All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 1, 2024 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
36:53
How Not to be RUDE!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good morning everybody, Stephen Molyneux from Free Domain.
Hope you're doing well.
Great questions and comments at freedomain.locals.com.
I hope you will check out the community.
There are some great benefits and bonuses.
And also, if you donate for the next couple of weeks, if you donate, anything you donate, freedomain.com slash donate, you will get My eleven and a half hour deep dive presentation on the depths, horrors, and power of the French Revolution.
Boy, you thought that my truth abouts were fantastic.
The truth about the French Revolution is mind-blowing and an incredible story.
So I hope you will check it out.
Anything you donate at freedomain.com slash donate, you get that.
All right.
Let's get into it.
Bit of a short answer on the last one that didn't quite seem to answer the question fully.
This is regarding UPP.
My answer would be something like this.
If UPP is true, it doesn't need more than one proof to establish that fact.
It just needs one correct proof.
Similarly, Jesus doesn't need four gospels.
One is enough.
The reason why there are four of them is because they were written with different audiences in mind.
Matthew for the Jews, Mark For the Gentiles, John.
For the Greeks, Luke.
For those wanting a longer version.
Similarly, I suppose there could be different versions of UPB for people who find the existing proof to be somewhat inaccessible or difficult to comprehend.
But I suppose those people could also try listening to some of the debates you've had about it.
Perhaps they will find those more convincing.
While it's certainly not necessary to have more than one proof, For UPB to establish its truth value, I suppose it could, in fact, help convince some people who are still stuck so deeply in unreality that they find the existing proof difficult to process.
Some mathematical theorems also have several different proofs for them, even though one would completely suffice.
I don't think it's impossible that someone might find a different proof for UPB that's more convincing or accessible to people who are having trouble wrapping their minds around the original one, but that person would likely not be Steph.
Of course, finding such a proof wouldn't make UPB more true, but it might help convince more people.
Yes, that's true, so...
How do you prevent an idea from spreading?
You demonize.
Well, first of all, you ignore the person, right?
You ignore the person and hope that they go away.
If the person doesn't go away and is consistent and persistent and starts to gain some traction, you demonize the person so that nobody wants to defend that person.
Therefore, those ideas cannot spread.
You make it socially unacceptable to defend that person.
So the history of The spread of the theory of evolution is interesting.
Darwin himself was not out there thundering from the pulpit about his theory of evolution by natural selection.
There was a guy, I can't remember his name, he was basically referred to as Darwin's bulldog and he was the guy who went out and argued and debated and was ferocious and was very pugnacious and did great stuff to help spread that theory.
For me, what's happened is nobody with any prominence and nobody with any, quote, respectability and nobody with any gravitas, so to speak, or credentials or who does shows with their shirts on could be any number of things.
But nobody who's that refined and has the right letters after their name is allowed to Talk about me in anything other than the most negative and contemptuous terms.
That's the deal, right?
They give you all these goodies and then there's a price and the internet has allowed you to have prominence without being bought, owned and paid for with goodies, right?
So if you were in academia and I was without a doubt the most popular philosopher for a large number of years across the world.
You know, a billion views and downloads is nothing to sneeze at.
I've been trained academically in philosophy.
I have a graduate degree.
My thesis was on the history of philosophy with Kant, Hegel, Locke, and all of these great people that I analyzed and I got an A. And so, yeah, I mean, I have the credentials and so on, but people So, and I propose a sort of very radical and valid moral theory, right?
So, that would be something that people would want to talk about, but they couldn't talk about it, right?
There's not an accident, right?
The things that just don't happen that way, that the most popular philosopher in the world who has a radical New theory proving secular ethics.
That's something that philosophers would get involved in and talk about, right?
And it's funny because some of the professional academic philosophers, they say, well, but he does not have a PhD from Harvard.
That's very funny to me.
Oh, these vague parasites.
Right, and the reason why that's funny for me is that, did, did, did, did Socrates have a PhD from Harvard?
At least 90% of the people who were taught in an introductory to the history of philosophy series did not have what we would call modern academic credentials.
So it's funny that they base all of the history of philosophy on people who don't have academic credentials in philosophy.
