All Episodes
Previous Next
July 23, 2025 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
02:03:40
How to Stop Chasing Crazy Women! Twitter/X Space
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey, everybody, Tuesday, 8th of July, 2025, and I hope you're doing well.
Just had a lovely conversation with the great Dr. Robert Murphy, fantastic economist and thinker, and he grilled me on my relationship to the divine.
So that will be out relatively shortly, I'm sure.
And thanks again to Bob for the conversation.
I'm a big fan.
You should check him out.
App at Bob Murphy.
B-O-B-M-U-R-E-H-Y at Bob Murphy e-con E-C-O-N.
Check him out.
And I'm here to reason.
I'm here to reason and chew bubblegum.
And I'm all out of bubblegum.
Yeah, you were thinking I was going to say reason, didn't you?
Well, there'd be a reason for that, I'm sure.
If you have questions, comments, issues, challenges, criticisms, whatever your heart, mind, and perhaps even loins desire, I am here to serve.
While we are awaiting people to click on the maybe talky thing, I wanted to, I guess, address something that has been cooking a little bit on my ex-channel.
You know what, for a while it was my ex-channel, ex-account, ex-channel.
And now it is my current channel.
And I'm not expecting this to be understood by a lot of people.
I'm sure everyone here will get it.
But it is something I wanted to say anyway.
And that is the question of the argument from popularity.
Now, if it was the argument for popularity and if it were valid, the more popular is the more right, I would have been wrong.
So yeah, the argument from popularity.
Now, I guess it's kind of funny to me.
And there's no reason why people would necessarily trust me if they're new.
I mean, I wouldn't, right?
I mean, I'm just some guy with an avatar on the internet.
So there's no particular reason why people would trust me just coming across me on X, right?
And they see me engaged in a debate with someone or somebody has a criticism of me and I post 47 followers.
My God, what fresh-faced madness is this?
What on earth could follow a count have to do with being right or wrong?
Is it he?
The higher the follow-up count, the closer to platonic truth?
What madness is this?
What kind of ass-clast-tastic, low-brow, low-rent, low-IQ intellect would possibly think that a follower count could possibly determine who's right and who's wrong?
Oh, every time I touch these cables, they get a little spiky, a little hot, a little hot.
I'm like, what could this possibly mean?
And people, I don't know, they get, I would say triggered is kind of an insult.
So I don't want to mean, well, you get triggered like that's, you know, but they really do get angry at this.
Now, of course, if I thought I was some reasonably decent philosopher and I thought that follower count determined the truth or falsehood of an argument, well, that would be idiotic and that would be embarrassing.
And I would be deluded as to my skills and abilities as a philosopher, of course, if that was my approach.
Well, you say two and two make four.
I say two and two make five, but I have a larger follower count.
Therefore, I'm right.
The truth is not democratic.
The truth is not voted on.
And of course, the more popular the truth, often, oh, sorry, the more popular the quote truth, often the falser it is.
So I understand people coming across this out of context, saying, what kind of intergalactic ass clown quotes follow account in a debate and thinks it makes the person right or wrong?
Now, having steelmanned that case, I will tell you why it matters.
Why it matters.
Now, if someone is telling me how to be an effective communicator on X, then they are telling me that they are better than me at communicating on X. Now, could they be better than me?
Absolutely.
There are tons of people who are better than me at communicating on X. I understand that.
There's no problem with that.
I'm fine.
I love taking expertise, honestly.
I love to, I mean, I don't do my own dentistry.
I don't repair my own computers.
I don't build my own gym equipment.
I rely on experts all the time.
Got a legal question?
Call a lawyer.
Got an accounting question?
Call an accountant.
I'm thrilled at the division of labor and I'm absolutely overjoyed that there are tons of people in the world who are way better than me, infinitely better than me in some cases at a lot of things.
Fantastic.
That means I can specialize in what I do and they can specialize in what they do.
So it is not when people tell me, oh, Steph, you're wrong about this, that, or the other.
I don't follow account, doesn't matter.
I didn't even check follow account.
Don't have any clue.
Doesn't matter.
However, if somebody says to me, Steph, you're not very good at communicating on X. You're not very effective and efficient at not the content, but the form of your tweeting.
Not the content.
Not the content.
Now, we have to be efficient when we're taking advice in this world.
And we all know this.
It's embarrassing that people don't get this.
And again, I'm not including any of you fine listeners to talk about the people as a whole out there.
It's embarrassing that people don't get this.
Oh my gosh.
Every time you go to the bookstore or online or whatever, and you see, here's a diet book.
Do you ever see a fat guy as the author?
Is he ever like just fat, just fat and flabby?
I don't mean Like, you know, that sort of northern European power weightlifting body built like a brick garbage can, right?
Those guys can lift trucks.
I mean, but they're not flabby.
They may be heavy, but they're not flabby.
So we never, and I said, I said to people, okay, show me a fitness influencer, like a famous and popular fitness influencer who's fat and flabby.
And there's some guy, he's got a bit of a kettle drum belly, but he's incredibly lean.
And I assume, I think he's bloated or has some IBS or something like that.
But still, he's not fat and flabby.
I mean, he might have a bit of a kettlebell belly, but he's sure as hell.
You've got veins all over the place, right?
So if I am, you know, I'm a very successful social media guy.
I mean, so successful, they had to banish me to the wilderness for half a decade.
But I'm a pretty successful social media guy.
I mean, there's obviously tons of people who do it better, but, you know, I'm reasonably successful.
In my height, I had, I don't know, like 2 million followers on various platforms and talking about really complicated, abstract, challenging, controversial, blah, blah, blah topics, right?
And a huge and wide variety of topics, right?
I mean, some people love my call-in shows.
Some people love the truth about presentations.
Some people love the solo shows.
And some people love the response videos and so on, right?
So a huge and wide variety of topics, really challenging stuff.
And I think I did.
I did okay.
I did okay.
And I've been navigating this social media stuff and public challenging topics for like 20 years.
And, you know, successfully so.
I mean, statistically, I was kind of the biggest abstract philosopher or abstract intellectual in the world for quite some time.
I mean, number one ain't bad, given the complicated nature of what I do.
Not bad.
I mean, there's really not anyone ahead of number one, but number one is not bad.
So when people want to come and tell me, after I've been doing social media for 20 years and was number one for quite some time, if people want to come and tell me, Steph, you're not as good at social media as I am.
And again, I'm not talking about the content, I'm talking about the form.
That's fine.
Yeah, people are absolutely welcome to give me advice and to correct me and all of that.
It's wonderful.
Love it.
But I need to check for arrogance and delusions.
I mean, if you were at a party and you said, oh, you know, I'm trying to lose 10 pounds and some guy who is 300 pounds said, oh, I know exactly how to do that.
It's easy.
Easy.
Would you take him seriously?
Or would you think there was something kind of wrong with his brain?
Seriously, kind of wrong with his brain.
Bro, I'm trying to lose 10 pounds.
I'm a pretty healthy weight.
You tell me you know exactly how to do that and it's easy.
Then why the living frack are you 300 pounds?
If someone, let's say I've been a chess grandmaster for 20 years, or if that's too lofty an analogy, I'm just really good at chess, been playing at a very high competitive level for 20 years.
And then someone wants to tell me how I can play chess better, I'm going to check their rankings.
Of course I am, because life is short, and I'm not going to listen to every ass clown on the internet unless they have credibility.
Now, how do you gain credibility?
You gain credibility in the matter of effective social media communication by having a not double digits number of followers.
I don't know why this is a hard distinction for people.
I'm not right because someone telling me how to run my account has 0.01% the number of followers.
It doesn't make me right, except in one area.
And in that one area is how to be an effective communicator.
And I've actually taken advice sort of behind the scenes from people who have bigger accounts than I do and who've given me good feedback over the years.
I won't name any names, but it ain't Christian Ronaldo.
Speaking of which, can you imagine me texting Christian Ronaldo about the best, you know, how he needs to improve his soccer game?
And you can say, of course, well, but you can be a coach even if you're not as good at the game as your players.
You know, you can be a 60-year-old Romanian gymnastics teacher and you don't do gymnastics as well or in the same way as the 13-year-old girls.
Yes, but you have to have a history of successful coaching beforehand.
You don't just take some random guy off the street and say, oh, you should coach the Romanian gymnastics team.
That wouldn't make much sense, right?
So if you want to lecture people who are very successful and very experienced, that's fine.
We welcome it.
We welcome it.
But I would never have the nerve to tweet at Elon Musk how he can improve his business sense and engineering skills.
That's freaking deranged.
Imagine, you know, texting Freddie Mercury in another timeline after his live-aid performance and saying, not bad, but here's what you should do better.
If I've never sung on stage before.
It's arrogant.
It's deluded.
It's cringe.
I hate to use that word because it's so overused, but in this particular instance, it is totally cringe.
Imagine me tweeting Brad Pitt, telling him how he should improve his movie career.
Not in terms of like, I can tell you how to be a bigger and more famous and more successful movie star when I've never been in a movie.
I mean, personally, I have been, but if I had never really been in a movie.
So it shows a level of delusion and dissociation.
And like, it's not well mentally to tweet at people far more successful without at least mentioning your own relative lack of success.
If you're going to tell me how to be successful, I expect you to have succeeded.
So if someone were to tweet at me and they're very successful and they say, Steph, you got yourself deplatformed.
You shouldn't have done X, Y, and Z. It's like, yeah, first of all, I know that.
I know what I should and shouldn't have done.
And I knew that ahead of time, which is why I said nobody got me deplatformed except me.
The unthinking are predictable, and it was worth it for me, more than worth it.
So, follower count is not relevant in any debate except how to increase follower count, how to be more successful, how to be a better communicator, how to be a more effective communicator.
Because if somebody is saying, I know how to be a more effective communicator than you, Steph, that's fine.
Absolutely.
Good.
Good for you.
I mean, I'd love to kneel at your feet and learn from the master.
Unless, unless there's absolutely zero evidence that you're an effective communicator.
An effective communicator also would say, oh, by the by, Steph, I know I'm telling you how to be a good communicator on X, and I know that I have only 47 followers.
At least reference that.
When I wrote my book, UPB, I started it off by saying, look, the odds that some entrepreneur with a master's degree in the history of philosophy has solved the age-old problem of secular ethics is so tiny, I get it.
More people win the lottery.
I understand that it's, you have every reason to be skeptical because it's the biggest problem in philosophy.
I claim to have solved it.
I don't have a PhD from Harvard in philosophy.
I'm not a professor or an academic.
I understand your skepticism.
Like, you've got a role.
You've got to know how you're landing for people when you communicate with them.
If you're at a dinner party and you say you want to lose 10 pounds and the 300-pound guy says, oh, that's easy.
I know exactly how to do that.
No problem.
Would he at least get to say, I know that I'm overweight, so it seems kind of ridiculous that I would tell you this?
But if they just blandly and blithely tell you how to lose weight while being 300 pounds themselves and saying it's easy, that shows a level of dissociation.
That shows a level of lack of understanding of how human beings work.
It shows such an appalling lack of ability to communicate that it matters.
If somebody tells you that they're 300 pounds, they tell you they know exactly how to lose weight and it's easy and it's a value.
They're telling you, man, you got to lose.
Like let's say you don't even say, I want to lose 10 pounds, right?
Let's say you're just at the dinner party and some 300 pound guy says, you know, you got to lose the weight, man.
You got to lose at least 10 pounds.
It's real easy.
I know exactly how to do it.
Unsolicited, right?
I mean, and you say, but bro, you're 300 pounds.
Like, what's the matter with you?
Like, why wouldn't you, like, why are you telling me how to lose weight?
And it's super important to lose weight and it's easy to know how to do it without referencing the fact that you're 300 pounds.
That's crazy.
Like, seriously, if this happened to you, that's crazy.
So if somebody's going to tell me how to communicate, I expect them to be a good communicator, which means I expect them to reference the fact that they have every evidence of being a bad communicator.
In other words, they only have 47 followers.
They're not able to communicate effectively.
So if you want to lecture me, fantastic.
I lecture the world.
I mean, yeah.
I mean, so if you want to lecture me, that's fine, but you got to show some credibility.
In other words, if in your lecturing of me, you are a terrible communicator, then I'm not going to listen to you on how to be a good communicator.
I mean, would you take piano lessons from somebody who didn't know how to play piano?
Of course not.
So somebody says, I want to teach you piano, and I say, well, do you know piano?
No.
Well, I don't want to, I don't want to take your lessons because you don't know piano.
