some way of him.
And now as we've gotten about 45 or 46 minutes into the call, the questions tend to be much more positive of him.
And I'm just trying to understand what the difference is.
He's very charming.
Well, just starting off, I know that I was...
I think, I know.
I mean, was my feedback positive?
Just like when I first made my initial feedback before I... I talked about the little part that bugged me just before that.
I think my feedback was positive.
I'm not sure. Was that y'all's experience?
Well, what I felt was some irritation myself.
Some annoyance.
The thoughts that were coming up were that the first thing you have to say about this was that he wasn't ideologically pure enough for you.
What's up with that? And I don't know if that's fair criticism of you.
It's just the thought that occurred to me.
Well, it was something that he said that I couldn't remember.
I was kind of more hoping that he remembered what he said, but it was a caveat that was thrown in there that I thought was the exact opposite.
It was just something that bugged me, but that was the only feedback I had.
That was the only slightly negative feedback that I had.
I don't know what I could have done differently.
You weren't the only one with that criticism, though.
Oh. So I was wondering if there was some sort of general, like, if the anxiety is somehow more universal around this subject for some reason.
Loren had a similar criticism, right?
Right, but he explained and it made a whole lot of sense that...
I mean, just to me, it's reasoning after I... Made that little bit of criticism that his reasoning for why he didn't want to launch into it, it made all the sense in the world.
And in fact, it was way better than I would have ever handled it.
And it's just, you know, I totally withdraw any criticism I have because I think he...
No, I don't mean it that way either.
How dare you...
Or anything like that. I'm just trying to understand what was going on in that moment, right?
Because it just seemed to me that...
And again, this just could be my own set of conclusions that I've come to, but it just seemed to me like...
It just seemed kind of cruel to say to him, well...
You were standing in front of 250 people that you had no idea whether they were going to be completely hostile or completely friendly, so why didn't you launch into a full-on smack-in-the-face, don't-beat-your-children-you-evil-bastards kind of speech, right? I think you might be mischaracterizing that a little bit, but you might be hyperbole-ing just a little bit.
But now I know what you mean. FDR, and it's probably not particular to FDR, but people have a tough time with praise here, right?
That's true. I've had the same experience with books, and it's tough for people to express enthusiasm.
I mean, I don't know what you all felt when you were listening to the speech, but I hope it was some sort of relief, pride, excitement, enthusiasm, and so on, because if it wasn't, then I think that's a shame, right?
Because I think that there was a lot to be happy about in the speech and in the reception and in the positivity.
You know, the organizer came up and said that he expected a lot, but it was much, much better even than he expected, and so on, right?
So I think that we have a very good...
It was a very good and positive response.
Everybody was laughing and enjoying themselves, and yet it didn't get goofy like the intellectual quality didn't diminish, at least I think.
And I think it was a home run for the community, in my opinion.
And I think there's a lot to be enthusiastic and happy about, but I also know that enthusiasm and happiness can be challenging for people, right?
So that's my two cents worth.
I don't think it's particular to Nate.
I just think it's tough for people to To say, you know, I was jumping up and down with excitement, realizing that we crossed a real milestone here as a community, and that's just tough for people, if that makes sense.
Yeah, I think that's accurate.
Yeah, I agree.
I agree, and I apologize for picking on you specifically, Nate, but You were the guy that spoke up.
Sorry about that.
I didn't want to just leave out the five – it was no more than maybe ten seconds of the whole speech that I felt bugged or worried about until it was explained, and now I no longer feel bugged about it.
In fact, I'm quite enthusiastic about that part too.
So it's just like, I guess I just wanted to be honest, and maybe I just wanted to go into that part and get...
I mean, maybe I could have sat there for five seconds and thought it out myself and figured out, well, why would you want to do that in front of these gun-toting conservatives and be attacked?
Maybe I just sort of...
I wanted more...
something from that.
I don't know what.
Nate, I think it's an interesting question that Greg's bringing up.
And I think it has to do with happiness and satisfaction more than anything else, if that makes any sense.
Yeah, I think that makes sense.
