All Episodes
Previous Next
March 10, 2010 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
33:20
1607 The Bomb in the Brain Part 4 - The Death of Reason - The Effects of Child Abuse

The scientific evidence underlying the near-universal resistance to reason and evidence.

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi everybody, it's Stefan Molyneux from Freedom Made Radio.
I hope you're doing very well. This is True News, The Bomb in the Brain, Part 4, the aftermaths of child abuse, the etiology of belief.
And here it is that we're going to put everything together That we've been studying in the Bomb of the Brain series as well as in the psychological interviews that I have been conducting with the subject matter experts into one glowing motivational punch to the neofrontal cortex on how to change the world.
If you've spent any time trying to convince people, as Socrates and philosophers onwards and libertarians and objectivists and anarchists have onwards, trying to convince people about being better, being more rational, looking at the reason and evidence more objectively, you'll realize that it is a little bit like putting your forehead up into a cheese grater and repeatedly nodding your head, or rather shaking it, because people don't respond very well to reason and evidence.
And yet we find it very hard to give up reason and evidence as our primary ways to communicate about truth, because we have what I consider an erroneous perception of what is actually occurring when somebody has a belief.
There's a perception that most people have that what we start with is a kind of blank slate.
We start in the Lockean blank slate state.
And then, from that blank slate, we receive reason and evidence.
Arguments, sense, perception, and so on.
We read books, we see documentaries, we go to school, and we get reason and evidence.
And starting from a blank, unbiased state, we are presented with reason and evidence, or go out to pursue it.
And from there, we get our beliefs.
And therefore, what most people who want to change the world do is they focus on reason and evidence.
And libertarians and objectivists and free marketeers and even communists and fascists and so on, they say, well, look, you have the wrong reason and evidence, so what I'm going to do is I'm going to give you better reason and evidence, and that is going to change Your beliefs, because your beliefs are derived from reason and evidence.
But if you spend any time trying to debate things in the real world, you realize that this does not work.
It does not work. What happens is you give new reason and evidence and people ignore it.
Or they will accept it drudgingly and then forget it the next day.
And so their beliefs do not change.
And if you're attempting to change people's beliefs by changing their reason, the reason and evidence that they have, You are engaged in a chaotic quest, which will lead straight off a yawning, dull, Thelma and Louise-style cliff.
And you have to be willing to throw away that approach.
At least I believe so.
And maybe this comes...
I'm one of the few free marketeers who's actually spent a lot of time in the cutting edge of the free market as the CTO of a small software company.
So I'm used to throwing out even my most cherished beliefs for the sake of what the market actually demands.
And this is what I have done in my approach through Free Domain Radio.
So I'm often asked, well, why do I deal with early childhood?
Why do I deal with family history?
Why do I deal with self-knowledge?
And why do I suggest therapy?
Well, because I like facts, and I am an empiricist, and I like to do things that work.
And when I find that I'm doing things that don't work, i.e.
arguing from reason and evidence and not having it work, I like to change my tag so that I can do things that work.
Call me a crazy empirical rationalist, but that's my approach.
So let's look at the facts of belief, the biological facts of belief.
You have to know this stuff if you want to change the world.
In the same way that if you want to help people lose weight, you have to study some nutrition, at least.
You have to study how the brain processes beliefs if you want to change beliefs.
So, the first thing to understand about the brain is that the evolutionary primacy of the brain's fear circuitry make it much more powerful than the reasoning circuits.
When people become anxious or afraid, and particularly when they don't know why they're feeling that way, or if they don't even know that they're feeling that way, The neofrontal cortex, the reasoning centers of the brain, shut down.
So when you approach people with a belief that makes them anxious, their amygdala triggers the fight-or-flight response, which shuts down the neofrontal cortex.
This is very, very important to understand.
Now, the amygdala, we talked about this before, is sort of the base of the brain.
It's the reptile side of the brain, the T-Rex of the human brain.
The amygdala has a profusion of connections to higher brain regions, but these are neurons that carry one-way traffic from the amygdala to the neocortex.
One-way traffic, so the fight-or-flight mechanism rises up to swamp the neocortex, and very little Very little information goes from the cortex to the amygdala, however.
So it's mostly one way. When people get anxious, their reasoning shuts down, their higher brain centers shut down, and they react on instinct, which is evasion or avoidance or dissociation or anger or rejection or contempt.