You don't know how to play piano, so you can't know how to teach it.
Well, so then people think that I'm in a debate about the nature of truth, and I bring up just apropos of nothing out of nowhere, I say, well, hang on, you don't know how to play piano.
Right?
Well, the nature of truth, his arguments about the nature of truth, it's not relevant whether he knows how to play the piano.
It's like, yes, that's true.
It is not relevant regarding his arguments as to the nature of truth.
It is not relevant whether he knows or doesn't know how to play piano.
I agree.
However, if he's trying to sell me piano lessons, it's kind of relevant whether he knows how to play piano.
People who are bad communicators don't get to tell me how to communicate.
I don't want to listen.
I don't care because they're terrible at it and they don't even know it.
Like if somebody were to say to me, listen, I'm an expert communicator.
I'm barely on Twitter.
This is why my follower count is low.
I understand you'd be skeptical, but here's my argument.
Oh, okay, good.
So at least they're acknowledging it, right?
Somebody who tells you, oh, it's super important to lose weight.
It's easy to lose weight, but I have a weird genetic thing where, oh, whatever, I'm 300 pounds.
Like at least they're referencing the reasons why you'd be skeptical.
That's all.
Well, that's slightly better, slightly better.
It at least means they know how they appear to people.
But you can't communicate effectively if you don't know how you appear to people.
If you're telling people to lose weight and you're 300 pounds and you don't even know that, you don't even care about it, then you don't have any idea how you appear to other people, particularly experts.
If I were to say to some chess grandmaster, here's how you should improve the chess game.
And in my bio, it says, well, the thing you want to do is have the knight move diagonally.
The knight can only move in an L shape, three and one, two and one.
And see, I even got that wrong.
So if in the bio I make a mistake about chess and I say I don't know how to play chess, but I'm going to tell you, who's been playing chess for 20 years how to play chess, I would have every right to say, I'm not going to listen to you about how to play chess because you don't know how to play chess.
Well, he's not right or wrong, depending on whether he knows how to play chess.
This is what the surface level of the pain.
And they just react.
And I tell you, I'm the last thing I'll say.
And I'll get to your questions and comments.
The last thing I'll say is I know why.
I know why people get so triggered.
Because everybody wants to lecture other people without having to show up expertise themselves.
And so everybody loves to go around lecturing everyone else.
And if I can convince people, as I'm desperately trying to hear, to be incredibly skeptical towards anybody who wants to correct you.
Otherwise, you're kind of a slave, right?
You got to be skeptical towards anybody who wants to correct you.
Because most people Don't know what they're talking about.
They just want to feel important.
They want to feel valuable.
They want to feel useful.
They want to feel like they're doing something.
And if there's a filter called you have to prove your expertise before you get to lecture me on anything, if there's a filter, then that cuts off 99% of bullshit artists on social media who want to tell you how to be good at what you do.
All right.
Sigma, tell me if I'm wrong, how, or share with me what's on your mind, my friend.
You may need to unmute.
I cannot hear.
Hey, Stefan.
Hello.
I appreciate you opening up these spaces and engaging with real human questions.
I just wanted to share a bit of my story and get your thoughts.
Apologies if this is shifting the topics here.
No, it's your topic, man.
Just go for it.
So, yeah, I'll just briefly explain my background and then just wanted to hear your advice.
So I'm 37 years old, in good physical shape, financially stable, well-educated.
I've built a life rooted in moral clarity.
I'm a Christian.
I try to live by the principles of truth, discipline, and responsibility.
Obviously, I have some failings here and there, but by and all, that's the creed that I live by.
But I'm in a bit of a dilemma when it comes to dating and marriage.
I've avoided the chaos of modern hookup culture, and I've waited.
I've worked on myself, and I've been told by many, including some wise people, don't rush into marriage.
My father actually married my mother when he was 44.
So there's a precedent in my life for waiting for the right person.
But here's the issue.
The dating pool, especially in Christian circles, is either very limited or filled with women significantly older or jaded by past choices.
In many churches, the young women are gone and the remaining ones are either too old, too wounded, or simply not a match.
And outside of the church, the value system is often misaligned with mine.
So I'm caught in between.
I don't want to lower my standards, but I also don't want to drift into lifelong bachelorhood.
Do you still believe there's still a path for high-quality men to find high-quality women today without playing into the degeneracy of the culture?
It's a great question.
It's a great question.
And now is the time on the show where we gather information.
So you're 37?
Did I get that right?
Yes, sir.
Okay.
So what have you been doing with regards to dating and settling down for the past 20 years?
Well, I've dated girls here and there, but the ones that I have dated, you know, there's been severe misalignment in values.
For instance, I dated a girl.
She was a lawyer when I was about 26, 27, for two years.
But she had a drinking problem, which I was working with her on.
But essentially, she was never able to overcome that addiction of alcohol.
Other than that, she was a pretty good fit.
So I've just...
Right.
That sort of matters, right?
Yes.
Okay, so go ahead.
So basically, I've been in relationships, you know, here and there, you know, one, two years.
But for one reason or another, there's some major moral failing that the other behalf cannot overcome.
And it seems, you know, maybe I should be more patient.
I don't know.
Well, let me ask you this.
So as a Christian, I'm sure, let's deal with the lawyer.
Give me a name that's not her name?
Jennifer.
Jennifer, nice name.
All right.
So Jenny Pooh, you start dating her, and she shows some red flags, right?
I mean, the drinking.
When did you first notice the drinking?
At first, she was very good at, I'd say, covering it.
So we would go out, we would have a glass of wine.
But what I didn't know is when she would go home, she would drink three more bottles of wine.
Wait, three bottles?
Yes, sir.
I mean, that's suicidal, isn't it?
Yes.
And she would drink to the point of blacking out.
And then when she would go out with, and I didn't know this initially, but when she would go out with friends, she would drink until she would black out, basically.
Okay.
And so how long into the relationship did you begin to suspect she might have a wee bit of a problem?
I'd say towards the end of it, you know.
Nope.
No, no, no.
Come on.
There's no way that she could hide drinking three bottles wine at night for two years.
Right.
Don't bear false witness, bro.
Right.
I mean, I can.
Come on, looking back, looking back, maybe in hindsight, but looking back, when did you first begin to notice she had a problem?
Yeah, looking back, I'd say probably in the first six months.
Okay.
So there are four words that are the ultimate vetting words.
And it's not, do you drink wine?
There are four words that are the ultimate vetting words.
But let me ask you this.
I assume that you prayed for guidance from God regarding this relationship.
That's right.
And what did God say?
Yeah, basically that I should not continue the relationship.
And when did God first tell you that?
Within the first six months.
Well, God knew she was an alcoholic, right?
I mean, the omniscient thing, right?
Right.
So did God wait for six months to tell you, or did God tell you sooner that there was a problem?
I would say there were, yeah, I would say sooner.
Okay, so, I mean, we're just whittling back the timeframe here.
So when did you first pray or get indications or some sort of sense that the things were bad?
I would say the first quarter.
Three months?
Yes, sir.
Okay, you know we're going to get down to 12 nanoseconds by the end of this conversation, right?
Right.
Okay.
How long is it going to take?
Two years?
Six months?
Three months.
Okay.
So the big vetting question.
Are you ready?
Yep.
This is the only chance to save your line, your bloodline, so be aware of that.
Now, the big question to vet women, vet men, is this.
Are you ready?
You think you're ready, but you're not.
Nobody's ready.
Okay.
Big question is: how was your childhood?
What did you know about Jennifer's?
Again, don't give her any identifying details if you don't mind.
But what did you know about Jennifer's childhood?
I mean, from what she told me, which is the only purview I had.
Yeah, you don't need to.
You don't need to state the obvious.
I mean, of course, from what she told you, you weren't there.
I guess you could hear from her parents.
But okay, so what does she say?
So it seems like she has loving parents, but I think they are loving to the point of making her dependent on them because they paid, even though she was a lawyer, they paid for, which was a decent salary, they paid for her rent, her phone, her living expenses, et cetera.
And so that, to me, tells me she had an extreme dependency on her father, even as a child, with everything.
And I think that crippled her.
So how old was Jennifer when you were dating her?
She was my age, one year older than me.
So she would be 28 at the time.
So she's 28.
She's a practicing lawyer, so probably making well north of six figures.
And her daddy is paying for her bills.
Correct.
Supplementing, yeah.
Okay.
What else do you know of?
Because that's not really about her childhood.
That's about her adulthood.
What do you know about any dysfunctions in her childhood?
It sounded like when I listened to her stories, she grew up like kind of, grew up in Alberta.
And she was kind of a rough and tumble kind of girl, tomboy.
You know, that kind of, you know, mindset.
And she had a brother and older brother.
From what I heard, you know, they were just kind of that rambunctious sort of, you know, duo together.
And I think she was probably engaging in alcohol then too, drinking as well.
Cause she did tell me stories where she was drinking as a child.
Not a child, but, you know, her youth.
Okay.
But the drinking is in response to something.
Right.
The drinking is a form of self-medication.
Right.
So what was she self-medicating from?
Depression.
You know, like we can say somebody has an opioid addiction and often it comes out of back surgery or some physical thing where like there's a trauma to the body and then they're on these pills.
And right.
So you were saying that she was depressed as a kid.
Okay, but what was she?
So we're still trying to track it back to what was the source of the depression.
Yeah, that's a great question.
I mean, if you don't know what happened in people's childhoods, the pluses and the minus, you don't know them at all.
So why was she depressed as a child, do you think?
I know why she was depressed as an adult, and that may tie back from deducing that back to her childhood.
Essentially, she had a lot of emotional baggage, unresolved past heartbreaks, you know, problems.
But what were they?
You're just describing things.
What happened?
Right.
Well, she had like a betrayal from previous relationships and I think attachment wounds from her job.
Sorry, she had betrayal from a previous relationship.
She was a pathological liar.
Yeah.
I mean, addicts are, right?
Right.
And she was insecure, right?
No, no, but you're saying she was betrayed.
I mean, did she betray you by lying and hiding her alcoholism?
Yes.
Right.
So let's not give her the victim party just yet.
So you don't know it.
And so do you know anything specific that happened to her in her childhood that was bad that you don't want to talk about, which is fine, of course, right?
Or do you not know the specific things that happened in her childhood that was bad?
No, I don't know anything like specifically I can point to.
I just know like broadly, you know, like she had no clear mission in life.
She was lost, unsure of her path.
And she probably had some hormonal influence, is my guess.
Yeah.
Well, I mean, just how was your childhood?
Give me the good, the bad, the ugly, the indifferent, the boring, the exciting, the terrible, the terrifying.
Just what was your childhood?
Everybody's had very vivid experiences in their childhoods that shape who they are as an adult, right?
That's determined.
It's not determinism, but it shapes you, right?
Right.
And the reason I'm asking this, of course, is, do you know why people are addicts?
Usually to repress some pain.
Okay.
Okay.
I mean, there's other ways of repressing the pain, right?
You can go to therapy and deal with it and so on, right?
So in general, and this is, look, obviously, this is Lucy Goosey.
This is my amateur, of course, opinion.
The guy to go to for this is called Dr. Gabur Mattei, G-A-B-O-R-M-A-T-E, with a little accent.
He's got a book called In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts, which goes into this in far more detail.
He's been on my show a couple of times, but this is my obviously amateur interpretation of the science behind it.
So people don't become addicts to feel good.
They become addicts to feel normal.
So if you have a lot of trauma and stress and in particular neglect as a child, then you have a certain amount of tension, you have a certain amount of unhappiness, and your happy juice levels are low.
Let's just call it, I know it's more complicated to call it dopamine, right?
So your dopamine levels are low.
So you're in a state of constant anxiety, depression, sadness, whatever it is, right?
And then what happens is you take a drink or you go gambling or you have casual sex or you take a drug.
And then let's say everybody's dopamine levels are kind of at 100, right?
But you're also cooking at like 30.
So you're unhappy.
And then what happens is you have a cigarette, you have a drink, you have a drug, and your dopamine levels go to like 110 or maybe even 100.
And then you're like, damn, this is what it's like to be pain-free.
This is what it's like to feel normal.
But then, of course, what happens is your dopamine levels crash.
And instead of being 30, they're now 20.
But you're aware of, you know, it's not the human condition, it's your unhappy life because of childhood trauma to a large degree.
And so you're unhappy for the first time.
You know, it kind of like if you suddenly found out that you could fly, like just will yourself to fly, you'd be like, damn, why did I bike and drive and fly?