I mean, Nietzsche was philology and all of that.
I mean, there are some who do.
Bertrand Russell was well educated and all of that.
But to me, it's just kind of funny that The people who teach philosophy teach about philosophers who did not have the formal accreditation they demand of anyone they would talk about in the present.
That's great.
But anyway, so people can't be out there defending my thesis about UPB, right?
They can't do that because they'll lose all of the Social goodies and little petty rewards and so on.
It is, if UPB is correct, it's the biggest advance in philosophy in the history of philosophy, right?
I mean, no question, right?
Because it is, it's a rational proof of secular ethics.
No gods, no governments and so on.
It is the final proof.
It is the proof of virtue.
The proof, and that's never existed before in philosophy in a way that you can't just discount in one way or another.
So, it solves the problem which we're kind of facing in the modern world, which is, if morals come from God, you can sidestep, right?
You can sidestep morality by not believing in God.
UPB takes that away.
UPB says that the only way you can disbelieve in UPB is to abandon logic, reason, reality, and debating in any way, shape, or form.
Arguments, debates, in any way, shape, or form.
So to isolate and demonize me is the way to make sure that my theory doesn't spread.
There's no particular way around that.
I mean, there aren't going to be academics who are going to say, gee, this incredible philosopher, in terms of like incredibly popular, not, you know, incredible, but this guy's having a lot of influence.
We need to We need to deal with his theories because, you know, he's getting philosophy out to the masses, bypassing academia, bypassing the media, speaking directly to people.
So we need to deal with it.
If I'm egregiously wrong, then, you know, you need to put me in my place, right?
That would make sense, right?
And so the fact that, you know, academic philosophers aren't saying, well, we need to debate you because, you know, you're just, you know, amateur and completely wrong and so on.
They don't care about the morals of society.
So let's say that I was some terrible guy who was teaching evil to people.
Then philosophers, in the academic sense, who obviously claim to care about truth and virtue in society, would have to step in to debate me so that I could stop spreading this, quote, malign influence and so on, right?
But they just ignore it, right?
That's the price.
You can't engage.
Which means they don't particularly care about morals and virtue, right?
If I'm right, then they need to get behind me.
If I'm wrong, then they need to discredit me through debate, right?
But that's not happening, so they don't particularly care.
Somebody says, so I wonder if depression is a kind of moral exhaustion, soul fatigue?
That's a very interesting thought.
I'm obviously no clinician, don't know smack about diagnosing anyone about anything but my amateur views on depression.
Depression happens most commonly from what I've seen when people are surrounded by those they cannot connect with they tried every strategy
to try and connect with to gain empathy to give empathy to have a connection
to to have a relationship they've tried everything they can
they get blocked at every route
and it's the exhaustion that sets in when you can't connect with people
neither can you get away from it.
You can't connect with them, neither can you get away with them.
So you're stuck in this limbo, this dead zone, this null zone of no connection and no escape.
And there is an isolation that is built around you by defensive people, right?
And we'll get to that with a couple of these questions.
So defensive people are just about managing their emotions by manipulating you.
And so you can't connect with them because all they're doing is trying to figure out how to manage their own emotions.
And so when you try to connect with people, they keep dodging you, evading you, gaslighting you, manipulating you, minimizing you, lying to you, and so on.
Then it gets really frustrating.
You want to connect, but it's just always a maze with no exit, right?
You go in trying to get to the person, you just hear laughter around a corner, there's a bit of moldy cheese, couple of dead rats, and then you're trapped again.
And then can you find your way back out of the maze?
Like when you engage with defensive people, you are entering a maze of manipulation.
And by defensive people, what I'm referring to is people who are managing their own self contempt by manipulating you.
They're trying to avoid themselves by avoiding any sort of direct questions or connection with you.
So when you get lost in that maze, you can't find the person, you can't find your way back out.
What do you do?
I mean, you just sit.
You just sit and stare.
There's no point going on.
You can never catch the person.
And you can't go back.
Defenses lead you into this maze and say, oh, I'm just around the corner.
Oh, just down here.
Here's a bit of laughter.
Oh, we're having a great cookout down here.
Here's some food here.
Some water here.
You can go to the washroom here.
Here's some rest.