But they're all just running on automatic.
It is not a thoughtful process when people get anxious.
Now, you can change this, as we have talked about with some of the experts.
You can change this, but it requires a conscious process of trying to understand where your impulses are coming from.
I'm a big fan, of course, as an amateur, of the approach to psychology that tries to deal with core beliefs, as is cognitive psychology.
So this is the reality of the brain.
So it allows the amictus to override the products of the logical thoughtful cortex, but not vice versa.
Again, this is where we start without self-knowledge.
And this, of course, makes good sense.
Fear is far, far more powerful than reason, and I will give you the sources to all of this information.
Just to the right, there'll be a link.
Fear evolved as a mechanism to protect us from life-threatening situations, and from an evolutionary standpoint, there's nothing more important to that.
So if we have snakes in a brain.
So fear is not only more powerful than rationality, it's also absurdly easy to evoke for reasons that lie deep into our Evolutionary past.
It makes sense, right? You would rather jump away from a stick that turns out not to be a snake than not jump away from a stick which turns out to be a snake.
So fear overrides reason and that is entirely beneficial to us throughout our evolution.
So the brain is wired to flinch first and perhaps ask questions later.
You may, after you jump away, look to see if the stick is a snake or maybe not.
Lots of experiments have been run, and I will cite just a few here, but if you look into my references, there are many, many more.
So classic experiments. Scientists compared people's responses to offer of flight insurance that would cover death by any cause or death by terrorism.
Of course, logically, death by terrorism is subsumed under the umbrella category death by any cause.
But the specificity of the word terrorism combined with the stark images that the word evokes triggers the amygdala's fear response in a way that by any cause does not.
People are willing to spend more for terrorism insurance than death by any cause insurance.
It's not rational. But when you are afraid, when you are anxious, when you are frightened, the fear response shuts down your reasoning centers and you act in a very primal way.
And philosophy does this to people all the time.
It is like a tsunami on this small, trembling fishing village of prior bigoted cultural preconceptions.
Death and ideology. So another experiment.
Volunteers who identified themselves as political conservatives were given reminders of mortality.
After that prompt, they rated gay marriage, abortion, and sexual immorality as greater threats to the nation than they had before the reminders.
This is called priming. You unconsciously give people sequences of words that provoke a particular response later on.
So the researcher says, quote, when you remind people of their mortality, they defend their worldview more strongly and reject those who challenge it.
Biology and ideology.
New research suggests that such different reactions and perhaps all political beliefs might have a basis in biology.
And biology does not in this case mean genetics, although there is some component, but it means that it's deep in the brain.
It's a biological response.
So these two fellows quiz people on their political views on topics ranging from the war in Iraq to capital punishment and premarital sex.
All the participants had strongly held beliefs that identified them as socially liberal or socially conservatives.
Well, what happened? So a couple of months after the survey, the researchers showed the subjects random pictures while measuring how imperceptible changes in their perspiration affected skin conductivity, which is a marker of the fight-or-flight mechanism.
When an image of a bloodied face or maggot-filled wound appeared, conservatives sweated more than liberals, even after accounting for differences that might be due to sex, income, age, or education.
The same trend held for blinking in response to a loud random noise.
Conservatives blinked harder than liberals, an innate response to a threat.
So conservatives are hardwired to respond to threats more strongly.
So some genetic differences do underlie our political leaning.
So if you have a genetic difference, say for instance that certain mutations affect how a region of the brain called the amygdala, which we've talked about, reacts to fearful images.
If you have an amygdala that reacts more strongly to fear, then you are more likely to be a conservative.
I know it sounds weird, but these are the facts which we have to work with.
And whenever we get lost, we take out the compass of empiricism and science and we look for the facts.
What about will?
See, I'm sort of making the case that a lot goes on in our brains that we're not conscious of, and a lot goes on in the brains of those we talk to about truth and reason and evidence that they're not conscious of.
So, do we really will as much as we think we do?
Well, when linked to electrodes, subjects were asked of this experiment to move their fingers, quote, at will.
And researchers found they were able to identify three distinct blips in the electrical impulses of the brain throughout the course of action.
The first was the readiness potential, i.e.
I'm about to move my finger.
Sometime after the readiness potential came the experience of willing the finger.
And then there was a third distinct movement which was actually moving the finger.