I should have done this years ago, right?
So addicts are unhappy usually because of childhood trauma, unprocessed.
They don't know how unhappy they are, or maybe they think it's the human condition, or they're just, you know, they used to call this in the medieval era, like you just, you were, you had excess of melancholy, you're just melancholic, right?
And so then they take these drugs and then they feel normal.
And then when they stop taking these drugs or stop pursuing this addiction, they then feel like absolute garbage.
They just feel horrible and they just desperately want to get back to feeling normal again.
Yeah.
You know, think of an ice cream headache that never ended and the only way you could make it stop was to take a pill.
But then when the pill wore off, you'd have an ice cream headache twice as bad.
Well, you'd be desperate.
And this is why people escalate, right?
The more drugs they take, the more the dopamine levels decrease, which means the more they need the drug.
So it's a self-medication for unhappiness from bad childhoods.
And again, please understand this is completely idiotic, amateur, non-medical, non-medical advice explanation, just so everyone's aware, right?
And again, go to the experts and find out about this stuff more.
Now, that's why I'm asking about her unhappy childhood, because if she has an unhappy childhood, then the alcohol will solve that unhappiness for a time.
But of course, it's not the right way to do it.
I mean, everybody knows that.
It's dysfunctional by its very nature.
But it's what most people do.
And the reason they do that is it doesn't challenge the parental bond, right?
So if you have had a bad childhood, you had abusive parents.
And of course, I'm not saying this about Jennifer's parents because I don't know them and we can't ask her, right?
This is hearsay, right?
But if Jennifer's parents were, sorry, if let's say Sally, if Sally's parents were abusive and she really tries to deal with her unhappiness about that by moral examination, confronting her parents, talking about things, going to therapy, then that's going to be very negative for Sally's parents, right?
Sorry, you are doing something in the background here.
It's kind of rude and kind of annoying.
If you could not make clicky clackies while we're trying to solve your life's problems for free, that would be really helpful for me.
Thank you.
So Sally's parents don't want her to morally examine them.
They don't want her to go to therapy because the therapist will be like, holy crap, your parents are kind of abusive.
You should really go and talk to them about that.
That was really bad or whatever it is, right?
So Sally's parents, in a sense, prefer her to have an addiction than to be morally examined themselves or have a genuine ethical ally in the form of a competent therapist.
Does this make sense?
I don't want to rush.
I don't want to go too fast or too slow.
Yeah, and I apologize.
I was just taking notes on what you were saying.
I was typing.
Yeah, it's recorded.
It's recorded.
So that's the challenge.
Now, this would, of course, explain why Jennifer's parents aren't getting into rehab, but instead are paying her bills because they don't want her to figure out why she's so unhappy.
Now, it may be nothing that her parents did in particular.
Maybe they just failed to protect her from someone else, but that's still the parents' responsibility, right?
Maybe there's some creepy babysitter or something like that, but it's still the parents' responsibility because it's your responsibility as a parent to keep your kids safe, right?
So how much of this is news to you?
What you just explained to me is a deep insight that I had not considered before and definitely worth reflecting upon.
Okay, so how many relationships have you had since you were in your mid-teens?
Serious ones, I'd say like four, three, four.
And that's for like, what do you count as serious?
I just, yeah, I'm just using a nominal, you know, one-year mark of dating.
Okay.
And how many women have you dated or slept with since you were in your mid-teens?
Less than 10.
Okay.
So I assume that there's been some pretty dry spells then, if I do my basic math, correct?
Yeah.
Okay.
And I had another question whenever you're finished.
So have you figured out why you choose, I mean, it's the general reason why your four relationships haven't worked out?
Would you say that it's mostly on the side of the woman or is it your issues as well?
Mostly on the side of the woman.
So why do you think you choose underfunctioning or dysfunctional women?
Yeah, that's a good question.
You know the answer, right?
You know the answer.
Yeah.
What's the answer?
I mean, I'm just attracted to them, I'd say.
No, no, no.
That's a circular argument, right?
So why are you attracted to dysfunctional or undysfunctioning women?
Women with a lot of problems.
Yeah, that's, I mean, that's a good question.
I don't have anything on the top of my mind.
All right.
How functional was your mother?
She's, so she's a very loving mother.
I'd say she would do anything for me.
She would die for me.
But, you know, she was a bit of a pack rat.
She would always keep things, you know, like newspapers, that kind of thing, for way too long.
She was a hoarder.
Right.
And how bad was it?
I would say on a scale of 10, I'd say like a, you know, moderate, like five or six.
So pretty bad.
Yeah.
And did that have a big effect on you growing up?
Because, you know, you can't exactly invite friends over to the house of hoarding.
Yes.
It had an effect on me and my friend.
I was always embarrassed about it.
Right.
And I'm really sorry for that.
That's very tough.
And what did your father and your mother do about this big mental health issue?
My father, he acknowledged it, but anytime we would try to approach my mother, she would get upset.
Hang on.
I thought you said she would do anything for you.
So surely she would listen to you when she's got a problem that's negatively impacting your life.
Right.
Yeah.
Except for that.
Come on.
There's no except for that.
and you understand, this is exactly what you said about Jennifer.
Do you remember?
Yeah.
You said, oh, no, she was great, except for that, except for the drinking, three bottles of wine.
Right.
So you can't compartmentalize people like that.
Can you imagine going to your doctor with a big tumor and he says, oh, you don't need to treat that because everything that's like, except for that, you're healthy.
Yeah.
Would that make any sense?
Yeah, no, that makes total sense.
You go to your dentist with a big giant toothache killing you, pain, and he says, ah, most of your teeth are fine.
Don't worry about it.
Yeah.
So why do you think you would say something or believe something into your late 30s that is demonstrably not true?
Probably because I'm in.
You mean about the hoarding situation or the girl?
No, not just the hoarding situation.
Look, we all have our quirks, right?
We all have our quirks, but you got to deal with them if they're negatively impacting your children because you love your children, right?
Right.
Probably because I'm embarrassed about it.
Nope.
No, because if she'd fixed it, you wouldn't be embarrassed about it.
So that's not it.
Yeah.
It's what I said earlier.
You don't want to threaten the bond.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Now, did your mother ever say, listen, I've got this problem.
I'm not going to deal with it.
But you've really got to make sure that you don't date women with significant problems.
Your father did.
Your father dated a woman who's got a significant mental health issue, in my humble opinion, and obviously my amateur opinion.
So your father dated a woman who's got significant mental health problems, like really bad, because it negatively affects the entire household and her children's lives.
So did your parents sit down with you and say, we're not going to fix this, but you shouldn't get caught up in something like this?
In other words, if they're both smokers and they're not going to quit smoking, did they at least sit down and say, listen, we're not going to quit smoking, but for God's sakes, never smoke?
Yes, my father did give me that advice, and they always made me tidy my room.
My room was.
Sorry, what advice did your father give you?
About not smoking.
No, I'm not talking about smoking.
I'm talking about dating.
That was an analogy.
Sorry, I was unclear.
Did your father ever say, and your mother ever say, listen, your mother's got some mental health, really bad mental health issues.
I chose that.
I'm choosing not to fix it, but you shouldn't, like the moment you see any mental health issues, you should not continue unless the woman is actively in treatment.
Yeah, I would say paraphrasing from what he has told me, he has said that to me.
And do you love your father?
Yes, deeply.
Then why on earth did you not listen to him?
If someone you love who's a wise elder who made a mistake tells you, don't date women with significant personality or addiction issues, and you just continue to date woman after woman after woman, then why?
Why would you not listen to your father?
I'm genuinely, this sounds like a troll question.
I'm like, but why?
I don't know.
Sure you do.
Sure you do.
Everybody knows everything about themselves and their families, because if you don't know, the knowledge doesn't exist.
So why did you not listen to your father?
I guess because I'm a dotard.
A Christian believes what?
In the Ten Commandments about the parents.
You shall honor thy mother and father.
Yeah, honor thy mother and thy father.
And your father is saying, don't do this.
Don't date mentally unstable women or women with addictions.
Don't do it.
Don't do it.
Whatever you do.
And you're like, hey, you know what I think I'm going to do?
I'm going to spend 22 years from 15 to 37.
I'm going to spend 22 years doing exactly the opposite of what my father has begged me to do.
In your prayers to God, did he warn you, you've got to listen to your father.
He knows what he's talking about.
Please don't date women with dysfunctions, especially if they're hiding them.
It's one thing if a woman says, you know, I've got this, I've got a bit of a hoarding thing.
I'm currently in therapy about it.
You know, I'm really working on it.
I mean, that's one thing, right?
Yeah.
But when they're hiding it and not even admitting that it's a problem, it sure as hell isn't going to get solved, right?
Right.
So I did learn in one relationship, I took that experience and applied it to another one after that, where I dated a different girl and she told me she was single.
And then three months in, obviously she hid the fact that she was separated physically, but not divorced.
And I just ended it right there.
That was an easy one, though.
Okay, so we got the woman who lies about being single.
We got the woman who was a catastrophic alcoholic.
What are the other two?
The first one was a girl that was on SSRIs and that was just causing a lot of dysfunction.
Like how?
What was manifesting?
She was working as a nurse and she would just go into these like manic kind of states from work and just like over obsess about like really minor details at work.
And then she'd bring it home and just like have really, really bad anxiety.
Sorry, home.
Were you living with her?
No, no, but to her home, her apartment.
To her home.
Okay, sorry, go ahead.
And she would just bring that back home to her apartment and she would just over obsess.
Like, for instance, she would read her schedule like over and over and over and over and over again.
Like, and just like a little bit of like an OCD almost if that we can use that in an amateur sense, yeah, just OCD.
Okay.
And how long did it take for that dysfunction to show up in the relationship?
Or how long had you dated her before you began to suspect that?
After she started working when she got a job.
And how long did you date her after that?
A couple of months.
And did you talk to your parents about this woman's obsessive nature?
No.
Well, Hang on, what do you mean?
Didn't your parents ask you, I mean, hey, you're dating.
Tell me about her.
What's she like?
Right.
I left that detail out.
Oh, so you talked to her.
Sorry, you talked to your parents about the nurse, but you failed to mention the big red flag.
Correct.
Why?
Why would you lie to your parents?
That's not honoring them, is it?
No, it's not.
And again, I'm not trying to come down like some moralist here.
I'm genuinely curious.
Like, why would you hide that from your parents?
I mean, they can't give you good advice.
Like, if you go to the doctor and you've got a big pain in your side and he says, How are you doing?
And you say, I'm fine, right?
I mean, the doctor can't help you, right?
Yeah.
I guess it was my desire to just be idyllic about her and explain only the positives.
No, it's not because of that.
It's because of some other reason.
Yeah.
It has to be.
Because it wasn't idyllic, right?
So if you're hiding a negative, it's because you don't want to be talked out of the relationship.
Yeah.
Yeah, that's right, actually.
Okay, so why did you want to stay in the relationship?
Don't pretend that you don't know, and don't pretend it's not because she was hot.
I guess because I saw some sort of future, and I assumed maybe she could see.
No, no, no, no.
Don't give me the politically correct answer.
Why did you stay in a relationship and hide the dysfunction of a crazy woman from your parents?
What was the plus for you?
To betray your parents and your faith and God in that kind of way, to bear false witness, right?
There has to be a benefit, right?
I mean, we don't do something negative for no benefit, right?
So what was the benefit in hiding these things from your parents?
Well, I wanted children and I didn't want the relationship to end.
And so that was my primary function was to have children.
And if the relationship ended, then I wouldn't have children.
And how old were you when you were dating the nurse?
Early 20s.
Okay.
But if it's not going to be the right relationship, you'd want to know sooner rather than later, right?
Yeah.
So the way that you find that out is you ask older and more experienced people to give you feedback, as you're kind of doing now, right?
Correct.
So why wouldn't you do that and instead waste years?
Years.
Because of course, it's not whether you want children that matters.
It's whether the woman you're dating will be a great mother to your children that matters, right?
Correct.
Yeah.
And that's.
And would she have been, would she have been a great mother for your children?
Absolutely not.
So you know that, right?
Yeah.
So why did you continue in a relationship and hide things from your parents knowing that this was going to be a bad mother for your children?
Yeah, I mean, can you help me discover that?
Yeah.
Sex.
Yeah.
By the way, I never had sex with her.
Any kind of sex?
Nothing.
Really?
Correct.
We were celibate.
We were waiting until marriage.
Okay.
So two years?
Yeah, that's right.
I mean, I assume you have normal, healthy male sexual urges, right?