I think that there was a lot to be happy about.
For me, I mean...
I think there was a lot to be happy about what happened in New Hampshire.
Yeah. And I think that's...
I mean, Greg, tell me if that's way off, right?
But I think that's sort of what Greg's talking about.
You know, that we kind of had a home run.
And it's not just me, right?
I mean, the quality of what I did in New Hampshire is the result of the quality of listener conversations that I've had over the past three years, right?
Well, my experience...
I think I'm a little scared of that. Sorry? I think I'm a little scared of that.
You're scared of what? I want to say if it was an overwhelming success and everybody likes you and you get this huge spike in web hits and then they start going through the podcast and maybe it's just afraid of what would happen.
Right, so if we fail, that's bad.
But if we succeed, that's bad.
Yeah, that's a bad predicament. I'm trying to think where the good is.
I mean, if we hold, like, you just don't move, or something, it's, like, complete basis is good.
And the other thing true, I think that's important as well, is that nobody there gave a rat's ass about the media stuff.
At all. I mean, most of them had never even heard of it.
Except the Free Talk Live guys who were rapidly jealous.
Of it. And wanted to know how they could achieve the same thing.
How did you do it? How did you get all this level of interest?
How do you make us help us?
Right. Well, just say a lot of things that you know people don't want to hear.
Well, just, you know, kick over the rock of the family and stand back, right?
You probably can't hear that because I muted my mic, but there were many points in this call where I just had to literally laugh out loudly.
In what way? I'm just amazed at some of the statements.
How did you do that?
How did you get this media attention?
It's pretty funny in a weird way, I think.
Oh yeah, it was for sure.
I think it's shown that The media stuff has had not only no effect, but in many ways a positive effect on FTR. I mean, isn't that a huge relief, right?
That they fired all the cannons they could possibly fire and it just bounced right off our hull, right?
I think that's good news, right?
Yeah, and I haven't heard anything about Limey or anything lately.
It's other than that premium... I guess he did, but other than that, that's...
Yeah, I mean, it's all, you know, the media is in its ADHD way.
It's just moved on to some other new victim, right?
I mean, so, but I mean, you know, full cannons, right?
And I think that this is another thing, too.
Again, there was nothing fake about it, but I wanted people to sort of understand that, you know, I'm driving down with my family.
I'm a new dad. My wife is there supporting me.
My baby is there drooling.
And, you know, I'm happy and positive and friendly and excited and, you know, it hasn't done me any lasting harm.
And it's, you know, so that hasn't done anything to sink us.
I think that this, I think the video more so than the audio because I think you have to, I think this is a speech you have to see.
And I know that Greg is very kindly working on.
A video that we have, and I'm waiting for another listener who did a side view.
Maybe we can put some two together.
But I think if we do a good job on this video, this could be the kind of video that people like to watch, even if they're not.
Because I think it's just a good example of fun public speaking.
If you've got somebody enthusiastic and happy about almost any topic, it's worth watching.
I think that, you know, the happiness, for those who weren't there, you can hear it, obviously, to some degree in the audio, but in the video, you'll see it, right?
I'm dancing around the stage, I'm making pendulums, I'm pretending to have a shiv in my leg, you know, I'm just doing a lot of very animated stuff, because that's what I do, right?
This is not anything particular new, but I wanted to make sure that I carried that same enthusiasm and positivity into this challenging situation, so I think it's, you know, It couldn't be better news, in my opinion.
I'm very glad that I took the gig.
I'm very glad. I'm ecstatic with the way that it went.
And I think it would be really hard for people to believe all the trashy junk that floats around, you know, when they see that kind of stuff going on.
Yeah, I was quite nervous at first, but since...
Right after the speech, I just felt...
I mean, this is the first time in my memory, and maybe, Steph, you can think of some other examples that I'm not remembering right now, but this is the first time in my memory that I could think of that I haven't wanted to stop you and correct you or complain about something that went wrong.
I just felt so...
Like you said, it was like a home run that you just...
Pounded it right out of the park.
There was nothing bad about what went on there.
