All Episodes
Previous Next
March 28, 2009 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
22:40
1317 Happy Board
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good afternoon, everybody.
Hope you're doing well, Steph. It is the 28th of March 2000.
And I hope you're doing very well.
Just a little note. Donations.
End of the month. Standard.
Steph bought wine.
If you could send in anything you've got lying around in the old change jar, I would hugely appreciate it.
I had to upgrade the bandwidth on the server, the FDR server, because we are now, my friends, over two terabytes of podcast, largely podcast downloads per month, over two terabytes.
I'm actually out walking with Isabella, for those who are curious, as to the environment, so I may break into shmitykins from time to time, but do not worry at all.
I am speaking mostly to you.
I wanted to talk a little bit about some stuff which I'm as guilty, if that's the right word, as anyone.
But I wanted to mention something that I've noticed a little bit on the board.
Minor tweak. Take it for what it's worth as you see fit.
But the relationship with, let's call them Affectionately, the noobs, is interesting.
And it is a great challenge because we have a kind of university with everything from, in a sense, high school to post-grad, right?
I mean, we're all in one big classroom and everyone gets to ask questions and there's no particular way to differentiate other than the Diamond Plus or PK Plus private boards, which are just used for more advanced philosophical discussions that may not be that helpful for For others, but there is this challenge of us all being in the same big conceptual thought vat, and how is it that we deal with this challenge?
Well, I wanted to sort of share an experience that I had with a psychological forum, not a forum, but a listserv that I'm on, where I posted a Rolling Stone article about a young man with a terrible background who ended up,
a terrible childhood, who, you know, very sadly ended up becoming a shooter and shooting up some people at a mall, and I posted this, and I was trying to sort of figure out or understand or ask the question, why would he choose to take out his violence against random strangers rather than his own abusive Now, of course, I'm not suggesting that that would be a good thing to do.
I'm just wondering why that would be the case, that he would end up shooting up strangers rather than his own mother, in particular, who he really hated.
No violence is better, but I was just sort of curing infinitely better, but I was just sort of curious as to what.
And, you know, basically I got back some pretty dismissive answer, which I thought was entirely unsatisfying.
Which was, well, you know, he did not feel safe to aggress against his own family and therefore he projected his anger onto others and attacked them and so on.
And that was sort of at odds with the actual narrative.
And the actual narrative, if you read the article, I think I posted it on the board, the actual narrative was that he had actually physically attacked his mother in his early and mid-teens, and therefore it didn't make a lot of sense to me to say, well, he just couldn't process the aggression towards his own family because he already had, and how it had turned outward remains still somewhat of a mystery for me.
But the tone that I was replied to was, well, it's obvious.
Well, clearly it was this, right?
And the tone was such that I was inhibited from posting further on this topic, or really other topics, because that was the only reply that I got, and it seemed to be very kind of dismissive, if that makes sense. And I think that it is a genuine question, and it's important to avoid bad answers.
I mean, I think that I would have a And it wasn't so much that one person sort of replied in this curt and dismissive, and I thought not very intelligent manner.
It was that that just seemed to be par for the course, looking at The replies to the listserv as a whole, there was a lot of articles posted, but not a lot of back-and-forth intellectual exchange, if that makes any sense.
So, I'm not saying that's at all the general case at FDR. I mean, I'm consistently and constantly impressed with the quality of the posts and the exchange.
It is The place I go to get stimulating and interesting discussions.
And that having been said, I think it's important to have a kind of self-check before posting.
I'm trying to put this down for my own behavior as well.
But have a kind of self-check before posting, which goes sort of something like this.
Either, and this is with all due respect to the people who've been around for a long time, we understand that there are You know, to put it very broadly, there are two kinds of posters, right?
I mean, there are the people who have genuine questions and want to know about things, you know, genuine objections or genuine questions, you know, like, well, you know, DROs will become a monopoly or, well, if you exclude people for crimes, they have no incentive, disincentive to...