Yeah, I do.
I mean, you don't have to answer anything, but I'll just tell you from my perspective, when I hear about I'm a young, healthy male with 17 times the testosterone that women have.
I'm not having any sex.
I just assume pornography.
I don't have to answer anything.
I'm just telling you that's what most people will assume.
And so I'm not sure that the virtues remain entirely strong there, right?
Right.
So, okay.
So this woman turned you into a liar, so to speak, right?
I mean, obviously it was your choice, but she turned you into a liar.
Right.
And what was the impetus to break up after two years?
What happened?
Well, it was just those episodes she would have after work.
I just saw it was.
No, but she'd been having those for two years.
I had to be something that was climactic.
Sorry.
I know that there was no sex, but you know what I mean?
Yeah.
Yeah, no.
I mean, ultimately, it was just, like you said earlier, it confirmed my view that she would not be a good mother for my children.
But what did?
Like her episodes.
Did they get worse?
I mean, they had to be stabilized it.
Correct.
They got worse.
Yeah.
And so how bad was it at the end?
Yeah, I mean, I would say it was like almost like schizophrenic, like nine out of 10, bad, you know.
Like hallucinations and stuff?
Yeah.
Wow, that's...
Correct.
I mean, that's not outside the window of when people do develop these kinds of catastrophic mental health issues, as far as I understand.
Wow.
Okay.
And did you ever confess to your parents what had been going on?
Yeah, I mean, I told them high-level details.
I told my father that she was just on, you know, psychosomatic medications, like SSRIs, and explain how that, you know, just caused dysfunction in the relationship.
And ultimately, I mean, did you tell her that she was like barking nuts and hallucinating at the end?
Yes.
I told her, you know, this is not normal, that she was causing dysfunction in her own life by, you know, her obsessiveness with these.
I can't even tell you.
If I was your dad, I can't even tell you how pissed I'd be at you, man.
Yeah.
I have no words to express how angry I would be at you.
Do you know why?
Because I didn't listen to him.
No.
Because you lied.
Yeah.
You lied and you hid and you put yourself and the family in a very dangerous situation.
Like you realize this was a very dangerous situation.
People who hallucinate can be violent.
I'm not saying all, right?
Right.
But also she could have become a stalker.
Also, she could have seduced you in some manner.
I mean, you were two years backed up, right?
So maybe she gets pregnant and then you're tied to this crazy ship for the rest of time.
I mean, this was a, and of course, if you wait until women are crazy to break up with them, that craziness can manifest in some pretty scary stuff, right?
Yes.
And then I would say that as your father, if you withheld essential information from me about your dating life for two years and, you know, put yourself in the family at some level of risk, I'd be mad.
And then I'd say to myself, as your dad, how did I raise him that he wouldn't tell me?
And then I'd get mad at you.
But then, of course, as a father, I would be like, okay, let's look in the mirror.
What have I done that he can't tell me the truth?
So why couldn't you tell your father or your mother or both the truth?
Yeah, that's a good question.
Do you want the answer?
Yes.
Okay, the answer is this: I think.
The answer is: because if you say to your father, I'm not dating a woman with mental health issues, what does that say about your father?
Boy, this woman with mental health issues would not be a good mother for my children, dad.
Yeah.
As you stare over the mountains of 1970s National Geographics that are the manifestation of your mother's hoarding or whatever it is, right?
So if you say to your father, oh no, man, I can't date a woman who's got mental health issues, significant ones, what does that say about your dad?
Shows him a mirror.
Well, it just says that you are not willing to make a choice that your dad made, which is, you know, a fairly massive implicit criticism, right?
Yeah.
And it's a moral criticism, really.
Because if you say, well, look, this mentally ill woman would be a terrible mother for my children, dad, what does that say about your mother and your father?
Yeah, it shows that my mother was not fit for that.
Well, it certainly is a topic that should be talked about with regards to the family, right?
Yeah.
And then, of course, the question then becomes, why did your father choose a hoarder as the mother of his children and then not deal with it after the children came along and it negatively impacted the children significantly?
Hoarding is gross, man.
And it's dirty.
It's filthy.
It's dangerous.
Bacteria can't clean things properly.
You can't have anyone over.
It's shameful.
It's embarrassing.
Like it's wretched for the children in particular, right?
Yeah.
Oh, yeah.
Yeah.
I mean, you know it a million times better than I do.
I'm just sort of saying it with the audience's benefit, right?
So how is this not?
Do you have siblings?
Yes, I have older sisters.
Okay.
They couldn't bring people over, right, either.
They couldn't bring friends over.
They couldn't have sleepovers.
They couldn't like just crippling.
Yeah.
They would still bring friends over, but it was always like every time they came, I was like, oh, I wonder what they're going to think.
Dying inside.
Yeah, yeah.
Yeah.
All right.
So your father serves your mother's hoarding.
He will not disturb it.
And that's your template.
You serve women's craziness.
Yeah.
And that's what you've been doing for 17 years, right?
Or 22 years.
You find a crazy woman, you find a woman.
And listen, I have lots of sympathy for these women.
So I'm just using colloquial terms here.
I'm sure if they were on the line, I'd sympathize with them.
So I just want to be clear.
But we have to be blunt, right?
This is sort of man-to-man talk.
So your father served a crazy woman, and you serve crazy women.
You try to fix them, you try to help them.
As you said earlier about Jennifer, I figured I can fix her or help her, right?
So being in the service of female dysfunction is what your father modeled for you.
And that's, you know, we imprint upon the most sexually successful male in our environment, which is our father, who by definition, since he's our father, is sexually successful.
So it's like, oh, the way you get women is you find a crazy woman, you breed with her, and then you just spend the rest of your life managing her craziness.
Yeah.
And that's what you've been doing.
So it's the template.
Yeah.
So it's not going to change if you don't challenge and undo that template.
It is not your job to fix crazy people.
Frankly, nobody knows how to fix crazy people.
Nobody.
I mean, I don't mean that crazy people can never be fixed, but nobody knows how to do it in any consistent way.
So, and certainly, like, if there was somebody choking, you would try to give them some kind of tracheotomy, right?
Yeah.
Because you're not skilled, you're not trained, right?
Neither would I. So fixing or helping crazy people is not to be attempted by people with no history, no training, no, right?
Right.
No, I mean, you say, oh, well, I'm talking to you.
It's like, yeah, yeah, but we're just talking philosophy.
We're talking sort of patterns, right?
I'm not sitting there saying I'm going to spend the next three years trying to fix your life, right?
Yeah.
So, yeah, don't.
Not only is it not your job, it's an impossible job.
And in particular, like it's one thing, like if, because I always say to people, you know, if there's anything valuable that comes out of these conversations, definitely engage with a therapist.
I'm a big fan of talk therapy with a good therapist, right?
But you were dating women who weren't even, as far as I understand it, acknowledging their problems or being honest and open about it.
That's right.
So you certainly can't fix that, right?
Right.
I mean, if you want to fix somebody who's a compulsive gambler and they say, no, no, it's just fun.
I've got tons of money.
It's just by way of blowing off steam.
I'm never going to, like, I enjoy it.
It's not.
You can't fix them, right?
Right.
And the last thing I'll say is, like, look at the number of people who want to lose weight, right?
The majority of the population around the world, at least in America and North America, the West, they want to lose weight, five, 10 pounds, 20 pounds, whatever it is, right?
Now, how many people, what percentage of people, lose weight and keep it off?
And keep it off over the long term, I'd say less than zero.
What, negative?
Less than 0.1.
No, it's, I mean, it's small.
It's 5%, 7%, 10.
Like, it's single digits, right?
Yeah.
And losing weight is pretty easy.
It's actually not doing stuff, right?
Just don't eat, right?
Or exercise more or whatever, right?
Some combo.
That's right.
And you get massive amounts of positive feedback.
Oh, you look great.
Oh, you look fantastic.
Oh, this dress looks much better on you.
And your doctor says, yay, good for you, better for your health.
So you get massive amounts of positive feedback.
And all you have to do is not eat too much.
And still people can't do it.
So what are the odds that they're going to be able to overcome something like alcoholism or that you're going to be able to do it for them?
Zero.
Yeah.
It's zero.
So you've been on a fool's quest to rescue crazy women.
And that's why you don't have kids.
Yeah.
And the reason why you're on a quest to save crazy women is you, that's what your dad did.
Right.
And now, I guess it worked for him, but it's not working for you.
Right.
Probably because you're saner, right?
But that's the pattern that you have to break, in my humble opinion.
And can I have one last question?
Sure.
For someone of my age, you know, just curious, what's your take, you know, on the age-gap relationships just to expand?
Oh, they're fine.
Yeah, they're fine.
They're fine.
Because you have been stuck to some degree, again, in my humble opinion, you've been stuck to some degree in a young mindset because you keep doing the same things over and over again that have to do with managing crazy, which is what your father did, which is what you had to do as a child.
You had to manage and step around and bond with your mother's hoarding because she wouldn't talk about it as a genuine problem that needs to be fixed, right?
Yeah.
So she said she got angry or upset or you know, whatever, negative, yeah, and made you suffer and pay for bringing up her hoarding.
So for you, the only way that you really know how to have any power, authority in relationships is to manage other people's craziness.
So that's kind of a young mindset.
And again, I have my own young mindset.
So this is not a, and it's no criticism of you.
This is just all things.
We all get stuck at various different levels and layers of life and have to try and unstick these things and move forward.
But you'd be amazed, like once you get these patterns and you see some flailing around dysfunctional woman and you feel that response and you're like, oh, no, that's just my mom thing, right?
So then you, you'll find it actually quite quickly changes who you're attracted to.
And the other thing too is that if you're attracted to dysfunctional women, functional women won't want to date you because you're unwise.
And functional women tend to be quite wise, right?
So once you get these patterns and you recognize them and you apply them, you don't just react to, oh, this woman's attractive.
You don't even know why.
And just sort of run off a cliff.
Then you'd be absolutely astounded at how many functional women will flow into your life when you're not ringed by the alligator modes of dysfunctional women.
Because, you know, I've had this argument with people on X over the last week or two, like, all these crazy women around.
It's like, yeah.
Because if that's your view of femininity, that's all you're going to have around you.
And because the healthy women, the functional women, they can see the dysfunctional men.
And I'm not saying you're foundationally dysfunctional, but in terms of your relationships.
So they can see that and they don't want to get involved.
And it's like, so when you see some woman down the road who's really flailing around dysfunctional or got an addiction, I mean, you may have sympathy, but you're not going to want to date her, but that's how you look to functional women.
Yeah.
So that would be my, so yeah, you can have an age gap.
I mean, you'll have to, right?
Because you can't meet a woman your age and have a couple of kids.
That's right.
So yeah, you can aim younger, for sure.
That's fine.
But you got to break this habit of propping up collapsing women and calling it romance.
Yeah.
Yeah.
No, thank you.
All right.
We've had a long old chat.
I pretty appreciate that.
And of course, I hope that you'll drop me a line.
People can always email me, hosth-O-S-T at freedomain.com.
And I'd love to hear how it's going.
And I appreciate the chat today.
Thank you, Stefan.
Greatly appreciate it.
You are welcome.
You will need to unmute.
I can't hear you.
Johan, are you with me?
Don't make me do too much editing afterwards, please.
If you have a request.
It's a pretty rare opportunity, isn't it, to get free feedback from a fairly renowned thinker.
You know, just a little gift to the universe.
All right, Jester, if you want to unmute, I'm happy to hear what you have to say.
Hi, Stefan, can you hear me?
Yes, sir.
Go ahead.
Hi, it's so nice talking to you.
Thank you for having me.
So I even wrote down some notes so I don't sound like a potato.
Now, I want to start with saying that a couple of days back, you started one of your ex-spaces with an exhortation to have children.
And I wanted to ask you about how UPB and how it relates to having children in the first place, to bringing new life into existence.
So I have to preface this with the fact that English is my second language.
So I am formally requesting your help in still mining my case.
I'm not even going to pretend I have the linguistic skills to push back at the highest level against the argument Nuxi will throw at me.
So during that same X space, you explained the incredible suffering that life has gone through for the past 4 billion years.
When it comes to humans, at one point you said, and I'm quoting, plagues regularly took out significant portions of the population, and warmonger, Cossacks, Vikings, and Genkiskans men regularly blew across the countryside in fields of fire and rape, where people were oppressed by the Lord and bought and sold with the land as serfs or slaves, just like livestock.
And you mentioned how.
I'm so good.