Right. I mean, it couldn't have gone better, in my opinion, right?
I mean, the only reason that we stopped was because there was a hard stop we had to get out of the room.
Otherwise, we would have gone another hour, easy peasy.
Oh, yeah. I mean, people were hanging on to the edge of their seat.
It was amazing to me.
I mean, the room was capable of, I think, 200 or 225 total seats and there were people standing on the walls and everyone was there almost right up to the end.
People were standing there for an hour and 20 minutes listening to you and watching this and not at all thinking about leaving.
And we didn't have enough time for everyone who had questions.
Yeah, people were still raising their hands and And wanting to talk when the hotel was telling the organizer, you guys got to get out.
By the way, I think it was 400 people.
400 people in the room?
Yeah, Ron Paul had 600 and you had two-thirds of the same ballroom.
So I would say 400. That certainly wouldn't shock me.
It did look pretty crowded from where I was.
And of course, I've never done anything even close to that, even in the business world, right?
My presentations in the business world are like half a dozen people, right?
So... So, I mean, it was such a different thing for me to do that realizing just how natural and easy it came, it's just a complete high to me.
You know, it's just, you know, when you are concerned about something and you, you know, obviously I didn't prepare for this in any particular way other than doing what I'm doing.
But it's, I mean, it's a fantastic, it's a complete thrill.
And I think that it's...
It couldn't be better, right?
And that's sort of what I'm trying to get across.
Not, you know, ooh, look what a good job I did or whatever.
But I think that we have a lot to be happy about who are interested in philosophy, right?
Because this is what it's about.
It's not about me. It's not about you.
It's about, as I said in the talk I gave way back on public speaking, I'm just there trying to introduce an idea to people.
It's not about me. It's really whatever I can use to engage people in the idea that And the idea went across well.
And there were great questions.
And I gave some fairly good answers.
But rather than the quality of the answers, really, it was just the engagement of the interaction, I think, that was new.
And I think certainly it's a higher standard for me than anything I've done before.
And I just think there's a lot to be happy about.
And I think it's worth, I don't know, taking that and enjoying it, if that makes sense.
I'm wondering about, did you have a different experience with the younger crowd, say under 25 versus the older?
You mentioned this during the dinner, that you saw perhaps a split in terms of the adoption of anarcho-capitalism, how it's more popular among the younger crowd, and I confirmed that during dinner.
Oh, yeah, yeah. So I was wondering, you felt they were more sane or more interested?
Well, I think that, yeah, again, this is all nonsense, right?
Because it's just completely unscientific, unstudied, non-statistical stuff.
Yeah, for sure. The younger people were more lively, more curious, more engaged, and less, you know, we need to fight to restore the old republic with Yoda kind of thing.
And that, I thought, was very encouraging.
That's the big split I see.
Yeah. And it gives me hope.
Yeah, for sure. I mean, new ideas often take another generation, right?
How do you square that with the YouTube viewership, though?
Because the viewership on YouTube is quite different.
I couldn't tell you.
I couldn't tell you for the life of me.
It's possible the YouTube viewership is across the board.
Or lying. Right. Or it could be that the YouTube viewership is skewed by some of the true news stuff, which appeals to more of the status minochists, I think.
Because it's not pro-anarchy, it's anti-state.
The true news stuff, right?
So it probably gets wider circulation.
Right. And it tends to be a much older crowd there, too.
Yeah, I mean, it could just also be that older people don't know how to work podcasts.
I don't know. It could be that.
It could be. Right.
When can we expect a new book?
Oh, it's... It's lying fallow at the moment, so I'm not sure.
Definitely the first draft is done, but it's still going to be a while, so I wish I could give you a date at the moment, but I can't.
This certainly knocked me out for quite a while, this conference.
Not so much the preparation, just a lot of travel, a lot of stuff that I had to do that took me away from everything else.
Did you want help? No, I think that's okay.
I mean, basically what needs to be done is a bunch of empirical research and insertion to bolster the case, so that's just going to be time-consuming.
The fun stuff is done, and now I just have to do the book's taxes, so to speak, and so it's not drawing me the way that the first draft does.