And just lead you deeper and deeper into the maze.
And the further you go in hot pursuit of defensive people, people who avoid themselves by manipulating you, The further you go into that maze, the less chance you have of getting out.
So it's very dangerous.
Very dangerous to interact with manipulative people.
Right?
They will pull you out of yourself and leave you rotting in the corner of an endless maze.
No good.
No good.
I mean, there are ways out, but, you know, there's a feeling that there isn't.
All right.
Hi, Steph.
Can you share some insights about the subject of judgment?
For example, in doing deep shadow work we are told to take a clear look at our judgments and identify them and their root causes so we can confront repressed fears, emotions, and desires and eventually integrate and accept those aspects of ourselves.
I had a thought that judgment evolved to help us protect ourselves and our loved ones so the question is how to discern between it serving us or being a destructive force or limitation in our lives.
It's a great question.
It's a great question.
Deep Shadow work is a sort of Jungian term that you have to accept your own capacity
for evil and manipulation and corruption and all of that in order to be virtuous.
And I mean, I think there's no truth in that.
We're all human.
The last thing we want to do is portray ourselves as angels and thus cast thunderbolts down on devils.
And you've heard me a million times in call-in shows saying, I'm certainly not above this.
I do this myself.
I'm right there in the trenches with you.
I'm not casting this judgment from any high place.
We are all engaged in this battle of virtue against what seems like an inexhaustible tsunami of series of tsunamis of corruption.
I think that's important to accept your own capacity for immorality.
If you think you're an angel, you're not actually that good because you've got nothing to fight against, right?
Nothing to fight against.
And also, if you think you're an angel, then you can't be dangerous, right?
We do have to have a capacity for destructive strength.
Right, and I don't mean that in terms of any physical violence or anything like that, but in terms of like standing your ground and pushing back against corrupt people, it takes some guts, it takes some strength, it takes some anger, it takes some hostility, it takes some aggression.
Again, I'm talking all verbal and the thrust and parry of debates, nothing physical or violent, but it does take a certain amount of bloody mindedness to stand your ground in a corrupt world.
So, yes, you need to be in touch with that side of yourself.
Is it serving us or being a destructive force or limitation in our lives?
So you manipulate others when you reframe their intentions to your own convenience.
And I'll get to that.
There's an example of this coming up, so we'll get to that.
So the best way you know if your judgments are valid is Are they universal?
Are they rational?
Are they empirical?
Right?
So when you judge people, are you judging their actions, not their intentions?
Because intentions are just a form of mysticism.
Intentions is mind reading.
Intentions is astrology.
It is tarot card reading.
It's reading tea leaves.
Reading intentions is a form of mysticism because it's not empirical.
You can just make up anything that you want and it leads you back into that maze, which is just horrible.
So if you apply a judgment to someone, are you willing to subject yourself to that judgment?
Are you willing to subject yourself to a judgment before you judge others?
Right?
Because a judgment is there to say, this is bad, this is good, this is evil, this is moral, this is dysfunctional, this is functional.
So if you have a judgment, are you willing to subject yourself To that judgment first and foremost, and are you willing sometimes to work for months or years to improve yourself relative to your judgments before you start inflicting them on others?
If your first impulse is to inflict judgments on others rather than apply them rationally to yourself, you're in a bad place.
That's a hypocritical place.
So you apply judgment to yourself.
I spent 20 years working on my rationality before I became any kind of public figure.
So you apply that judgment to yourself.
You apply that judgment To those around you and particularly those who have power over you like your parents and so on.
You apply that judgment to your family, you apply that judgment to your friends, you apply that judgment to your girlfriend or boyfriend or whoever, right?
And once you've got your own particular corner of the world clear and subjected to that judgment then you can start tentatively putting it out into the world with a due knowledge that it's difficult to do and it takes a long time.
So, physician heal thyself, right?
If you've got a judgment that you think is a positive value to people, you have to first apply it relentlessly to yourself and everyone in your immediate life, and then you can start to spread it outwards.
If your first goal is to just judge others, you're avoiding yourself.
All right.
Hi, Steph.
It occurs to me that until very recently, women were married early and then constantly pregnant, suffering or recovering from miscarriage or recovering from birth and breastfeeding.