I'm so good.
That's great.
Anyway, go ahead.
Okay.
Yeah.
Oh, yeah.
Incredible.
For sure.
So you mentioned how it was common for people to die of tooth decay, parents having to bury half or more of their infants, near constant starvation, war, poverty, disease.
And so on the one hand, you explained the state of affairs of the human race as hell on earth for 99.9% of our history with horrific...
Yeah, with horrific suffering as the norm.
But on the other hand, you describe life as the greatest gift that can be conceived of and consciousness as the most amazing natural phenomenon in the universe.
It is a miracle of cosmic proportions to have the privilege of experiencing thought, to be alive, and to possess this spectacular three pound of wet wear inside of our skull.
So you said life is a gift that has been given to us by absolutely unfathomable and incomprehensible suffering.
It has been a four billion year of line of suffering that we have a responsibility to continue.
So with this established, my questions are from a moral standpoint.
Okay, just give me them one at a time.
Just give me the one at a time because when people ask me like four questions, it jams up the work.
So give me the first.
Oh, yeah.
Like it's basically like the same question, like from different ages or stages.
But yeah, we can do one at a time.
That's fine.
So the first question.
So is it virtuous or good to bring a child into a world where, like you said, he will be sold as cattle with the land or die a horrible death as an infant in his mother's arm?
Also, maybe bring on hang on, hang on.
Yes.
When did I say it was virtuous?
No, no, that is the question.
Like, is it very good?
So you're bringing the question of virtue into the question of having children.
Because then why would you quote, like, because if I didn't talk about virtue and you want to bring virtue into the question of having children, so you're saying, is it moral to bring children into a life of suffering?
Yes, like you said, however.
No, but if you're alive to have children, you prefer to be alive, by definition.
I mean, if life is unbearable suffering, then you just kill yourself.
So then you're not part of the debate or the discussion.
But if you are married, you're having sex, procreative sex, and so on, then you are enjoying life enough to the point where you're having children.
Therefore, life is a net positive for you.
Because if it was a net negative and there was no way to change it, you probably wouldn't be around because life is always optional, right?
Not that I'm suggesting anyone should, but you can always jump off a bridge, right?
So if you are alive and making children, you obviously prefer to be alive than the alternative.
Does that make sense?
Oh, absolutely.
Now, when it comes to the question of suicide, like I would argue.
No, no, no, no, different, different.
Are we doing birth or suicide?
Because I don't want to do the morals of both birth and suicide.
Oh, no, because you mentioned that since life is preferable, because if you exist, that means you prefer life.
Because if you didn't, you would kill yourself.
So I'm saying that there's another alternative that you wouldn't want to inflict even more suffering on your family by committing suicide.
Yeah, but you're still choosing life.
Yes.
So you're still choosing life.
And of course, if you are suffering so much that you are suicidal, which I, again, I sympathize with.
And again, suicidality is almost always, according to some fairly eminent psychologists or psychiatrists, suicide is almost always the result of parental alter egos commanding death in the mind of somebody who's grown up with incredibly harsh and abusive, verbally abusive in particular parents.
But anyway, I just sort of bookmark that for a moment.
But then, of course, the people around you who care about you should try and talk to you and help you and try and figure out what problems can be solved so that you're not suicidal.
So if you're surrounded by people, you care about them, they care about you.
They won't just let you stew in your suicidality.
They'll notice something's wrong and they'll move heaven and earth to help you feel better.
Absolutely.
So what does that mean is if you're alive, now I understand that about the question of suicide.
Now, does that mean when it comes to the existential question, does that mean that there's no basically no state of affairs where, like, in other words, is consciousness such a gift that it should be continued at all costs?
Like children during plagues, during gulags?
There's no limit to what we should endure.
Why would you think that?
Have I argued that?
I've argued precisely the opposite.
No, no, absolutely.
That's my question.
So that would be my question.
I'm not saying you're arguing that at all.
Okay, so I thought we were talking about the morals of birth.
Now we're talking about the morals of suicide.
No, no, I understand about suicide.
Like you said, if you...
Sorry, but you just asked me, do we have to continue living no matter what?
Not living, like bringing new children into existence, like without, like, no matter how horrible the conditions are.
Like, would that be a problem?
Well, listen, it's not immoral.
Okay.
It's not immoral to not have children.
Oh, okay.
Right?
Because otherwise, if it was immoral, if it was evil, right?
So we've got some listening.
Can you let me talk?
Oh, yeah, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I appreciate the enthusiasm, but I mean, you're following me.
If you don't want to hear me, then do your own show.
Oh, I'm so sorry.
That's fine.
I'm so sorry.
So it is not evil to not have children because the consequence of evil is you can use violence to prevent it.
So it's evil to initiate the use of force against someone.
Therefore, that person is justified in using force to prevent it, right?
Like if somebody's going to shoot you, you can shoot them first, right?
Preemptive strike.
So evil is that which we could use violence to prevent or reverse.
If someone steals from you, you can go and steal from them back, right?
And then if they resist you stealing your stuff back, you can use violence to protect your own property.
So if it was evil to not have children, we would be justified in using force to force people to have children, which clearly would be immoral, right?
Absolutely.
So it's not immoral to not have children.
It's just, to me, it would be on the level of extreme dispoliteness, unpoliteness, right?
So if somebody continually lends you money when you're in need, right?
Every time you need some money to pay your rent or get some food, they're happy to lend you the money.
And they're not even that insistent about you paying it back.
They're pretty nice about it, right?
And then they fall on hard times and they ask you to lend them 500 bucks and you have the money, right?
You can afford to.
And you say no.
Is that evil?
No.
I mean, they can't use force, but it's profoundly rude, ungrateful, and wrong, right?
It's wrong, but not evil, right?
So I have aesthetically negative behavior, which is things that are negative, but you can't enforce through violence, right?
So if he's lent you money over the years without a contract and you don't owe him the money or whatever it is, right?
Then if he comes to lend you, to ask you to lend him money, he can't use force to get the 500 bucks from you because you have no contract and you didn't steal the money from him and so on, right?
But I think we would look at that and we would say, what a jerk.
Like this guy spent 10 years lending you money when you're in need.
The guy needs money you can afford.
You won't lend it to him.
Like that's not evil.
You can't use force to make someone lend 500 bucks, but it's really jerky.
Does that make sense?
Yeah, absolutely.
That makes sense.
So in the same way, you can't use force to make people breathe.
That would be a violation of the non-aggression principle and evil.
But at the same time, it's profoundly ungrateful when your ancestors suffered so much to give you the gift of life.
And it's far easier to have children now than it ever was in the past to not do it.
Like, I don't know if you've seen these, they're fairly bitter pictures, right?
So the picture is of young soldiers coming off the pontoons on D-Day, right?
The invasion, 1944, the invasion of France to liberate Europe from Germany, the German rule.
So, and of course, there's some dysfunctional picture of England, right?
That's sort of like negative, right?
And they're all thinking of this, right?
And would they fight for the future if they knew what England was going to become?
Like kind of totalitarian about free speech and not listening to its citizens and all this kind of stuff, like jailing people for tweets and so on, right?
Would they fight for That?
And the answer, of course, is well, probably not, right?
If you were to take from 1944 to 2025, drop someone in London and say, is this the government or is this the society that you want?
I mean, a lot of them would probably say, no, that's not what I want to fight for.
So, in the same way, would your ancestors have fought to bring life and keep you alive?
I get this a sex drive and all of that, and the birth control was rare, but whatever, right?
There were still ways to control it.
If they were to come forward and they were to say, okay, so I sacrificed all of this, we fought all of this, we did our wars, we survived our famines, we got through winter, we survived droughts and so on, so that you could play video games, you know, watch pornography and not reproduce, they'd say, oh, come on, man, like, look at everything we suffered and you can't go out and talk to a girl, right?
And so the reason why people have children is on the expectation that the lineage will continue.
And if you, you know, where it's possible for you to do it, if you don't continue the lineage, then you are taking from the sacrifices of your ancestors, which they only had on the understanding that you would continue your lineage, that you would continue their lineage.
So you're kind of stealing life from them, if that makes sense.
Yeah, that makes sense.
So back to the question, the way you're explaining all of the suffering, like the four billion year line of suffering.
So under what conditions would you say, like you said, aesthetically negative actions, back to the UPB thesis or framework?
So under what conditions would you say maybe it would be, I don't know, aesthetically negative to have children because the conditions are so horrible.
Let's say, like, would that be a thing or is it not?
Well, why would you care?
It's not there now.
So why would it matter?
I would argue it's there in billions of people are under horrible conditions right now.
No, no, no.
But compared to the Middle Ages, let's say.
Yes.
I mean, we're not there now.
I mean, just the presence of modern dentistry, antibiotics, and, you know, I mean, air conditioning and internet access and, you know, the entire world of human knowledge in your ass pocket, right?
We're not there now, right?
Yeah.
So why do you care about, you know, if people are in a gulag?
Well, we're not in a gulag.
So what does it matter?
So the hypothetical wouldn't matter.
So like, why?
And listen, I don't mind the hypothetical, but why?
Why does it matter?
Why does it matter?
Oh, it's just.
It's sort of like you need to get somewhere, right?
And your car won't start.
I come and start your car, and then you say, but what if the car didn't start?
It's like, but it did.
Go where it did.
Like the breakfast question.
Yeah, I understand.
So, okay, so in other words, suffering, would you say, would you say, suffering has been conquered to such a degree that the question in itself is invalid?
Well, I don't know.
It's irrelevant.
If I just started your car and you sit in the car and won't drive anywhere, because now you want to debate what would have happened if you didn't drive the car, let's say you're late for a job interview, right?
It's really important.
It's a job of your dreams, right?
Your car won't start.
I come and start your car and then you sit there and say, yeah, but what if my car hadn't started?
And I'm like, bro, go to your job interview.
What are you doing?
Because it started.
Yeah.
I understand.
Yeah.
So you can sit there and say, well, under what conditions might I not have children?
But I mean, go meet the girl, go try and find a family and try and have some kids.
Like, like, under what condition?
Like, my concern is that if I outline those conditions and say, with a certain amount of suffering, you don't have to have kids.
And people say, well, I suffer, so I'm not going to have kids.
Like, I don't want to even lay that out as a possibility for people because they'll use it as an excuse.
As an excuse.
Yeah, yeah.
Absolutely.
That makes sense.
So the argument would be that it would be aesthetically positive, or like if I'm understanding this correctly, so it would be aesthetically positive in general because suffering is, let's say, in historical terms, insignificant.
Would that be correct?
Well, it's less.
I mean, it's a lot less.
It's a lot less.
And if we benefit on the pleasures of life and everybody who's alive is part of those pleasures, whether that's plus 1% or not, it doesn't matter.
They're still part of those pleasures.
If we have the pleasure and benefit of life because of the sacrifice of our ancestors and we only have to sacrifice one 100th what they had to sacrifice, then if we don't do that, that's profoundly selfish and profoundly ungrateful and profoundly exploitive of their suffering.
Because we only exist because they chose to have children.
If we choose not to have children, we're denying the pleasures of our existence to everyone who comes after us because there's no undoing that.
You don't get to skip a generation.
Like that's, that's just it, man.
That's fracking it.
Like the four billion year march ends with your sterile loins.
There's no, well, I'll step this one out, but someone else can step in for me or the next generation will pick it up.
There is no next generation.
That's it.
Four billion years ends with you, ends with him, ends with her.
Nothing else comes after it.
That's the total end of that genetic lineage.
You say, oh, but brothers and sisters, yes, but of your genetic lineage.
It's all done.
Like this particular configuration.
Yeah, yeah, that's gross.
That's gross.
That's wrong.
That's terrible.
Of course, we should never use force in matters of procreation, so it's not evil.
But it's so profoundly narcissistic and selfish.
It's sort of like if you have a family that has struggled and scrimped and saved to build up a family fortune, and then you come along and say, I'm just going to blow it all on hookers and blow, right?
I mean, it's your money.
You can do what you want with it.
But there's no way that your ancestors would have scrimped and saved and forgone all of those pleasures so that you could blow it all on hedonism.
Like they just wouldn't have done it.
And so you only have that money on the expectation that you will take care of it.
Because if your ancestors had known that you were going to blow it all on hookers and blow, they wouldn't have saved it up for you.
So there's an implicit contract, which is we'll have you, you keep having people.
Because if there are a lot of parents, if they knew every single child they would give birth to would be permanently sterile, they probably wouldn't bother, right?
Like, what's the point?