I can't wait. Do you know any of the questions that you were getting that weren't asked here?
You said you were getting a lot of questions.
I don't know what those were. People were just asking about my experience.
I was just getting emails and messages on the board just saying what my experience was.
My experience was that I'm a way better speaker in front of more people.
I'd love to do 10,000 or 20,000 or 100,000 that I surf the audience like...
Like a surfer, dude, I guess, right?
And bigger surf is better speech, right?
And I remember Freddie Mercury, who of course is my model for public speaking, he said that I only sing as well as the audience wants me to.
And I think there's some real truth in that, and that's a complicated thing to just sort of touch on it, but I can only be as good as the audience.
The bigger the audience, the more energy flows back and forth, and...
You couldn't get that kind of energy and humor in a room full of eight people or ten people, as I've done before.
So I thought that the bigger the crowd, the greater the contact high, so to speak.
And this is true even if we don't count the agorists, with whom contact high actually just comes from a handshake.
So I was just completely thrilled to go to that level.
People were sort of asking me what my experience was.
I achieved everything that I wanted to achieve in taking on that gig and going down and more.
So all the better.
And thanks again, Greg. Your second recording that you did with your portable was ten times better than the one that came off the video and the one that the other guy put out.
So thank you again so much for that.
Yeah, the Edderall, I'm loving that thing.
I figured out the exact...
It needs to be on to get a good sound.
Have you guys heard the podcast?
I just put it out earlier today relative to the original recording.
Yeah, I heard a little bit of it.
I went back over it for a second.
It does sound a lot better, right? That wasn't just my imagination.
Yeah. No.
No, it sounds a ton better.
It's like night and day. Thanks again, Greg.
That was just great. Quite welcome.
Quite welcome. And the photo's actually quite nice as well.
Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah.
The ones you were showing me on Facebook?
Yeah, yeah. Yeah, those are cool.
Yeah. This could just be residue from my own exuberance or enthusiasm from that presentation, but I definitely got the sense that they wanted to ask you back.
Oh, yeah. No, I'm sure of that, and I got some requests from the other speakers to help them out with their causes and so on, so...
Oh, yeah. I mean, there was no question that everyone recognized that something pretty cool had happened.
And again, I'm not sort of dancing up and down pointing it myself because it really was the audience as a whole and their openness and receptivity to what I was doing that made it possible.
But I think everyone kind of got that something kind of really cool and fun had happened.
That receptivity really just blew me away.
I wasn't expecting that at all.
Well, I've always said that people who aren't philosophers or who've studied philosophy, they don't have an objective standard to judge you by.
They will generally judge you according to how you judge yourself.
That makes a lot of sense.
And so, when I'm up there friendly and positive and happy, making jokes, being open, letting them You know, telling them when I don't have a great answer, giving them the compliments that are just, like, great question, fantastically done.
Then they will judge me according to how I'm judging myself, which is that it's not an ego-driven thing for me.
I'm trying to do my best to keep people enthusiastic and excited about ideas.
I'm trying to give them tools to win arguments and reminding them of the, you know, the...
This is why I started off with the moral superhero stuff, right?
I mean, I know that there are a fair amount of comic book aficionados there because...
Everybody was arranging to go and see the Watchmen, right?
So I think starting off by calling them superheroes, which I genuinely believe, right, is a good way to connect with them and to remind them that I may be bald, but I have at least one hip.
Right, it's not gratuitous.
It's just an acknowledgement, right?
Right, and it places what they're doing in a moral context, right?
You go and watch a movie called The Watchmen, and that's great, but the real superhero stuff is fighting the state, and reminding them of that moral crusade is very complementary and positive to them, and puts their struggles hopefully into a larger context, if that makes sense.
Right, and it aligns them with you.
Yeah, because that's certainly...
I view us as superheroes, so it makes good sense to me that...
Just in terms of the moral struggle, too, because putting it the way you did, you were basically telling them we're all on the same team here, right?
Yes. Well, absolutely.
And, you know, I got asked a bunch of questions about...