Commit more crimes and so on.
And I understand all of that, and this is just one of the particular areas that could occur.
A foreign country will invade a DRO society and take it over.
And these are all obvious questions, to say the least.
They're pretty obvious. And there is a kind of...
Weariness that one gets as a thinker when...
And it's not just that the questions are obvious.
It's that the person who's posting them doesn't seem to realize that they're obvious.
And that's a real challenge, you know, when you're a thinker.
Because if someone says, well, here's an obvious...
Opposition to the DRO theory.
Oh, they'll become a monopoly. The foreign government will take it over.
Whatever it is that's being quoted as the challenge.
The idea, of course, that people who've been pursuing this idea or fleshing out this concept for many years have never thought of that or don't have an answer, right?
I mean, it would seem to me to be...
Well, it's not very respectful to say to people who have become sort of experts in a particular field, well, here's the obvious objection to your theory, right?
Because we could not really have...
I mean, if we had gone for years without even thinking of or addressing that most obvious of questions, then either we're avoiding it on purpose because we're trying to sell a theory that doesn't work, or we haven't thought about it at all, in which case...
No one's thought about this obvious question, nobody's posed it before, and we're obviously not that bright a crew, so either way, it almost doesn't bear bringing up, if that makes any sense.
So there's two kinds of posters.
The kind of poster who has...
You know, genuine questions and objections, even if they're phrased in that, you know, slightly annoying manner.
You know, we've all been new to a theory, right?
And we've all thought that we've tricked to con the great objection that nobody's thought of before and so on.
We have some low planes today, I do apologize.
And yet they are looking for genuine answers, right?
Because this is the kind of person who's like, wow, this is a new theory.
I have this objection, but if I get a reasonable response, I may not accept it, but I'll at least work with it.
And those are the people you say, oh, what about self-defense in a stateless society?
And you say, okay, well, you know, check out this article or that article or this bit in practical anarchy and so on.
And then they come back and they say, well, I read this, I read that, I agree with this, I have a problem with that, and so on, right?
Those are the people who are sort of genuinely in hot pursuit of knowledge.
And that's good, right?
I mean, that's where we all want to be.
On the other hand, there is another group of people, and they are quite common, actually, and I think well worth taking a few minutes to talk about and conceptualize.
And those are the people who are, you know, the yes-but personality types.
The roadblocks, right?
If you've ever rented a car, you know that when you drive back into the car rental parking lot, they have those serrated spikes in the ground that are only facing one direction.
So if you drive in, it's perfectly fine.
But if you try to drive out, they act like swords as the spears leaned against cavalry to puncture the tires of any cars that are trying to be stolen from the lot.
And these people act in the same kind of way.
So if you have doubt or insecurity, they are perfectly fluid with that and never oppose you.
But if you have any kind of certainty, they react as if you're trying to drive a car out of a rental parking lot and try and puncture your tires with flamethrowers and tactical nuclear weapons.
And those kinds of people are, you know, well, it won't work because of this.
Well, here's the solution. Well, I don't agree with this solution.
Well, here's the proof. Okay, I agree with the proof, but it won't work because of that.
Okay, here's the solution to that.
Well, I don't agree with that proof.
Well, here's the proof. Well, I don't agree with it.
It won't work because of the other, right?
Basically, they're just setting themselves against any kind of certainty.
Of course, this has historical precedence in their childhood.
They probably had a person in their lives who was certain and wrong, and they got used to the only defense that a child has in that kind of situation, is the continual attempt to deflate the certainty.
To oppose the certainty.
It's a passive-aggressive way of opposing basically somebody who's certain and a jerk at the same time.
So these are the skills that they've developed.
Whenever they come across certainty, it provokes childhood anxiety.
They wish to undo that certainty.
They certainly don't want to substitute any other certainty, and they certainly don't want to agree, because you're like the jerk parent in that scenario.
Of course, it's not healthy, In my strong opinion, to get involved in those kinds of interactions or situations.