Right.
So it's part of the great chain of being.
So if you self-sterilize yourself by choice, right?
And in that, not some biological or medical reason, you're cheating your parents because they had you so that you would have children.
You only exist because you're going to have children.
And if you choose not to have children, you are breaking the contract and you are, you know, really spitting in the face of your parents and their ancestors all the way back for what?
For your own selfish cheatingism?
Because there's no greater pleasure in the world than family life.
Being loved by a wife, being loved by a husband, raising children who care about you, that you have a huge amount of fun with, you get to watch them grow, and that you continue your line and your name and your family.
There's no greater pleasure than that.
So, why would people not want those pleasures?
Because they're selfish and they're only thinking in the short term.
Now, I make this case and there'll be a bunch of people who are like, nope, nope, nope.
I mean, there was one on the call the other day.
A whole bunch of people who'd be like, nope, nope, nope.
I'm just going to live myself.
There's no benefit, blah, blah, blah.
I'm like, okay, well, that's fine.
Then don't have kids because you're that selfish that you'd be a terrible parent and you shouldn't have children.
Now, that's because of your choice to not mature and to not grow and to not be moral.
But I'm fine with some people not having children.
I just want to make a stronger case so that people have a choice.
Because in the absence of opposing information, we have no functional free will.
If you don't believe in airplanes, then you can't choose to fly.
If you never knew about buried in your backyard was a million dollars worth of gold, but you didn't know about it, you'd have no functional choice to choose to dig it up or not.
So we only get free will from opposing information.
So when I oppose people in the world, and sometimes it's straight, sometimes it's a steel man argument, but when I oppose people in the world, it's to shock them with alternate information so that they can make a choice.
So if people don't understand that the only reason they're alive is because their ancestors expected them to reproduce, and if they just selfishly take that gift of life without fulfilling what their ancestors gave them life for, they're just jerks.
They're just selfish, selfish jerks.
Again, assuming that they can.
Now, can they be selfish jerks?
Of course they can.
But if they don't hear this argument and they think it's somehow wise or positive or good or, you know, they're nihilists or anti-natalists or something like that, it's like, no, no, you're just selfish jerks.
You're just selfish jerks who want hedonism rather than responsibility because you think that responsibility is going to make you unhappy when in fact it's the only thing that gets you to grow the hell up.
Stop staring at your own dopamine levels and go and do something good in the world.
So I just push back.
Like all the all the guys out there, the young men I've been battling with for the last week or two, who were like, well, you can't talk to women.
They're all crazy.
I'm like, nope, nope, they're not statistically.
Here's what you fix.
Here's how you do it.
Here's how you approach it.
Yeah, there's going to be some who won't listen.
But opening up those possibilities, like if people say, well, your chance of divorce is 50%.
And I say, here's how to get it down to 5% or less.
Like I got married to my wife, though, I grew up, everybody was divorced.
I knew two families out of the dozens that I knew that were intact and only one of them was happy, right?
So like 5%, a happy marriage.
And yet when I got married to my wife, I absolutely knew we were never going to get divorced and I absolutely knew we'd be happy.
It's 23 years in.
We're not divorced.
We're never going to get divorced and we're incredibly happy.
Like there's ways to know these things.
There's ways to predict these things.
It's not all random.
So if people think, oh, 50% chance of divorce, and I say, no, here's how to get it down to 5%, then I'm giving people a choice that they didn't have before, which is to manage risk rather than just succumb to it, to find ways to reduce risk rather than just flip a coin and see if you get married or see if you get divorced or not.
It's just a coin toss, right?
So yeah, the purpose of opposing people is to shake them free of their absolute preconceptions that are usually wrong and give them choices that they didn't know before existed.
Absolutely.
And when it comes to, so you were saying about the hedonism and selfishness when it comes to deciding not to have children.
So it seems to me, and I could be wrong, that the argument could be made that you're saying since suffering has been lessened to such a degree, if someone says, well, for example, I'm not going to have children because this is way too much suffering, that person would be, in a sense, lying or not being honest.
And that person, in fact, is just being selfish and using suffering as an excuse.
So it's just the question of, can your perspective be universalized?
If your perspective that is considered to be a good or a plausitive, not like I like omelets or whatever, right?
But if your perspective cannot be universalized, there's something fundamentally wrong with it.
So for instance, if people were to say it's better to have a life of selfish pleasure than to have children, it's a contradiction.
Because the only way that people are alive to have these selfish pleasures is because other people had children, gave birth to them, right?
Yes.
So that's a huge contradiction.
You should have a life of selfish pleasure, which you can only get if other people have children and sacrifice their selfish pleasures, which means that the life of selfish pleasure can't be universalized.
Or I guess it could be universalized, but then all of humanity dies out because nobody has any children.
The other thing, too, when these anti-children people, these childish bigots, when they get old, quick question.
an antinatalist is 75 and he needs an operation, who's going to have to give it?
Who's going to have to do the operation in order to save it?
Yeah, the next generation.
Younger surgeons, people who've been raised, been educated, and so on, right?
Oh, and who's going to pay the taxes to support his pension?
The younger generation.
So if you say, well, the life of selfish pleasure is best, but the only way I get my life of selfish pleasure is if other people sacrifice on the altar of my selfishness, other people go have children because I'm going to need a surgeon and I'm going to need taxpayers and I'm going to need people to deliver my electricity and I'm going to need people to deliver my water and my intranet.
Well, then you're an exploiter.
Your selfishness in not having children absolutely relies and demands on everybody else not listening to your selfish bullshit and going to have children on their own.
So it's absolutely pathetic, wrong, immoral, but not evil, exploitive, asshollery of the first order, because you absolutely desperately need other people to have children so that you can be a selfish hedonist.
It's gross.
Like, how can people not see this?
And that would be for the hedonists.
And what about the other people that I mentioned?
The nihilists?
No, the, well, I don't know if you could call them nihilists like once you say, this is way too much suffering.
I'm not going to continue the line.
Like, are they still being hedonists or?
Well, if they're debating with me, if they're debating with me, then they take pleasure in being alive and debating.
So then shut up about your, oh, death is preferable to life.
If you're here debating, you prefer being alive and debating.
The only time I hear from people is when they take pleasure in debating.
And they obviously choose, they've chosen life, and they've chosen to debate, and they've chosen to have this argumentation, and they've chosen to engage.
So then don't tell me about the endless suffering of life, because those people aren't in the debate, very tragically and very sadly.
Okay.
So it would be like what I similar to what I said earlier, they would be using the suffering as an excuse, and it would be another way of being hedonistic or selfish.
Yeah, I mean, I can't read everybody's mind, of course, as to their ultimate motives.
I can only look at the logical consistency of what it is that they're saying.
Okay.
And of course, the idea that life is just pure suffering.
I mean, there are a few people to whom life is just pure suffering.
They have some chronic ailment that just puts them in constant agony and all that kind of stuff.
But most people, if they're in pain, like they've got a headache, they'll take an Advil or an aspirin or something.
And they'll, right?
If you've got a toothache, you go to the dentist.
He fixes your tooth, does something.
So most people, when they're in pain, they'll do something to reduce pain.
So life is not pure suffering.
So if somebody who says, well, life is pure suffering, we'll help us to fix it.
I'm like, well, have you ever been to a dentist?
Oh, yeah.
Well, then don't tell me life is pure suffering.
You can't do anything to fix it.
Again, there's very few people to whom that is the case and they're not out here debating on the internet.
Okay, that makes perfect sense.
Thank you so much for explaining that, Stefan.
And also, I wanted to mention, very brief, because you touched on it at the beginning of the show about people having credibility to correct you or like having some kind of proof that they know what they're talking about.
It reminded me about the guy you were role-playing with, referencing the other guy who didn't want to get married, and he was like, Just for those of you who, this is the show we did on Friday, I think it was.
And was it Sunday?
Anyway, so last couple of days, this is the 8th of July.
So this is somebody who came in all hot about there's no benefit to marriage for men, right?
I gave him all the counter statistics.
And then some guy came and said, you should have handled this better.
And I said, okay, well, let's role play.
You be me and I'll be this guy.
And within three minutes, he tapped out because he was like, but that's what I was going to say.
He couldn't last five, not even five minutes.
He was like, Stefan, can you give me a break, please?
Like, let's take a break.
Yeah.
Oh, he wouldn't have said that.
It's like, bro, I've been doing this for 40 years.
I know how people's minds work in these mindsets.
No, listen, I appreciated him.
I appreciate the confidence of coming in and saying to me, you can do better.
Now, I can do better.
Now, maybe this guy was an incredible communicator and he could school me on things and that would be great.
I never have any objection to learning from people who know what they're talking about.
I'm just, after so many years, I'm very skeptical that people know what they're talking about when they just come in hot like that.
So I appreciate that.
Yeah, absolutely.
Thank you so much, Stephan.
I hope you have a nice day and thank you for the conversation.
Appreciate it.
Great, great topics.
Not Socrates.
Let's do one more.
Not Socrates, what you got?
Unmute if you can.
I'm sure you can.
Yeah.
Sorry.
I wanted to touch on your discussion of morality of reproduction.
I left a chat in the space as a quick, I guess, justification of my position.
But effectively, I would avoid guilting people into having children because punishing behavior doesn't necessarily produce better behavior.
just stops something negative from happening.
Hang on.
No, no, there's a lot in what you just said there, and I need to understand what you're talking about.
So what do you mean by guilting people?
You just told them they're being bad people.
Is that not true?
I don't just go around saying that people are bad.
I make an argument.
I don't just go around saying you're a bad person.
I mean, it would be mindless.
Okay, so we can't.
Well, no, hang on.
Do you know how conversations work?
Like one of us tries to talk at the time?
Yeah, I was getting statements.
Try not to overtalk me.
Try not to overtalk me.
Right?
Because we have to have a back and forth, right?
So I don't just say to people, you're a bad person.
You should feel guilty.
I make reason to arguments with evidence.
So that's not guilting people.
Now, if people feel guilty because I make a reasoned argument, that's not on me.
That's on them making bad choices.
But go ahead.
I don't want to bemoan this point, but using reason doesn't necessarily mean you're not guilting them.
Am I crazy for saying that?
I don't know what you mean.
So am I responsible for- You asked a question.
Okay, go ahead.
Am I responsible for people's negative emotional reactions to my recent arguments?
Are you intending that they will have a negative response?
Am I responsible for people's negative responses to my recent arguments, to my rational arguments?
I mean, that's the problem.
You sort of are because you're the one making the argument.
And I'm letting you recognize the effect that'll have on people.
But that's not, that's beside my point.
No, it's not beside my point.
No, it's not.
Hang on, hang on.
You can't just drop in something like that and not give me the right of response, right?
You can't just talk over me after you make a big assertion like that.
So you're saying that, hang on.
So you're saying that I am responsible for other people's negative emotions when I make rational arguments.
If you are reasonably confident that your assertion will have a particular response in people, I would argue yes.
But how can I know that?
I'm just telling you right now.
No, no.
How can I know ahead of time?
Right.
So let me give you an example.
Let me give you an example.
Let me give you an example.
So let's say I'm a math teacher, right?
And I'm grading my students' math test.
Let's say it's real simple, right?
Yeah.
And I say the answer to the first question after the exams or the tests are all handed in.
I say the answer to the first question is four.
Two and two make four, right?
Now, how are the kids going to feel who got it right?
Generally good.
They feel good, right?
How are the kids going to feel who Got it wrong.
Generally, bad.
Am I responsible for the bad feelings the kids have when I say the answer to the first question is two and two make four?
Well, that's the problem.
This is a bad analogy.
What you're saying is you should learn math.
If you haven't learned math, you're not doing it right.
I don't understand.
You're not saying the answer is four.
You're saying, so to fix this analogy, you're saying, well, you should have children.
What you're continuing to say is, well, you are being selfish if you're not having children.
Effectively saying you're being selfish if you didn't learn two plus two is four.
This is the guilting part.
You can use reason after that, but that still...
No, but I do.
I do.
I do.
Hang on.
I do.
So what if, let's just go as to a theory, right?
What if it is selfish to not have children?
What if it is, right?
Let's just give me that for the moment.
We can argue about, I mean, I've made endless cases as to why it is, right?
So if it is selfish to not want to have children, and I accurately and rationally explain why it is selfish to not want to have children, am I then responsible for people who feel bad for being selfish?
Am I allowed a quick aside?
Because this might sort of answer your question in a roundabout way.
I prefer you to answer my questions, and then I'll answer yours.