I did a conference table thing, like a...
I don't know what you'd call it, but Ian from FreeTalk Live and Mark Stevens and myself sat down to do a...
A which...
Panel discussion or something. Yeah, panel discussion or whatever.
And, you know, people asking me about politics and what I thought of politics.
And the thing is, like, I've already made my case for all of that stuff.
I'm not going to sit there and pound the case in again.
I mean, if they want me to ask about, they want my questions, my thoughts about what's positive about the New State Project, well, it's great to have everyone who believes what you believe in the same place.
It gives you a lot of strength.
I was using this metaphor. It's like...
You know, the Verizon guy with the network behind him, you just feel a lot more confident when you're not the only crazy guy on the block, right?
So, yeah, talking about positive stuff like that.
You actually used that same metaphor. I'm sorry?
I said you actually used that same metaphor, in fact.
Oh, in the speech, right. Yeah, no, it came to me in the panel, and I hope that will come out.
I'm not sure where that's going to end up.
I don't know where all the video is.
I emailed Chris about where the video might be, but I haven't heard back from him yet, so we'll see.
Because they had some pretty amazing high-def phantasmagorical cameras with, like, unidirectional boom mics and stuff like that.
So I bet you their stuff's going to be really high quality, I hope.
And I offered to Chris, I said, look, I have one of the few YouTube accounts that's grandfathered in with unlimited video length and up to a terabyte of video size.
So I'd be happy to host if you want high-def.
But anyway, they don't have to split it into 50 segments, right?
Right, right, right.
They may host it elsewhere on their own anyway.
Yeah, they might, for sure. But they'll pay in bandwidth and blood if they don't use something like YouTube, for sure.
But yeah, they may, for sure. And it doesn't matter to me whether people come to my site or somewhere else.
I just want people to see a good quality video of the event.
Right, right, right. Alright, well, did anyone else have any other questions?
Comments or suggestions?
That was it for me.
What did Isabella think of the conference?
She saw most of my speech.
She missed about half an hour, I think.
But she saw most of it.
It put her to sleep in a way that only daddy's dulcet tones frankly can.
But she learned that from her mother.
Oh, by the way, she bottle-fed.
Finally. Which is just fantastic.
Sorry. Really? Dull dad stuff.
107. But she finally is taking the bottle.
We just found that she prefers the 20-year-old scotch to the 11-year-old stuff.
She just spits up. Oh, it is huge.
What a relief. Because now I can take a night feeding and Christina can get some sleep.
Because I'm up usually until 2 anyway.
So at least if Christina goes to bed to 10, I can take a night feed and give Christina that much more sleep.
So... It's great that she's taking the bottle.
Yeah, that's cool.
So you're taking the night feed.
She's taking the bottle.
Gonna be some sweet sounds coming down on the night feed.
So expect to see you on the chat room at three in the morning.
Yeah. Hi. Well, when I say take the bottle, what it means is that she turns into the kind of fountain you see in front of Disney World.
And I have to mop up the couch because it's, you know, a fair amount goes in and some of it not so much.
But, you know, basically what she's doing is a whole series of extended Seinfeld spit-takes.
You did what? You know, that kind of stuff, right?
So, what's this, um...
Wait, how long has it been?
How old is she? She is 11 and a half weeks.
11 and a half weeks, so that's...
Well, she'll be three months on the 19th, so...
Almost three months. So, what's the recommended amount of time on the breast?
Isn't there like something about like eight months?
It means it's like really good for...
At least six. At least six.
I heard something about it.
Yeah, first six months just breast, just like our marriage.
You can continue breastfeeding up to two years.
It's recommended to breastfeed up to two years, but supplemented with Indian curries.
Something really...
Up to two years?
Yeah, up to two years is recommended because the one thing that's amazing about breast milk, and it is an incredible substance, the one thing that's amazing about breast milk is the degree to which it supplements a baby and a toddler's immune system.
Because she is getting all of Christina's antibodies through the breast milk into her immune system, which there's no possible way to get in any other form.
So she's that much healthier.