And as I've mentioned recently in shows, and then they graduate straight to taking care of grandchildren.
So, you know, you, you got 20 year fertility window.
So by the time your oldest kids are 20, they probably evolutionarily speaking, they would have had children of your own.
So your whole, your whole business is dealing with babies and toddlers and pregnancy and so on.
Right.
So it says, I wonder if this is why previously women were considered very delicate, fainting at the drop of a hat and needing to be looked after.
I don't have that experience.
I know there's this sort of Freudian thing about these women with their fainting spells and the sort of Keira Knightley hysteria and so on.
I'm just referring to a character in a movie, not the person herself.
But no, women, women were hysterical because They were raped as children, right?
I mean, that's the general... I did a whole speech in New York about this, that Freud betrayed children by his adult patients who had all these symptoms of hysteria and neurasthenia, neurosis and so on.
He found out almost universally in questioning them that they had been raped as children, usually by parents.
And so what he did was he began to talk about this and then he was threatened all over the place because, you know, obvious reasons.
And so what he did was he said, OK, well, this guy, this woman says that her father raped her as a child.
If I talk about that, I've got a whole bunch of kids, I like dealing cocaine and I need an income.
So, oh, I got it.
Yeah, they just made it up.
Yeah, it's a fantasy, right?
This is where you come up with the eatable complex and the electric complex and so on.
And so, yeah, I mean, people told Freud the truth.
And Freud then said, no, they're lying.
It's a fantasy and wish fulfillment.
And so the whole founding of this kind of stuff was based upon the corrupted betrayal of raped children.
No, absolutely.
Horrifying and appalling.
So, I mean, I've known some sort of delicate and hysterical women.
My mother was quite hysterical, but I also suspect that she did not have a very good childhood that way, to put it mildly.
So, but I also had my aunts, right?
I was very close to my aunts when I was a baby and toddler, certainly one of them.
And they were very strong, healthy, practical, robust women and so on, right?
So, anyway.
What does she say here?
I wonder if so, fainting at the drop of a hat, needing to be looked after.
Is it possible there wasn't a giant conspiracy by men to keep women down, but that it was simply true?
I've been pregnant or recovering nearly constantly for the last five years.
It's very different to being on birth control.
That's true.
Birth control is a kind of mind control.
I've really started appreciating things I never cared about before, such as having heavy things carried for me or being given a seat on public transport.
So many of the women complaining about the patriarchy have never been pregnant, and they wonder if they just don't realize how different it is and how we as a society I've never experienced this before.
Well, of course we have, right?
So when you tell women to go be independent and then you force employers to marry them and artificially prop up their wages and so on, then yeah, they don't feel that they need men because men are forced to serve them, right?
Like, if a cruel man has slaves, he doesn't appreciate labor-saving devices.
So, when men are forced to subsidize women, women don't feel they need men.
Sure, I understand that.
So, you tell women, go get educated, you don't need a man, you subsidize and give them all kinds of money and resources, and they don't feel the need to have kids then.
And certainly for women, and I understand this, being flirted with and being taken out to dinner and flown here and there and it's sexy and it's exciting and thrilling and all of that, it's a kind of dopamine drug.
Now that dopamine drug is supposed to lead to pair bonding in children, but women just peel off at that last bit and stay with the flirting and the dating and the likes and the chatting until they just burn out completely and then lose the ability to pair bond and blame men.
But yes, if you don't have a birth rate that's reasonable, then women can complain about men because the value of men is invisible to women.
If men are forced to subsidize women, and if women don't get pregnant, then the value of men, and you see this all over the place.
What do we need men for?
Nothing, blah, blah, blah, while you walk on the roads and live in the houses and drive the cars and all designed and built largely by men.
This other woman replied, good question.
I have four children, so I've been pregnant, breastfeeding, recovering, and holding babies for almost 10 years now.
I don't think childless women realize how debilitating it can be.
I always appreciate when a man helps me with my stroller or carries something to my car.
Yeah, I mean, absolutely.
Always, always, always help a pregnant woman if there's not another guy around.
All right.
Let's see here.
Let's do one more.