Let me give you another example, since this is obviously kind of close to home, right?
So if I say it's selfish to have an affair, right, can we at least admit that it's pretty selfish to have an affair?
Most people would say yes.
Okay.
No, but do you agree with that?
But in general, I mean- In most circumstances, I would agree.
Okay.
So if I say it's selfish in general to have an affair, am I then responsible for people who then feel bad for having an affair?
If the people in the audience are the ones who are trying to understand not having an affair and you tell them.
No, no, come on.
Don't overcomplicate things.
If I say, if I say, no, just answer the question.
Just give me a yes or no.
If I say having an affair is generally selfish, then people who've had an affair, they feel bad because I've said it's selfish.
Am I responsible for them feeling bad by identifying a selfish behavior, which they've done?
Is that my fault?
If you're aware they're in the audience and you're pointing it out to them.
I'm sorry.
If you're aware they're in the audience and you're pointing it out to them, yeah.
I'm not saying you're a bad person for doing it.
That's not my point.
So I'm responsible for somebody feeling guilty about having an affair.
I'm the one who's responsible for that feeling of guilt.
Sorry?
You're responsible for the effect.
You knew this was going to be a likely outcome.
So should I then not say, hang on, should I not say that cheating on your spouse, should I not say cheating on your spouse is selfish because people who've cheated on their spouse might feel bad?
No, I'm not saying that at all.
I'm saying it's not the fact that you know you did say that.
You said I shouldn't, hang on, you said I shouldn't guilt people.
Make them feel bad by making an argument.
So there's no confusion.
I am saying guilt is not an effective agent for change.
I'm not saying you shouldn't ever guilt people.
I'm saying if you want them to improve, guilt is not the path I would choose.
And I will lay out the path I would choose if you allow me.
Sure, go for it.
So my thought on the idea of children, and I gave a quick explanation.
Sorry, let me, I'm so sorry.
Hold your thought.
Sorry, I just wanted to mention this.
My argument was that I'm not responsible for the negative feelings that other people have for my rational arguments.
So I cannot guilt people.
My argument was that I cannot guilt people.
I can make rational arguments.
People themselves, they're responsible for what they feel.
I am not responsible for what other people feel unless I'm sticking them with a knife.
So that was my argument wasn't that whether guilt is good or bad, a motivation or non-motivation.
You said, Steph, you shouldn't guilt people.
I can't guilt people.
I can make rational arguments.
And if people feel guilty, that's on them.
But anyway, go ahead with your point.
So I gave a quick moral justification for children.
That's sort of, it's not super important to my argument, but sort of gives people an easy out to having children, which is if you don't have children, the people in that generation will have a smaller cohort and will be unable to advance their interests as effectively against older generations.
So if you see like how baby boomers and younger generations interact now, you'll basically be perpetuating that.
Whereas if you have children, you give them a chance to fight back.
But that's not exactly the argument I'm making.
I'm just providing an easy moral argument.
The argument I'm making is that having children isn't a question of morality.
It's a question of desire.
If you do not want children, that is a problem within you.
You have some sort of circumstance in your life where you either lack the libido or you lack the desire to expand that would come with wanting to have children.
So I would propose that we focus on getting people to build that desire rather than telling them they must have children.
Sorry, when did I say to people they must have children?
I'm just making that point.
Okay, so you're not talking, I thought you were talking about my argument.
And this is why I assume when I first came to you with this, I assumed I used the phrase, I would not use guilt.
But I could be mistaken on that.
This is from memory.
So to your point, though, if someone says something to someone else that produces a negative feeling, that person is responsible and should change, right?
Change their messaging.
It depends on what their desired goal is.
If their desired goal is to kill people.
If your desired goal is to change people's minds for the better, right?
Yeah.
So your argument style is producing significant irritation in me, which means you're doing it wrong.
Like whatever you're doing, I can't necessarily control how you react.
Oh, come on, man.
You can't do that.
You can't say I'm responsible for other people's.
You can't say that I'm responsible for other people's negative reactions to my arguments, but that you're not responsible for my negative reaction to your argument.
I'm personally trying to lower the level of negativity and instead focus on what I think will be a more effective way to get people to have children.
Right, but you're annoying me in your argumentation style.
So you should change it.
Do you prefer I change it?
No, no, you're the expert.
You know how to produce positive responses in people through your argumentation style.
That's what you're teaching me.
Right?
So then, if so, hang on.
So, if you're an expert on how to have a positive and pleasurable response to your arguments, then why are you so annoying?
I mean, I'm asking you why you're annoyed.
It seems like it's because you feel like I'm attacking you for guilting, somehow impugning your honor, which I'm not.
I do not wish to do that sort of thing.
It doesn't matter.
I'm annoyed, therefore you're communicating badly in the same way that if I guilt people or they feel guilty, I'm communicating badly.
So you're completely responsible for my annoyance, just as I'm responsible for other people's guilt, according to because you immediately went to a negative statement about my style.
Yes.
Would indicate you're trying to evoke a negative response.
No, no, I have a negative response to your debating style.
You're talking over me.
You're moving the goalpost.
You're shifting definitions.
You're saying I'm responsible for other people's emotional states.
See, right there, you keep talking over me.
So if you are an expert on having people have a positive response to your arguments, then why are you so aggressive and annoying when you argue?
I never claimed to be an expert in people having a positive response.
You're coming in here to correct me about my communication regarding having children, which means you're claiming an expertise.
And if you have an expertise, no, see, okay, you cut me off one more time.
I'm just going to pull you from the combo because that's really fucking annoying.
Okay.
You keep talking over me after I have repeatedly asked you to not do that.
So why?
Why do you keep doing that?
Because you ask questions or you make statements indicating confusion as to my motivation.
I'm telling you how I feel and why.
You can't correct me on that.
If I say I'm annoyed, what are you going to say?
No, you're not.
I am.
No.
I asked you how I can fix it, and then you called me an expert, and I should know.
Yes, you should know, because you're telling me that you are very good at not guilty people, not annoying people, not having people having a negative experience if you're debating, and I'm having a negative experience if you're debating.
So, of course, I don't believe you.
I did not claim to be an expert in that.
Okay.
Well, this is all just going round and round.
And now you're just gaslighting yourself.
I'm pretty sure everyone else had an annoying experience of that as well, because I can have some very positive and productive debates if you just look at what happened right before.
The Hispanic fellow or the Spanish-speaking fellow sounded Spanish.
We had a great conversation where he made some great points.
I made some great points, very enjoyable, very positive.
And then this guy comes in all hot and critical and negative and hypocritical and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
So, but no, I'm sure he's a real expert on how to have people have a positive response to his argument.
All right.
Hassan, detoxify the atmosphere, brother.
Unmute and let me know what's on your mind.
Can't hear you.
Can't hear you, Peach.
I always get that from the Willem Defoe character in Finding Nemo.
All right.
Cast on Carter or something like that.
What's on your mind?
Unmute and fill my ears.
Sorry, it would help if I actually hit on the tick rather than look on your profile.
Unmute.
What's on your mind?
Hey, Sufon.
How's it going?
Good.
How are you doing?
I wanted to ask your thoughts on compatibilism.
Yes, free will versus determinism.
It was a hot topic back in the day, the origin story of free domain back when it was free domain radio.
So yeah, why don't you define it for the audience and that's your burn?
So compatibilism being that free will and determinism are not mutually exclusive.
Well, I know, but that's, you've got to tell me how it works.
So for me, my idea of this model goes along with pantheism.
So it's kind of like, if you are the whole system, if you are, if everything is God and God is objectively provable, then you created this whole system.
You kind of designed it.
And at the same time, it is determinism.
You've made it so it can't be changed, but you designed it from the start.
Does that go along with your?
I mean, that's more of a fortune cookie than a moral or philosophical argument.
Sure, we can break it down a little further.
So the first thing that we would be establishing if we're talking about God, if we're bringing God into it at all, is what is God?
Okay, no, no.
See, we're going to do compatibilism.
You can't do God at the same time.
Compatibilism is a whole separate category.
Compatibilism is the argument that free will and determinism are not contradictions because although you don't know what's coming next in a movie, you don't know exactly what the person's going to do or say, it is still preordained.
So we have to live like we have free will because we don't know what's coming.
And therefore, the perspective of free will is valid in the limited information we have about what's coming.
Whereas it could be entirely deterministic.
And I'm sure I'm butchering it to some degree, but that's my understanding of the general position.
It's been a while.
So that would be the discrepancy right there?
You're saying live as if you have free will.
This would be from this model I'm talking about.
I'm not going to be woo-woo about it.
I'm just saying simply from that perspective, if everything that exists is God, then God is self-evident and you are part of this system.
Okay, so hang on, hang on.
Are you talking about compatibilism or the universe is God?
They're not the same categories of philosophy.
Well, a model that compatibilism would be possible in, your understanding of it is you said you live as if free will exist, correct?
Well, it's that we don't know what's coming.
And even if it is all deterministic, we still have to live as if we have free will, because if we rejected free will, it would be because we knew what was coming, which we can't know.
So that is not A wrong interpretation, but for the model to be true, for free will to actually not be false, it has to go a deeper level, I would argue.
And it does have a level of faith to it.
No, no, it doesn't.
No, no, no, it doesn't.
Okay, so is any individual atom alive?
I'm not sure.
I would say no.
No, okay.
I mean, because there are carbon atoms in the heart of the sun, they're definitely not alive, right?
So there's no individual atom that is alive, right?
Is there any individual neuron that can think?
You would say you have to have a whole bunch of neurons working together, right?
Right, right.
I'm asking you.
Don't ask me what I would say.
Do you accept that there's no individual, like one single neuron cannot think?
Is that fair to say?
Sure, yes.
Okay, so no individual atom is alive, yet there is such a thing as life, right?
No individual neuron can think, yet there is such a thing as thinking.
And what that means is that there's something called, I'm sure you've heard the term, and most people have, emergent properties.
Now, emergent properties are characteristics that an aggregation of atoms has that no individual atom has.
So for instance, if the Earth was much smaller, the Moon would not orbit it.
The Earth has to have a certain, it has to be a certain size in order to retain gravitational pull on the moon.
Now, no individual atom within the Earth can hold onto the moon's orbit, but you get enough of them together and you can keep the moon around because you have a big enough gravity well.
Does this sort of generally make sense so far?
Yes.
So no individual atom has free will any more than any individual atom has the characteristic called life.
But free will and consciousness is an emergent property of an aggregation of atoms and neurons and chemicals and brain matter and so on.
So the fact that no individual atom has free will does not at all disprove the idea that human consciousness does not have free will any more than the fact that no individual atom has life means that there's no such thing as living organisms.
Does that make sense?
And I see what you're saying, but I almost think you have to draw the wall around consciousness when you're discussing something like this.
What do you mean, draw the skull?
Is that the wall around consciousness?
I don't know what you mean.
Well, no, you're saying free will and determinism, obviously an atom and a neuron that wouldn't be something that would apply to.
But we're talking about consciousness as a whole, which would require, you know, all the neurons, all that goes into that.
Okay, I agree with you.
Yeah, consciousness requires all the neurons.
All right.
Now, we have to understand that, sorry, that's a begging the question.
Okay.
I think it's important to understand that human consciousness is treated as absolutely unique by everyone.
I mean, generally, generally, people do not argue with the television set or boomers, right?
Because television set doesn't have any input, you can't change its behavior, even though it's a complicated thing.
People don't argue with the weather, even though the weather is an incredibly complicated thing that, you know, has inputs and outputs.
So people only and forever debate with one entity in the universe, which is the human mind, at least sane people, right?
I mean, if you're arguing with a light switch, you're probably not doing very well mentally, in which case the first caller might date you.
Oh, little burn, little burn, but kind of accurate.
So if we treat human consciousness as absolutely unique within the universe, then we can't say that human consciousness is just like everything else in the universe because we treat it as absolutely unique.
Now, if we go to human consciousness and we say the content of your mind is incorrect and needs to be changed for the better, which we don't do with the television, right?
We don't argue with the television and say, you should have better programming.
I mean, we would go to the people who write and produce the shows and say, well, you should have better programming, but we wouldn't say that to the TV itself.
So the moment that we go to a human consciousness and only human consciousness, the signaling that is completely unique in the universe, and the moment we try to change the contents of that consciousness by an appeal to reason and evidence, we're saying that only human consciousness has the capacity to change its mind based on reason and evidence.
We don't try and use reason with horses or rocks or clouds or anything like that.
We only use reason for the human mind.