And by the time she's two, then she will have had all of her immunizations.
She will have had her immune system bolstered by Christina's immune system.
And then she can sail without it.
But yeah, the longer you can go, the better.
I mean, she hasn't been...
She's not been sick yet.
I mean, we have an almost 12-week-old baby that's never had a cold.
And both of you have had a cold, so it's really remarkable.
Yeah, and I was...
Yeah, that was my next question, but I was thinking that this is very much how closely related the immune system and the nervous system is and how If you're stressed and anxious for any period of time, like a lot of babies end up being due to bad parents, then they're going to be sick more often.
Oh, for sure. She's incredibly robust.
She's not had a single health issue.
Her development is perfectly going along.
She's meeting all her milestones.
She still barely cries.
Christina finally went back to the gym.
Today. And I was with Isabella for like 40 minutes upstairs, just showing her around.
This is a completely new environment.
And I guess those who met her in New Hampshire saw that she was perfectly content and didn't cry and curious with new people.
I mean, she's just fantastic.
I mean, we were just so lucky to have such a wonderful kid.
And I mean, obviously, it has something to do with our parenting.
But Yeah, I think so.
It's just wonderful. And it was just, oh God, it's completely heartbreaking because, you know, she doesn't see that many people, right?
And just wonderful to see when people would come up to smile at her, that she'd smile back and these big eyes, you know, curious and wondering.
And, oh, it's just, you know, I just want the world to treat her so well, you know, because she's such a wonderful human being.
And it's just, it was great to see the effect that she had on people and the effect that people had on her and How calm and relaxed and happy she was, even with the 14-hour drive and so on.
She just managed it beautifully, better than me.
I think I got crankier towards the end than she did, but then she has diapers and I just peed my seat.
Which was tough, because with the seat warmer on, you get these little shocks.
Actually, those were fun. This is all the empirical evidence to prove that all this...
We're headed in the right direction.
I'll be fully convinced when she's lifting cars and flying.
That sounds like your criteria for happiness there, Nate.
And then you're anxious that she's got radiation poisoning, right?
You're probably aware what happened to the kids of Mr.
Friedman and to the kid of his kid.
But out of curiosity, do you speak this baby language with her or do you speak in a normal language?
We speak in normal language.
I mean, we will pitch her voice usually a little bit higher because her hearing is more attuned to the high registers.
And I'll sing uncomfortably high to keep her happy or at least relatively happy.
Now, I don't speak to her in the same way that I'm speaking to you, but I certainly don't, you know, do goo goo ga ga kind of stuff.
I mean, I will speak to her, but not in a normal tone, but in a sort of more tenor falsetto tone.
To my limited knowledge, I think that's better, but I only witnessed that with one pair of parents and it was a bit surprising because I never saw that before, but I think it's way better to just be normal even if she might not understand everything.
Sorry, Christina wanted to say.
Actually, it's because children respond to inflections and Changes in tones.
So that's why, I mean, what comes naturally to people is to talk to children in a really kind of cutesy way, but that's sort of biologically programmed.
Children respond to that, and she needs to hear the different tones, and she can make things out by the tones in our voices more so than the words.
Yeah, the change in tone more so than the words that we say.
She doesn't obviously understand the words we're saying.
Yeah, and there's that aspect for sure, and she can't know when we're So, children need to see things a little more exaggerated.
So, definitely the up and down inflection of the voice is more important.
I'll give her a bigger smile than I'll give Christina because her vision is less acute.
She doesn't get her adult vision for another few weeks from here.
So, she can't see very well and her hearing is still a bit muted.
So, she needs...
Children need brighter colors.
Babies need infants.
They need brighter colors. They need bigger smiles.
They need more altering in inflection to get the same response that we would get with something less contrasting, if that makes sense.
And that's just adapting to what she can see and hear.
And I mean, I'll smile at her until she smiles back.
I want to just sort of give her a little smile the way I would with Christina, you know, a shy, ironic smile or something.
I want to give her a big smile until she recognizes it and responds.
And I let her sort of lead as far as that goes.