The researchers discovered that the subject's readiness potential occurred distinctly before the subjects themselves perceived consciously wanting to move the finger.
The experience of the conscious will, it appears, arises at some point after the brain has already begun the action.
Right? So, they're asked to move their fingers randomly, but the brain starts to move the fingers before they make the decision to move the fingers.
The will is an effect of an unconscious impulse.
In other words, the will, in this instance, is somewhat of an illusion.
This is very important. Sorry, you know that.
So, free? Let's look at another one.
Another study research has put a series of subjects into a transcranial magnetic stimulation device, which has been found to cause, through a directed magnetic impulse, the involuntary movement of different parts of the human body.
Without explaining the operation of the device to the subjects, the experimenters asked them to move either their right or their left finger, whichever they chose, whenever they heard a click.
The click was actually the sound of the device turning on and forcing the movement of a particular digit left or right hand.
Although the magnetic impulses led the subjects to move the finger they moved, the subjects nevertheless perceived that they were choosing which finger to move and then moving it.
So the machine was sending an electrical impulse to make the fingers move, but the subjects said, no, I chose to move it.
Again, here the will is an illusion.
When asked whether they had voluntarily chosen which fingers to move, participants showed no inkling that something other than their will was creating their choice.
So will, and we'll get to free will in a sec, is an illusion in many cases.
So the researcher says the experience of will is the way our minds portray their operations to us, not their actual operation.
This is going to be crucial when we look at the development of belief in a minute or two.
So here's another example.
A subject viewed a computer screen that flashed strings of letters and were asked to judge whether they saw words in what flashed.
The screen would go entirely blank each trial either after the subject pressed the response button or automatically after a very short time if the subject failed to respond.
The intervals were so quick it was difficult for the subjects to tell whether their response triggered the blank screen or whether it had automatically gone blank.
One group of subjects, however, was subliminally primed with a flash of the word I or me.
Subjects reported not recognizing it just prior to the flash of letters that they could consciously see and were to evaluate.
This is priming. This is giving you the words which you're not conscious of.
They go into the unconscious. You're not conscious of them.
I or me. The researchers found that subjects primed with the terms IRE were more likely to conclude that they had caused the screen to go blank than were the subjects who had not been so primed.
The subjects, it seemed, were influenced by the unconscious priming of self to attribute an ambiguous action to their own.
The inscrutable unconscious.
Our experience of will, then, is not only an internal illusion, in many cases, it is an internal illusion that is susceptible to external situational manipulation.
Quote, this is from a researcher, the unique human convenience of conscious thoughts that preview our actions gives us the privilege of feeling we willfully cause what we do.
In fact, however, unconscious and inscrutable mechanisms create both conscious thought about action and the action.
Unconscious and inscrutable mechanisms create both conscious thought about action and the action, and also produce the sense of will we experience by perceiving the thought as the cause of the action.
So while our thoughts may have deep, important, and unconscious causal connections to our actions, the experience of conscious will arises from a process that interprets these connections, not from the connections themselves.
We feel the impulse, we act, and then we have a story Or a belief about what caused our action.
We say this again because we'll be coming back to this and pounding it hard when it comes to political ideology.
We feel an impulse, we act, and then we create a story about why we did what we did.
This is called the positional effect.
So subjects were asked in a bargain store to judge which one of four nylon stocking pantyhoses was the best quality.
The subjects were not told that the stockings were in fact identical.
The stockings were presented to the subjects hanging on racks, spaced equal distance apart.
A situation would have it that the position of the stockings had a significant effect on the subjects' quality judgments.
In particular, moving from left to right, 12% of the subjects judged the first stockings as being the best quality, 17% of the second, 13% chose the third, and 40% chose the fourth, right?
So it clearly is going up in a very staircase fashion.
The most recently viewed pair of stockings.
When asked about their respective judgments, most of the subjects attributed their decision to the knit or weave, sheerness, elasticity or workmanship of the stockings that they chose to be of the best quality.
So it was purely situational, or largely situational, but people made up these amazing stories as to why they chose what they chose.
Subjects provided a total of 80 different reasons for their choice.
Not one, however, mentioned the position of the stockings or the relative recency with which the pairs were viewed.
Nobody got that it was the last stocking that people viewed as the highest quality.
None, that is, saw the situation.
In fact, when asked whether the position of the stockings could have influenced their judgments, only one subject admitted that the position could have been influential.