I became interested in the topic Of spanking children after listening to Steph for a while, so I decided to look around and find out what people think about it.
In scouring forums and discussion boards, I was honestly taken aback by the sheer numbers of people that believe hitting their kids is normal and healthy when there's overwhelming evidence that says otherwise.
I thought by now societies, especially in the West, would have awakened to this.
Even among those who don't spank, they still use their positions to threaten and withhold children's property as a form of punishment.
I guess reasoning with their children is off the table.
Yes, that is true.
That is sad.
That is tragic.
It takes a while.
It takes a while, but you know, honestly, the internet has really accelerated these things.
So, for instance, the voluntary family When I first started the show, right, that you don't have to spend time with relentlessly toxic and abusive parents was so horrifying that it was, you know, I was called a cult leader for even suggesting this is a vague possibility and it's become, no contact and so on, it's become quite normalized in really only 18 years.
That's remarkably fast for a social change of that kind.
All right.
Somebody said, oh yeah, so I answered someone's question about talking politics with people and he replied, it seems to me that you have basically just avoided answering the question by making reference to the larger political climate and the fact that the pervasive power of the state makes it very difficult for people to have any sort of rational discussion about politics.
I recall that in the past you have advocated for simply not having any people in your life that supported the against me argument, i.e.
people who are willing to involve government in order to settle any arguments or disputes.
It seems to me that such people would be able to recognize the fact that government equals violence and that all politics is simply a struggle for power, i.e.
grabbing the gun in the room, as you previously put it, and would consequently also be uninterested in discussing it.
If you have such people in your life, why was that not the answer?
So that's kind of bitchy, right?
That's kind of bitchy.
I just sort of want to point it out.
It's a little unpleasant to be on the receiving end of something like that.
So, you know, I take time out of my day.
I put effort into answering your questions.
I don't charge anything and all of that.
So a little thank you for taking the time to answer my question, because it's not just, you know, I got to read the question.
I got to think about it.
Sometimes I need to take notes.
I got to record it.
I got to process it.
I got to upload it.
I got to share it.
Like it's a long, it's a large amount of effort to answer your questions.
So a little appreciation, you know, kind of goes a long way.
I'm not saying you've got to love the answer.
I'm not saying you've got to agree with the answer.
I could be totally wrong.
But in general, if people are putting a lot of effort for free to you on your behalf and answering a question, then It might be.
It might be reasonable to say, hey, thanks for the question.
Here's what I felt was deficient or missing.
If you could, you know, solve that, I'd appreciate it.
I mean, it's just a, it's a nice way to interact with people just as a whole.
So you might want to, you might want to look into that a little bit.
Um, you've basically just avoided answering the question.
So, um, avoidance is mind reading, right?
So it's a bit of a sinister accusation, right?
Uh, that I'm gaslighting, right?
That I, I know the answer to the question.
I'm avoiding it because I'm a hypocrite, right?
Because according to this guy, well, I mean, gee, why would you even have people in your life?
Uh, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
It's like, but the question was about people in your life, right?
I don't have people in my life who advocate the use of violence against me.
Of course not.
So, this is a bad faith response, just to be clear, right?
It's a very bad faith response.
So, of course I'm not going to answer something that I've said a million times before, because I assume, this is what I assume, I assume that as a listener for a long time, and you're a donor and all of that, right?
And you know I say this with affection, I want you to have a more positive experience
interacting with the world rather than have these weird sinister bad faith accusations
against people who've done something nice to you for free.
So I assume that you are somewhat familiar with my work so you're asking a question that
I haven't answered a million times before so this is why I try to come up with new answers
to existing questions.
Otherwise, I would just refer you to one of my existing shows, right?
So as it turns out, you already have my answer for discussing politics with people, you already have my answer, the against me answer, so then why would you ask me the question?
Why would you ask me the question If you already know my answer, right?
And so I'm gonna, I assume that you know, in general, my framework for discussing these things.
I've talked about it about a zillion times over the years.
So, um, why, why would you ask me the question if you already know my answer, right?
And then accuse me of being a bad faith answerer, right?
So you've done this mind reading thing where you're basically like, uh, If you have such people in your life, why was that not the answer?
Right?