Isn't it also the case that babies that small can hear better and higher registers?
Yes, for sure, for sure. And one thing that's really cool, well, there's many, many things that are really cool.
I don't want to bore everyone with all of them, but if I'm singing a song to her now, she shows surprise if I change something.
She understands the patterns now.
And if I'll sort of, happy birthday, dear Isabella.
Like if I go that, then she will actually laugh and notice that as a change.
And she won't do that if I don't change the pitch.
So she's really getting that pattern recognition and can notice a distinction in that pattern, which is an incredible thing to do, like 11 weeks out of the womb, in my opinion.
I mean, not incredible like she's the only one who can do it, but it's amazing just how this wiring works and what babies are capable of.
Right, being able to actually see the development on the fly like that.
That's amazing. It's amazing.
Just from the pictures alone, it was kind of cool to watch the progression and the control of the musculature and the facial features.
At first, it was just sort of that blank, wide-eyed stare.
Now you can see where she has control over her forehead muscles and you can see it in her cheeks a little bit too and around the eyes.
Yeah, it's so much easier to know what she wants now because I can tell when she's angry.
I can tell when she's frustrated.
I can tell when she's hungry.
And I can tell when she's happy, right?
Because before she only had the cry and the facial muscles weren't really doing much other than crying or not.
But now she has distinct feelings and differentiation that mirror her facial expressions, which is, I mean, amazing, right?
I mean, it's a whole language that she's developed innately, I guess, or innately or out of mirroring us.
Innately, that really is an incredible boon to understanding what she's going through.
And what she needs. Alright, well rather than bore everyone with parental gushing, is there anything else that anybody wanted to add to this?
Just thanks for calling me.
Oh, thanks. And was that over?
Yes. And I think you are the man to thank.
Is that not right? In what sense?
Was it you who had originally talked to Chris about me doing a speech?
I don't know if I was the first, but I definitely was possibly the most excited.
Well, I mean, I really, really, really thank you hugely and appreciate what you had done.
I hadn't obviously thought about putting myself forward.
I didn't even know these things were going on.
I hadn't thought about putting myself forward for it, but I really, really do appreciate you communicating with them and your enthusiasm about it, and it really was really cool to see so many FDR listeners there who were happy and excited to talk to me or to see the speech.
So I really, really appreciate that.
It's nothing that I had really thought of, but I'm really, really glad that you pushed for it, and I'm really glad that I did it, and I hope that it worked out the way you hoped.
Oh yeah, I'm extremely pleased.
It sounds corny, but Honestly, this is one of the few cases where I can say my reward was that you accepted and gave.
And it didn't suck, right?
And it didn't suck. It didn't suck.
That's always important. Well, yeah.
So thank you. I really do appreciate it.
This is an example of how I'm only part of the conversation moving forward because, I mean, I wouldn't have done it.
I wouldn't have thought about it. But you and maybe a couple other people who pushed for it.
Really did, I think, make a big difference in what we're doing.
So thank you so much for that.
And I'm thrilled you got the closing spot.
Yeah. I didn't expect that. I thought, you know, maybe one room off by lunch, you know, in there where people put their trays away.
You can go and listen to FDR. But no, it was really quite a thing.
I mean, I can't remember if I mentioned this.
I don't think I did in the speech, but part of my intro was going to be, okay, so two years ago, it's John Stossel.
A year ago, it's Ron Paul.
Who the hell is this guy?
Are we that desperate that we have to get a podcaster of all people?
But I don't think I did mention that, but that was certainly going to be one of my intros.
But it really was an august company to be keeping in terms of exposure.
So thanks again so much for what you did to make that happen.
I think Chris Lawless is probably a fan.
He wasn't before he'd heard about it, because as far as he told me, he heard a bunch of people wanted me to be there, so he went and watched a video or two, and he was like, yeah, looks alright.
Looks good. He didn't even know about any of the controversy or anything like that.
I don't think he was a fan before, but I think he's listening now.
Cool. Alright, so thanks again.
Well, thanks everyone. I do appreciate that.
And have yourselves a great week.
▲
Export Selection