The researchers concluded that what matters is not why the position effect occurs, but that it occurs.
And that subjects do not report it or recognize it, even when it is pointed out to them.
This is why Socrates started with know thyself.
Know yourself. Look into your unconscious.
Look into yourself. Introspection.
Self-knowledge. Therapy.
It's so essential because otherwise you're being run by forces that are unconscious and you will only create the illusion of the self, the illusion of will, the illusion of ideology, the illusion of philosophy after the fact, after you have had the impulse, after you have acted, you will make up a story about what you did and most people do that and that's not good.
Consciously processed information can override these emotional and experience-driven biases if we devote enough time and attention to the decision.
This is not my opinion, this is the opinion of the researchers.
I happen to agree with it, so I think that's important, but we can examine and override these unconscious impulses if we devote enough time and attention to the decision and to self-knowledge.
Experiments show that the information we're not aware of can more strongly influence even the most deliberative, non-emotional sort of decision even more than does the information we are aware of.
It is a great danger to go through life blindfolded to the self because we act, we feel impulses, we act, and then everything that we come up with in terms of beliefs and ideology is ex post facto reasoning to justify what we just did because we don't really know why.
The unconscious is culture.
In his book, Strangers to Ourselves, Timothy Wilson notes that the brain can absorb about 11 million pieces of information a second, of which it can process about 40 consciously.
The brain can absorb about 11 million pieces of information a second of which it can process about 40 consciously.
So if you're not harnessing and understanding the power of the unconscious, you are absolutely crippled when it comes to knowing the world.
The unconscious brain handles all but 40 of a million, 11 million pieces of information.
You need to get a hold of this supercharged part of the brain.
Alright, so let's start and turn to political beliefs.
The brains of liberals and conservatives may be constructed and work differently.
Scientists at these universities, you can look at the presentation if you're just listening to the audio, found that a specific region of the brain's cortex is more sensitive in people who consider themselves liberal than in self-declared conservatives.
It has to do with switching gears.
The brain region in question helps people shift gears when their usual responses would be inappropriate, supporting the notion that liberals are more flexible in their thinking.
I have criticisms of the liberal brain, which we'll get to.
But let's look at the conservative brain.
So a review of the research published in 2003 found that conservatives tend to be more rigid and closed-minded, less tolerant of ambiguity, and less open to new experiences.
Some of the traits associated with conservatives in that review were decidedly unflattering, including fear, aggression, and tolerance of inequality.
So what was an experiment that was run?
So participants in this experiment were college students whose politics raged from very liberal to very conservative.
Scientists instructed them to tap a keyboard when an M appeared on a computer monitor and to refrain from tapping when they saw a W. M appeared four times more frequently than W, conditioning participants to press a key in a knee-jerk fashion whenever they saw a letter.
Each participant was wired to an electroencephalograph that recorded activity in their anterior cingulate cortex, the part of the brain that detects conflicts between a habitual tendency, pressing any key, and a more appropriate response, not pressing a key.
Liberals had more brain activity and made fewer mistakes than conservatives when they saw a W. Researchers said liberals and conservatives were equally accurate in recognizing M. What were the numbers?
They were significant. Liberals were 4.9 times more likely than conservatives to show activity in the brain circuits that deal with conflicts, and were 2.2 times more likely to score in the top half of the distribution for accuracy.
Here are some brain scans of Democrat, Republican, and Independent brains.
You can see that what's being lit up is very, very different.
You're dealing with a different animal when you're dealing with political ideology.
The brain is different.
If you're trying to change someone's mind, it is not just reason and evidence.
It is more akin to teaching somebody a new language, or perhaps more appropriately, it is very much closer to rehabilitating somebody from an injury.
The ideological brain is an injured brain.
It is a damaged brain.
And it is rehabilitation to make it better.
It is not just an argument with reason and evidence.
Overall, liberals showed higher tolerance for ambiguity and complexity on psychological tests and that conservatives tended towards needing greater structure and order.
Now, I have some criticisms here, which I'll just drop in very briefly.
Structure and order are not bad things.
Science and philosophy and math and engineering all rely on Structure and order.
And liberals are a bit more in the highly relativistic postmodern camp of way too much ambiguity and complexity and not enough structure and order.
So I don't view that as necessarily superior, but there are some significant differences between these two brain sets.
Conservatism is quite associated with fear.