So this is just, it's, it's nasty, right?
Like what you're doing is, is kind of nasty, right?
Which is not to say it's totally a valid question.
You can totally say to me, Steph, I'm curious, do you have people in your life who, um, uh, who advocate for the use of violence against you directly?
Right?
That's a perfectly fine question, right?
There's no problem answering that, but this kind of trap, you ask a question, you already know the answer to, you then accuse me of avoiding answering the question.
And then you imply that I'm being a hypocrite because I must have people in my life who do this.
And logically it doesn't follow, right?
Willing to involve the government in order to settle any arguments or disputes?
No.
Well, settle maybe, right?
So, if people advocate for the use of violence against you, then you can't debate with them, but that doesn't mean that everyone who's pro-statist never debates with anyone, right?
They pretend to debate, you just have to identify the gun in the room.
So, such people would be able to recognize the fact that the government equals violence?
No.
No, people do not believe that the government equals violence, or if they finally do admit it, they say it's the least violence possible, right?
This is the Hobbesian state-of-nature argument, or Churchill talking about democracy as the worst system of government that has tried, except for all the others, right?
So people will not admit that the government is coercive, and then when you prove that to them, they'll say, okay, it is, but the alternative is much more coercive, right?
So maybe you've never debated this stuff with anyone, in which case I don't know why you're asking the question, but this is a very sort of common thing, right?
So, yeah, I would recommend not mind reading.
I would recommend a little bit of an attitude of gratitude that if someone takes an hour
or two to answer your question that you show some appreciation for that just for the time.
It doesn't mean you have to agree and don't be kind of sinister in impugning bad motives
when you're the one with bad motives, right?
Because you're asking a question you already know the answer to and then when my answer
is not the same, it's the same general framework, but it's not the exact same answer as it may
You're accusing me of dodging the question, of being hypocritical and all of that.
And that's just unpleasant.
People of quality, people of decent self-esteem, they just won't want to deal with you.
It's a funny thing in life.
You've really got to understand this.
When you become an adult, nobody has to deal with you.
Nobody has to deal with you.
Nobody has to interact with you.
So how is it that you're going to live a life where people want to interact with you?
Right?
It's really, really, really important.
Why would somebody want to engage with you when you're like this?
Right?
Why?
I mean, I have a great life.
I have a wonderful family.
I have great friends.
I have a deep and meaningful work and so on.
Right?
So why would I want to interact with somebody who accuses me of these negative things, who asks me a question he already knows the answer to and then tries to trap me in some kind of hypocrisy?
Why?
Why would I want to interact with someone like that?
That's a really important question.
In life, in life, my friends, you must be a net positive for quality people to want to interact with you.
You must be a net positive.
You must be a net positive.
Their lives must be better because you're interacting with them.
Now, this doesn't mean that you can't sell some blunt truths that might be upsetting from time to time, but overall, in general, as a whole, would you pay Would you voluntarily go to a restaurant where you hate the food?
Would you go to see a singer whose voice you and music you despise?
and you get fatter and slower and more tired and more lethargic?
Would you voluntarily go to a restaurant where you hate the food?
Would you go to see a singer whose voice you and music you despise?
Would you, like, you just look in your life.
Everything that you interact with, I guess he's trying to have some positive interaction for him,
but at my expense, right?
So this must be some, I've got it, this kind of weird, petty, silly, gotcha stuff, right?
And, you know, maybe you can get me, right?
Maybe I've made a contradiction.
It's all perfectly possible and all of that.
But this like vaguely sinister, oh, yeah, well, why didn't you do this if that's the case?
And I asked this question and you actually have a totally different answer.
Last time it's like, OK, well, if I had a different answer last time, which I didn't, then You can just point that out.
No need for all the sinister impugning of motives and so on.
So you've got to ask yourself this question.
I'm not kidding.
Every single day you must ask yourself this question.
How do people in my life benefit for me interacting with them.
How do people that I want to interact with benefit from me interacting with them?
So, with me, you ask me a question, I gave an answer, you're not disagreeing with any of the answer, you're just saying, you're making a bunch of assumptions which are actually false, and you're impugning my motives and vaguely calling me hypocritical and eh, right?