Now, free will is our capacity to compare proposed actions to ideal standards.
You know, if you want to lose weight, should you eat the cheesecake?
Well, if you want to lose weight, you probably shouldn't, whereas animals would generally eat the cheesecake until they get sick.
If I want to be moral, I should be honest.
If courage is a virtue, I should act in a manner that is in accordance with that virtue.
So free will is our capacity, not the absolute, because it's free will.
It's the possibility.
It's our capacity to compare proposed actions to ideal standards.
Now, you can't possibly argue against this.
I mean, you try, but you'll fail.
And not because I'm such a great debater, but because it's logically impossible.
You cannot argue against that.
Because if you say to someone, I disagree with you that we have the capacity to compare proposed actions to ideal standards, then we're saying you should compare your response to my argument with its truth.
So you should accept that my argument is true, and therefore you should change your behavior in what you say, because we can't tell what people think.
We can only tell what they say, right?
So your actions should change in accordance with an ideal standard called the truth, which I'm communicating to you.
So if you're trying to change someone's mind through appeal to an ideal standard called the truth, consistency, rationality, evidence, or whatever, then you are fully accepting that human mind has the capacity to compare proposed actions to ideal standards.
It cannot be argued against unless you simply don't participate in the debate at all, if that makes sense.
So I don't think that we would have a big difference between our understandings of free will, comparing proposed actions to ideal standards.
I have no problem with that.
I guess what we would need to narrow down is, let's say we had a crystal ball in 10 years' time.
Is that something that we have a say in?
Sorry, but I don't know what do you mean by a Crystal ball in 10 years' time?
Well, forget the crystal ball.
Let's just say we can see 10 years into the future.
But we can't see 10 years into the future.
Well, let's just.
No, no, no, no, we can't.
No, that's like saying in math: okay, let's say that two and two make five and go from there.
It's like, but two and two doesn't make five, so everything we conclude from that which is impossible is false.
Then let me rephrase it to where it would be possible.
So let's say 10 years into the future.
Is it something that we have a say in or is it?
I'm not sure what you mean by 10 years into the future.
That didn't clarify.
So what is 10 years into the future?
This would be 2035.
Yeah, but we can't see 10 years in the future.
No, you don't have to see it.
Okay, so what are you saying?
Is it, we're just asking, is it something we have a say in that we can actually have free will in our ability to change it?
Or is it concrete?
It's what concrete?
Is the world 10 years into the future concrete?
By concrete, do you mean we are unable to change it?
Let's say your actions, are you able to change it in a way?
See, this comes back to if determined, Don't just finish your question.
Don't give me tangents, but I don't understand this in report.
So what do you think?
I see what you're saying.
Because you said you were a compatibilist, right?
Nope, no, I did not say that.
You brought up compatibilism.
I defined it.
I didn't say it was.
I'm an absolute free willer.
Yeah, go ahead.
Okay, so you believe in absolute free will?
I mean, I absolutely believe in free will.
I don't know what absolute free will means.
I mean, I can't choose to fly unaided.
But anyway, go ahead with your 10 years, 2035.
What are you doing with 2035?
Well, I'm trying to think of the best way to explain this, but what it comes down to is if you have free will, if you do have free will, then you would have had to have designed this from the start.
I don't know what you're talking about.
Designed what from the start?
Again, again, this goes back to pantheism where you are the whole system.
Have you done a lot of drugs?
You said you believe in free will.
I'm just curious.
Have you done a lot of drugs?
Do you believe in free will?
I'm just curious.
You don't have to answer, but I am curious.
Have you done a lot of drugs?
Sure.
Let's say I've done all the drugs.
Yes, I've done a lot of drugs.
Do you think that's done any harm to your reasoning?
I don't think so.
Because you're bad at it.
Believe in free will.
No, but you're bad at reasoning.
And I'm not disparaging.
There's tons of things I'm bad at.
I mean, I'm bad at writing operas, but I don't go in and try and write operas.
So you're not good at reasoning.
Well, science is on the side of determinism and saying that you don't have control of the outcome.
But you're saying that you believe in free will.
No, free will is morally true.
It's not something I sorry.
Free will is logically true.
It's logically valid.
It's not like I believe in it, like I just believe, you know, it's validated.
And everyone who debates with me also accepts it because you're trying to change my mind, right?
Well, I'm not sure.
This could be a computer program that I was programmed to try and change your mind.
Oh, okay.
Well, then.
If you bring it to simulation theory, is that unreasonable?
Well, no, see, I'm just going to dump him because that's my programming.
All right.
No problem, man.
I appreciate the drug.
It sounds like you don't have an argument.
Yeah, kids don't do drugs.
Please don't do drugs.
The machinery of the brain is very easy to wreck.
All right.
Last one, last one.
Let's end with a bang.
Australian something, something.
G'day.
What's on your mind?
Hello.
Mate.
Yes, just one quick question for you.
And I'm almost reluctant to put it forward to you, considering your remarks for the last one, but I think you'll take it in good faith.
So, Stefan, I've been watching you for many years on YouTube before you were banished.
And I think you've done remarkable work.
And you have a deep understanding of many of history's greatest minds in the field of philosophy.
So I'd love, Stefan, if you could just run a quick exercise.
And by all means, I'm not saying that you are speaking their words for them.
But if you could imagine your three favorite philosophers and you're just having a quick 30-second conversation with them, and what would be their take on the year 2025 and the state of the world?
Thank you, Stefan.
Three favorite philosophers.
So Ayn Rand would say that we're in the final chapter of Atlas Schrut.
Aristotle would be immensely impressed at our scientific advancements, but horrified at our lack of a high trust society.
And Plato would say that we have surrendered to the bronze people by giving everyone a vote, and that's why our society is such a mess.
What's to look forward to then?
Peacefulparenting.com, that we can finally take the ethics of the non-aggression principle and apply them to children, which I'm appalled that no philosopher really has done before me.
So yeah, peacefulparenting.com.
The book is free.
I hope you would check it out.
All right.
Thank you.
Thank you, man.
Appreciate it.
All right.
The guy who starts with B. Yes.
Can you hear me?
Yes, go ahead.
So kind of piggybacking off of the last question there, what do we have to list forward to?
I think there's a lot of maybe nihilism in this environment right now.
Well, sorry, to be technical, it's not in the environment.
It's in people's specific thoughts.
But go ahead.
Yes.
Yes.
You're correct.
It's in people's thoughts, their actions.
But I think we're going into, or this is the best time to be alive.
Like, throw a little bit of positivity out there.
Oh, yeah, no question.
So where do you see like where maybe this is getting a little bit too specific, but where do you see society heading as we're going like as we're deteriorating and we're improving at the same time?
Yeah, maybe it's a very generic question.
No, no, I appreciate that.
So, but, and I hate to be annoying, but that question comes From a passivity.
Society doesn't go anywhere.
Society is the result of strong-willed individuals making choices.
And I don't by that, I don't mean prominent individuals or famous individuals.
It's every particular.
Sorry, can you stop making all that background noise or mute yourself?
My Lord.
I don't know.
I try not to call into shows and then play a trumpet because it seems kind of rude.
So there is no direction to society other than what each individual wills.
And by society, of course, we may have only a smaller effect on our own personal relationships and so on.
But you promote virtue and you thwart evil and you live with integrity and courage in your personal relationships, which means you try to reform those who are corrupt.
And if they won't reform, I strongly suggest ostracism because you don't want to break bread with people who'd rather break your neck.
So it is the choice of each individual as to where society goes.
And each individual has their own particular sphere of influence.
And you never know how it's going to land.
You might post something somewhere on social media that tickles the mind, heart, or fancy of somebody with amazing resources, huge amounts of money, incredible rhetorical skills.
You just never know what influence you're going to have.
So act and bend your will to the promotion of virtue and the thwarting of vice every time you can, like within reason.
I mean, we don't want to be self-destructive about it because we want maximum philosophy, which means keep going and don't get tossed into gulag.
So it is each individual.
Now, my concern, and this is not anything personal to you, I'm sure you're a fine and wonderful fellow.
Most of my listeners are.
So I mean, this is all due respect and positivity.
But direction of society is passive talk.
Where is society headed?
Like you're an observer.
Hey, well, I wonder where that train's going.
Hey, I wonder where that plane is going.
It's heading that way.
Maybe it's going.
It's passive.
So don't look at society like it's got a direction or a momentum.
Look at society as something that you can influence, affect, and change through your willed action and the promotion of virtue and the subsequent, of course, inevitable thwarting of evil and vice and its plans and goals.
So there is, unfortunately, a lot of people out there who counsel inaction, right?
You know, the old saying that the only thing that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men and women to do nothing.
So there's a lot of people out there who counsel inaction.
This was my big issue with QAnon.
Remember, QAnon is trust the plan.
Jeff Sessions is doing this and then there's going to be this and then there's going to be that.
And it's all just like, yeah, don't worry, man.
We got it covered.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, we got it covered.
That's a terrible thing.
Like, if your child is drowning and you're not a very good swimmer, but some guy says, I'm an Olympic swimmer.
I'm going to go out and save you.
I'm a lifeguard and an Olympic swimmer.
I'm going to go out and save your boy.
Wait here.
The currents are strong.
And then the Olympic swimmer slash lifeguard goes out to your kid, treads water, and watch your child drown, they've just killed your kid.
Because through claiming that they've got it all handled and they're not doing anything to save your child, they have prevented you from doing the things that would be necessary to save your child, such as swimming out with a lifesaver or something like that, right?
So there is a lot of anxiety in the confrontation of corruption and immorality.
Of course, I think I say this with some fairly personal credibility in these matters.
But there is a great deal of stress and anxiety in promoting virtue and the necessary light cast by promoting virtue, which is thwarting evildoers who have their say as well.
The enemy always has his response, his rebuttal.
You make a move in chest, the other guy makes his move back, and some of those moves can be pretty aggressive.
So there's a lot of people who are anxious about the world and where they see it heading.
And the only answer that I can tell you is don't be passive.
Don't be violent, obviously.
Don't be passive.
If you see a falsehood, call it out.
If you see somebody being corrupt, call it out.
And if they won't reform their corruption, I don't have people in my life who are corrupt.
I just don't.
I won't, like in a million years.
And that works out pretty well.
So as far as society, I don't like to make predictions because predictions is passivity.
That's why I got kind of annoyed with the guy for like 2035.
We're going to travel through time.
It's like, no, we're not.
It's not possible.
So, I mean, if we traveled through time, we'd end up hanging in space because the world would be in a vastly different place because it keeps rocketing around the solar system and rocketing around the galaxy.
So as far as where society is going to be, well, I mean, if nobody does anything, it's going to get worse.
But it's sort of like saying, you know, some guy's been gaining, you know, five pounds a month for the last three years.
Where do you see him in the future?
It's like, I don't like to say that because he could decide to start losing weight tomorrow.
And that's what I want to encourage, if that makes sense.
So thank you for the elaborate explanation.
So besides each individual reforming themselves, is there something collective?
No, no, no, I didn't say reforming themselves.
What did you get from what I said?
But not reforming.
Sorry.
What was the big push about what I said there?
Was it just about yourself?
No, no, no.
Each individual basically living or taking action that is moral, that is not corrupt.
Each individual themselves to push that idea.
Promote virtue?
Yeah.
Take your steps to promote virtue and do not consort with evildoers.
Do we?
Are you still with me?
Yeah, I have no big plan.
I mean, we know what the basic virtues are.
Non-aggression principle, reproperty, and person.
Promote virtue.
Yeah, I'm so sorry.
I'm going to close it off here because your connection is too bad.
But yeah, promote virtue and you're going to get some blowback and it's going to be tough at times, but at least you won't have the regret of watching evil take over the world without resistance.
And if we don't act to promote virtue and thwart evil, evil will win.
If we do, we can't be guaranteed a victory, but at least we won't have the endless regret of cucking out before a necessary fight that our ancestors took on that we should not reject.
All right.
Well, thank you, everyone, for, as usual, a wonderful and fantastic, great, deep, and meaningful conversation.
I really, really do appreciate it.
What a great pleasure to be able to chat philosophy with you at a moment's notice.
And thank you, of course, to our good friend, Mr. Musk.
Mr. Musk also makes great perfumes, I think.
But I really do appreciate everyone dropping by today.
Thank you to Elon for this wonderful free speech platform.
Thank you, everyone, who called in.
Even the people who annoyed me are very, very interesting and stimulating.
Have yourselves a great evening.
I will talk to you soon.
▲
Export Selection