When people fear death or terrorism or in a state of uncertainty, they tend to become more conservative.
For instance, a study of World Trade Center survivors after 9-11 reported that 38% grew more conservative in the 18 months following the attack, as compared with only 13% who became more liberal.
Politics is prejudice.
Politics is bigotry.
Politics is bias.
So this is a very powerful study.
Democrats and Republicans alike are adept at making decisions without letting facts get in the way, an 06 study shows.
And they get quite a rush from ignoring information that is contrary to their point of views.
Politics is a drug.
Ideology is a drug.
So researchers ask staunch party members from both sides to evaluate information That threatened their preferred candidate prior to the 2004 presidential election.
The subject's brains were monitored while they pondered.
Still bias.
The researcher says, quote, we did not see any increased activation of the parts of the brain normally engaged during reasoning.
said the director of clinical psychology.
What we saw instead was a network of emotion circuits lighting up, including circuits hypothesized to be involved in regulating emotion and circuits known to be involved in resolving conflicts.
So people are presented with information contrary to their biases and their reasoning centers do not activate.
The test subjects on both sides of the political aisle reached totally biased conclusions by ignoring information that could not rationally be discounted, these researchers found.
Then with their minds made up, brain activity ceased in the areas that deal with negative emotions such as disgust.
But they actively spiked in the circuits involved in reward, a response similar to what addicts experience when they get a fix.
So when you're presented with information that threatens your mental model, You feel anxiety, you feel disgust, and then when you reject that information, the negative emotions quiet down and you get a positive rush, very similar to what an addict gets when they get a fix.
Politics is an addiction, as I've always argued.
The study points to a complete lack of reason in political decision-making.
And for those of us who argue politics or philosophy or libertarianism or objectivism with people, we know all about this.
I'm just pointing out the physiological basis.
And the reason I'm doing this is to help you avoid the Randian trap of disgust and horror and revulsion at the world for being so irrational and so hypocritical.
Well, we're dealing with brain damage, people.
So politics is irrationality.
The researcher says none of the circuits involved in conscious reasoning were particularly engaged.
Essentially, it appears as if partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the conclusions they want.
And then they get massively reinforced for it with the elimination of negative emotional states and activation of positive ones.
Notably absent were any increases in the activation of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain most associated with reasoning.
It is all emotional self-management, anxiety reduction and the pursuit of the hit of confirmation bias.
So, the thesis.
Some researchers have made an extremely compelling, if unsettling case, that, quote, most of a person's everyday life is determined not by her conscious intentions and deliberate choices, but by mental processes that are put into motion.
By features of the environment that operate outside of conscious awareness and guidance.
A thesis they acknowledge is difficult for people to accept.
The unconscious bias and bigotry and prejudice and scar tissue and early traumas run people's lives.
And when you present them with contradictory information, their...
Amygdala spikes, their neofrontal cortex, their reasoning center is shut down, and all they do is manage the anxiety by rejecting the information.
Isn't this a perfect description of what you have faced every single day you have debated with people your life over?
It's good to know that there's science behind it, isn't it?
Social psychologists studying the phenomenon have concluded that in our daily lives, our conscious will, quote, plays a causal role in only 5% or so of the time.
And this is most people who pretty strenuously avoid self-knowledge.
Now, there are limits, right?
Before every determinist howler monkey comes chewing on my jugular, there are limits.
None of the researchers in this field of social science have concluded, and neither do I, that the conscious will is purely and totally an illusion.
What is asserted and what ex-researchers have demonstrated is that the experience of willpower is far more widespread than the reality of willpower.
This is not absolute. This can be changed with self-knowledge, with getting the coaching of a great therapist, with journaling, with introspection.
But first of all, you need to know that you don't know what you don't know.
So, this is a summation.
Of the argument. And this goes all the way back to the very beginning of the Freedom Aid Radio podcast series.
The arguments that I made around the need to resolve childhood trauma and early difficult experiences in order to access the reasoning centers of the brain and to become, to have the potential to become truly rational and wise.
Look, anything which increases amygdala activity automatically tends to swamp the reasoning centers of the brain.
That is science.
That is fact. And we know, based on the Balm of the Brain earlier series, that childhood trauma increases amygdala activity significantly.
Significantly. The degree to which people cannot reason or reject reason and evidence because of anxiety and emotional self-management is the degree to which they have been traumatized.