It's just, it's not healthy because it's just a side of the box of replay of particular early kinds of trauma and hostilities and unhappiness.
And so I think it's really not a good idea to get involved in those kinds of discussions.
And generally, again, this is not any kind of hard and fast rule, but it's just been my sort of experience.
That when someone is defensive about childhood dysfunction to the degree where it's entirely abstracted and they don't seem to have any knowledge of the connection to childhood history, it's not the venue.
To open up the discussion, right, about history, right, because basically that's a kind of trap where it's like, oh, so I have a, you know, a state of society won't work because of X, and then you provide a proof or two and they just switch stories or go to some other disagreement, and then you say something like, do you feel that it's, are you emotionally invested in disproving this theory?
All right, do you have any history with people who've been certain and not nice in your history and so on?
And this is a trap, right? Because, right, all that happens is they then say, oh, so I disprove your theory and all you do is start psychologizing me.
Is that how things work around here?
You know, it's just another kind of trap, right?
So generally it's not a great idea, in my opinion, to engage at that level, right?
And you could say, why do you think that this is such an important question for you?
Why... Why do you think that you're intense about this particular topic?
And, you know, an honest and emotionally aware person will say, you know what, I don't know.
I do feel quite strongly about this, and I'm not sure exactly why.
It is just a theoretical discussion.
But I am getting quite invested in it, and I don't know why.
Right? That's, I think, an honest and engaged response.
And then you can talk about it, right?
And, of course, then what you can do...
is, you know, once you deal with that kind of stuff, the purpose, of course, is to get back to the reason and evidence situation, right, so that you can continue on with the discussion, but without that kind of interference or roadblock from history.
And I just sort of noticed that there has been a bit of a trend towards - Yes.
Slightly curt and dismissive responses, and I've had one too.
I've apologized for one that I posted on the board.
But I think it's important to differentiate between these two.
The genuine seeker of knowledge and the person who's the yes-but.
And the genuine seeker of knowledge, they will generally prefer to engage in an online debate rather than to go and look things up.
And, of course, this criticism has been floating around FDR, and not just FDR, but other places, of course, as well, where when people say, well, newbies or whoever brings up an objection to something to do with the statelessness or whatever it is that we're talking about, and they are referred to books or articles or podcasts by me or by other people.
And the response is, well...
Why is it that I ask a question and all that happens is I get referred to some other text?
Can't you people think for yourselves?
And, of course, that is an interesting issue and, I think, a little on the hostile and entitled thing.
And that, to me, is a good warning sign of somebody who's not really interested in pursuing knowledge.
The idea that someone's going to step someone through, say, you know, UPB or DRO theory or RTR or whatever, right?
When there's a, you know, a free book with a couple of hours of investment, you can get it pretty well sorted out, or at least come back with some more pertinent questions.
If someone says, well, why are you just referring me to text when you should be teaching me yourself?
That, of course, is a bit on the entitled and mildly narcissistic side.
Not to say the whole personality, but just that question.
Because, you know, I don't owe you one-on-one tutoring.
I don't owe you one-on-one instruction.
And so this idea that people get irritable when you're not willing to step them through every piece of logic, which, you know, would literally take weeks, probably, with the questions back and forth.
You'd have to invest dozens of hours going back and forth, and, you know, no one's paying you, right, to do it.
And frankly, no one's paying me to do it either, right?
I mean, it's not a one-on-one where people say, step me through this and I'll pay you 500 bucks or whatever, right?
So... So I think that's another important...
I mean, feel free to refer to people to stuff.
I think it's a good... And that's sort of part of the reason why I wrote the books, of course, is I think it's actually a pretty good way of testing whether people are really interested in knowledge or not.
Hi. Which is, you know, if you say somebody's really critical of, I don't know, DRO, Theory, OUPB, and you send them to the books and then they...
If they don't come back, well, clearly they're not that interested in the topic then, right?
I mean, to take a silly example, right?