So it's like, well why would I want to interact with you again?
Why?
I don't have to.
It's not pleasant for me.
And so this is just a repetition of pushing people away, right?
I don't want you to live in a life with quality people stepping aside and out of the way from you, right?
So this is an appeal to insecurity.
If I'm like, oh my God, maybe I really am a hypocrite, I'd be sort of bound into this nonsense and I'd follow you into this maze that I was talking about at the beginning.
But I'm not.
So why would people want to interact with you?
Why would I ever want to answer another question of yours?
Why would I ever want to engage and interact with you in any way?
I mean, I appreciate the support.
I appreciate that if you're a donor, I appreciate that.
That's wonderful.
But you're not buying my time, right?
You're supporting the show as a whole, which is the truth.
And I'm telling you the truth and making my case for this.
So this is a larger question for everyone.
Everyone constantly think about this.
When you go to work, are the customers, the boss, whoever better off for you being there?
If you have a boss, are you happy to give him a portion of your salary because he makes your life easier and better and more profitable?
If you have a girlfriend, is her life better for you being in it?
If you have friends as a whole, if you want to get married, are you saying to someone, your life will be far better because I'm in it, right?
Are you in it positive to the people in your life?
And every time you interact with someone, you have to think about that until it becomes sort of an ingrained habit.
I have it.
I absolutely in every interaction that I have everywhere in the world, I constantly strive to have people better off after they've talked to me than before they've talked to me.
And even if that's an unpleasant thing in the moment, like I told him a blunt truth, like I'm kind of doing now,
my goal, of course, is out of a genuine affection for your potential to have you understand
that when you behave in this way, quality people will avoid you.
And the only people who will engage with this is half-wrecked, self-critical whoever's, right?
I mean, you don't want that in your life.
You want quality people in your life.
You want confident people in your life.
And the confident people in your life go through this calculation.
Right?
So they interact with you.
This is what happens.
All quality people do this.
I guarantee you.
I've been around tons of quality people over the course of my life.
I'm surrounded by quality people now.
I speak for them with one voice.
That when people interact with you, quality people interact with you, they're in touch with their feelings, they're in touch with their experience, and they say to themselves, am I better off for having interacted with this person?
Now, when I get this kind of nonsense coming at me, I say to myself, huh, well, that was kind of unpleasant.
And I made that reply.
So I don't want to answer any more questions.
I'm not obligated to.
You can't hook me in while you're I'm a donor.
You've got to answer my questions.
It's like, no, I don't really don't really take your money and go if that's your expectation.
So.
Quality people, after you've interacted with them, will say, do I feel better or worse overall for having interacted with this person?
And if you want quality people in your life, and quality people are people that you're better off after interacting with, if you want quality people in your life, then people have to be better off after interacting with you.
I didn't like this interaction.
I don't want to do it again, and so on.
So you just won't have quality people in your life if you behave in this kind of way.
And I sympathize with the source of it.
I get manipulative parents and all of that, but it's unpleasant.
And so why would people do that?
Now most people won't circle back and tell you this, right?
So this is why I'm doing this.
And most people won't circle back, won't circle back and tell you, huh, you know.
That was really kind of unpleasant and here's why.
Let me unpack it and so on.
Right?
Most people will just avoid you and move on.
In the same way that if you go to a restaurant and you have a meal you don't particularly like, you just don't go back.
You don't go back and sit down with the chef and here are the ingredients and let me run through it.
Right?
This is almost impossible to get feedback.
I really want you to understand this.
This is almost impossible to get feedback in your life.
And so I hope that you will take it to heart and Really, really listen, because I want you to have quality.
I want everyone to have quality people in their lives, which means people have to be objectively and subjectively better off after interacting with you.
Because, you know, that's economics, right?
It's got to be a win-win negotiation, right?
For a transaction to be of value to both people.
So, all right.
So thanks everyone so much.
Freedomain.com slash donate.
Don't forget, if you donate over the next couple of weeks, you get Almost 12 hours of the truth about the French Revolution, which is really some of my greatest work on history.
So it was really, really deep and powerful and a thesis that exists nowhere else to my knowledge.
All right.
Have yourself a wonderful afternoon.
▲
Export Selection