I don't just say most people are traumatized because I like the sound of the sentence.
This is the evidence that is presented.
And the evidence that is presented is what you see whenever you debate with people and they just get angry or upset or dissociate or reject reason and evidence or believe for a moment and then flash back.
This is all evidence of trauma.
Because this is what the science tells us.
Human beings at present are in a state of pre-philosophy.
It's very, very important. What is occurring for most people whenever they pretend to debate about something is that deep brain impulses drive emotionality, anxiety, fear, anger, fight or flight, which then create actions, which then drive these ex post facto justifications, right? So you say something like taxation is theft and people get angry at you and then they assume that you're wrong because they're angry.
Right? You say something which is against their worldview, their amygdala fight or flight kicks up, their negative emotional centers in their brains light up, neofrontal cortex shuts down, and the information is rejected in order to calm the brainstorm that is occurring from the brain stem.
It is not a rational process, which is why more reason and evidence does not change people's minds.
Ideology is not just like a drug, it is a drug.
People's beliefs or their ideology is a form of self-management or of magical thinking, religious in essence, that is designed to justify their pre-existing internal states.
People are drawn to be pro-military because they are afraid of the world.
Why are they afraid of the world? Because of their early childhood experiences.
This is the reality of the world that we're dealing with.
We're trying to play basketball with people in wheelchairs.
We need to rehabilitate them into being able to stand up, or they rather need to do it themselves with the help of a trained therapist.
The greatest factor we've also seen from the experts, the greatest factor influencing internal states is early childhood experiences.
And I'm talking not about genetics, but that which is under the control of humanity.
Thus, and we put all of this together, this is why I have always focused on early childhood experiences and the alleviation of early trauma if it has been experienced, and also focusing on self-knowledge.
This is the key that Socrates held open 2,500 years ago, which is you have to know yourself first.
The unexamined life is not worth living because if you don't examine your life and yourself, you're not really alive.
You're just bumping around like a bumper car or a pinball off various emotional states being provoked by external stimuli.
There is no way to improve rationality without improving people's childhoods.
There is no way to do it.
Reason and evidence will not work because reason and evidence is not the source of people's ideology.
What is the actual sequence that science reveals?
Well, let's go left to right.
The actual sequence that occurs within people's minds is there is some form of trauma trauma doesn't have to be parental it can be based on religious terrorizing it can be based on the frustrations of really bad public schools or even really bad private schools it can be any number of things but trauma occurs trauma leads to dysfunction within the brain to brain damage as we have seen from a variety of conversations with the subject matter experts The brain damage produces an ideology which is designed to shield the person from the knowledge of the trauma and of the brain damage.
I am not dysfunctional, say people.
I am not broken, say people.
The world is dysfunctional.
The world is broken.
Once you have an ideology which arises out of a dysfunctional brain environment which results from early trauma, Once you have an ideology, you then go in a little circular revolving door called reason and evidence, where you go and seek out that which confirms your bias and you reject information that is contrary to it.
Because reason and evidence is an effect of trauma, brain damage, and the resulting justifications after the fact to explain the behaviors that come out of trauma and brain damage, reason and evidence is the wagging tail on the dog.
And attempting to change people's minds by appealing to reason and evidence is really attempting to wag the dog.
It is managing an effect, not a cause.
And we know that because, A, it doesn't work because people will just reject anything.
That occurs. And this is why the only way for the world to become more rational, more humane, more empathetic, more peaceful, more caring, more loving and happier Is to, as an adult, examine yourself, examine your own impulses and your own thoughts.
Always suggest therapy.
You cannot achieve excellence without coaching.
You cannot achieve excellence in virtue and self-knowledge without a competent coach, in my opinion.
If you can't do it, try to do it.
If you can't do it, at least start on your own so that when you do go to a therapist, you will save some money because you'll be further up the learning curve.
But this is the reality.
This is the reality of what happens in people's brains.
This is why reason and evidence don't work.
This is why we need to improve our relationship with ourselves, uncover and resolve early traumas, become better parents to our children, and then, and then, and only then, do we get a free, happy, peaceful, and prosperous world.
And there's no other way.
Thank you so much for watching this series.
I appreciate your patience. The references are here, fdrurl.com forward slash tn underbar abuse.
For this is Stefan Molyneux from Free Domain Radio.
I hope that you have a wonderful, wonderful life.
▲
Export Selection