This is just hyperbole, but I think you'll understand the idea behind it.
If someone has a kind of cancer and you say, hey, read this book, and it's got a really great cure for cancer, nothing's going to stop them from reading that book, right?
You could charge them, I don't know, $100,000 for that book, and if they, you know, genuinely believed that it would cure their cancer, then they would, you couldn't stop, you couldn't pry it out of their hands, right?
They'd steal, beg, borrow, whatever, to get a hold of that book.
And that's an example of somebody with a You know, a really deep and genuine desire for knowledge.
Apricot seeds or something.
It's the name of the book. And that's an example.
You can't hold someone back from that kind of knowledge, right?
In the same way, if somebody wants to cheat...
And they can look over and easily read the answer to some particular problem on someone else.
You can't stop them, in a sense, from doing that, right?
I mean, that's a thirst for knowledge, so to speak, or at least a thirst for a good mark that is unquenchable, right, in a way.
You can't stop people from studying stuff that they really want to know about.
That's why there are voluntary computer clubs and all these other kinds of good things that people get together to exchange information.
This is why you have all of these Linux forums, where people exchange information and so on.
So when there's a genuine thirst for knowledge, it's kind of unstoppable.
People will say, oh man, there's a free book?
Fantastic! I'd love to learn about this stuff.
And then they may have disagreements, of course.
Not like the books are infallible.
And that kind of person, I think, is really, really important.
But if the person is kind of playing a game, the game called I'm going to attempt to disrupt your certainty because of my own historical issues, and I'm going to start picking away at stuff, and I'm going to demand that you explain things to me, and so on, because it's tough to argue with a book, and my purpose is not the gathering of knowledge, but the attack of certainty.
I mean, it's not the end of the world to get engaged in debates with these kinds of people.
Lord knows I've engaged with debates in them quite a little bit.
But for me, it's more instructional, right?
For you, it may not be that particularly important.
And of course, it can be good to...
To, you know, pick up a sword with somebody who's got one of those little hooks and wants to disarm you, right?
I mean, it's okay, right? You can test the limits of your theory and practice by engaging in this kind of debate, just not with the idea that it's about any kind of valid or valuable knowledge transfer.
And if people do, if they find, you know, listening to a couple hours of a free book Or reading a couple of articles to be too onerous, then clearly their thirst for knowledge is not very great.
And in fact, I would say that it's not really present at all.
They don't have no thirst for knowledge.
If they say, well, I'm really interested in this topic or this question.
Okay, here's some free books and free videos and free podcasts.
I don't want to listen to those.
Well, then it's... I don't know.
It's just kind of silly, right?
I mean, it's not really about the pursuit of knowledge.
And I think it's important to differentiate.
And your feelings will tell you, I do believe, within an exchange or two, your feelings will tell you which is the most important or which is the most likely outcome.
And if, you know, as I've said before, if you don't like...
The way an interaction is going, you know, you can bow out.
You don't have to post anything. You don't have to have an exit line.
You can just, you know, bow out of the interaction.
And I think having that freedom and that flexibility is really, really important.
And I think that we do want to sort of embrace the newbies, so to speak, and to give them the benefit of the doubt for the first back-and-forth or two.
And I think to be wary of the people who are Not exactly trolly, but just not that particularly interested or enthusiastic about learning or logic or evidence.
But I think to try and avoid the kind of snappy responses or snarky responses that can occur, if you feel that somebody is being not positive or productive, I would suggest, you know, trust the community to see that or me to see that and just don't Don't respond, in my opinion.
If you don't have something nice to say, in a way, on the board, don't say it.
And thank you so much again to those who gave me responses to my tech question about a sort of internet or appliance.
It was very, very helpful, the responses.
I did look around. I ended up getting an iPod Touch, which is doing just fine, although it does not allow me to post on the board, which is a bit of a shame.
But thank you so much for those responses.
Thank you so much. I look forward to your donations.
And I will talk to you soon.
▲
Export Selection