Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux - The TRUE Origins of Evil! Twitter/X Space

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 4, 2025 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

01:47:54

The TRUE Origins of Evil! Twitter/X Space

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hey, everybody.
	Hope you're doing well.
	It is moi, Steve Molyneux from Free Domain.
	Hope you're doing well.
	End of the month.
	If you would like to help out the show, boy, it would be gratefully, humbly, and deeply appreciated.
	No commercials, no sponsors.
	You and me, raw conversation, unfiltered, unedited, wholesome, and solid.
	So if you could go to freedomain.com/slash donate, that's freedomain.com/slash donate, help pump up those rookie numbers for the end of the month.
	I would be very appreciative.
	Freedomain.com slash donate.
	All right.
	I had a speech, but Jacob, I'm sure, will outstrip me vastly.
	Jacob, what is on your mind, my friend?
	How can philosophy help you today?
	Hello.
	Sorry.
	I am just at work.
	I was just, I'm in Australia, so it's quite early here, but I saw your live pop up and I wanted to jump on quickly.
	And I only have my phone.
	I don't have a headset, so I hope that sounds all right.
	Yeah, it's good.
	And I'm a little bit nervous.
	So anyway, I have a lot of thoughts about the origins of evil, but they're not very ordered, but very well ordered at the moment.
	But basically, I feel like there's something entropy and chaos would be evil and order and good.
	Order is good.
	So an ordered brain can produce good results, whereas a chaotic brain presuit often results in negative or harmful things.
	I can't think of anything else smart to say about that at the moment, if you have anything.
	Yeah, I do.
	I've heard this order versus chaos thing.
	I think it comes out of a sort of Jordan Peterson thing, and I'm sure he gets it from somewhere else, although Jordan Peterson certainly has his own original thoughts.
	But what's the order chaos thing?
	I'm such a DD guy from when I was younger that I could just think of lawful versus chaotic.
	So what is the lawful chaos distinction or the order chaos distinction?
	How would I differentiate between those two in my mind?
	So what brought me to thinking about this stuff is trying to universalize good and evil and thinking about the early universe and particles and gravity and black holes and things like that.
	And things that aren't ordered are destructive and things that are well ordered create life and consistency.
	And so, yeah, I don't know if that answers the question, but that's just a little bit more about what I think about it.
	It sounds a little bit like I always have to watch this tendency myself to argue by synonym.
	Right.
	So ordered is well ordered.
	Ordered is well constructed.
	Yes.
	Good is positive.
	You know, positive is helpful.
	You know, it all just a bunch of synonyms in a way.
	So what is the mental story?
	Sorry.
	Okay, you go ahead.
	Okay.
	I'm nervous, like I said.
	So, but that's not an excuse for being rude.
	So the order reflects in the brain.
	And so there's brain neurons, which are a result of the order throughout life, throughout proteins coming together and being consistent.
	And so neural pathways reflect the same sort of patterns, possibly.
	And so when your neural pathways are all lined up and functioning properly, then you can understand.
	See, you're going from order to lined up.
	That's the positive.
	And I haven't spent enough time.
	No, it's a tough thing to figure out.
	And so I'm sort of halfway between the poles of order and chaos, which I'll get to in a second here.
	But I'm still trying to understand.
	I mean, people like order, and I guess order is good, but order could mean just about anything.
	Order could mean, you know, some fascist or communist dictatorship that keeps order by throwing all dissidents in prison.
	And there's a certain amount of order to that.
	And there's less chaos in a way.
	But, you know, if you teach people free thinking, you get really chaotic debates and arguments.
	And culture tends to get sort of half smashed by the hammer blows of reason and evidence.
	So there's a lot of chaos in transitions.
	There was a lot of chaos in the economy when we were transitioning from slavery and serfdom to relative free market in labor.
	So there's, you know, I sort of think of the creative destruction of the free market and all that kind of stuff.
	So I don't know, man.
	Freedom breeds a lot of chaos and a lot of, I sort of think of the stagnation of the Chinese society, which for like 6,000 years basically copy-pasted every day today and didn't really advance and then hit a deep shock when the somewhat chaotic progress of the Europeans smashed into them in particular in the 19th century.
	So I'm trying to understand what is meant by order versus chaos philosophically, if that makes sense.
	Yeah, I understand.
	And I think the problem is that I was trying to universalize and say everything that, and so a product of me saying universalizing things is that everything chaotic is bad and everything orderly is evil and everything orderly is good and all that.
	Obviously, that's not true.
	So there's not, it's hard to universalize maybe those terms, but there's universal principles behind the terms that I think we can look at to understand good and evil better.
	Yeah, I think in terms of the body, just looking at it biologically, we got to the top of the food chain from a combination of order and chaos.
	And this is sort of the tinkering that goes on with Darwinian evolution, that you need obviously a large set, an overwhelming set of stable genetics.
	However, if there's no randomness, if there's no chaos, then there's actually no evolution.
	Like we would simply be single-celled organisms in a primordial soup.
	So there has to be this kind of tinkering and chaos when it comes to simply being able to evolve and the random mutations, most of which are not helpful, but a few of which are helpful that characterize the progress of life to our pinnacle of intellect over four billion years.
	Of course, you need a certain amount of stability.
	Otherwise, you're just some weird mutated thing that doesn't survive.
	But you also do need a certain amount of dice rolls in your genetics for evolution to work and for us to get the brains to talk about these kinds of things.
	So I have an uneasy relationship to both order and chaos, if that makes sense.
	When I went to boarding school, there was order.
	You know, like you would get caned if you did something wrong.
	So there was order, but there was no creativity.
	There was no spontaneity.
	There was no humor.
	It was military style.
	In the military, there's order, but not a lot of creativity, which is sort of necessary in war.
	So I have a challenge with, you know, order being good and chaos being bad.
	If you take your life and you start a business, you go from a salaried job to starting a business.
	I know this myself.
	You go from order to chaos, but the rewards can be enormous.
	I'm so sorry.
	Go ahead.
	I think so.
	Yeah, I think good has come from good only exists with humans when there's morality, when there's decision making.
	Is that right?
	Is that fair to say?
	Yeah.
	So in order for any entity to be bound by moral standards, they have to be capable of processing morale.
	So which is why we don't let children sign contracts, and it's why we don't let people with significant intellectual handicaps like IQs of, I don't know, 60 or below.
	We don't let them sign contracts because they can't really understand what it is that they're doing.
	So you have to have the capacity to process moral abstractions in order to be bound by moral rules.
	So go ahead.
	So.
	This is just a couple of things I'm trying to figure out there, but with the universalization, universalizing things and saying something exists, it's a bit hard with good and evil because to be good, you have to have a human that can make decisions.
	So it didn't really exist before we came about is one thing.
	But then, so there's no, there's nothing, yeah, it's not a thing, but it is still something you can measure, I guess.
	And so the way to measure it would be the harm that people are causing.
	And that can also reflect in brains.
	Hang on.
	So hang on, hang on.
	So I'm saying that evil, sorry, evil is the harm that people are causing?
	One way to describe the evil to be able to, if you're going to be able to point at it and say what it is, I think the only place you could find it is in the brain, maybe.
	I'm sorry, what you mean?
	Do you mean harm in the brain?
	Yes, harm in the brain.
	When you do things, do the wrong thing to people, especially children, it creates negative thought and can't.
	That's not true.
	No, no, don't.
	That's not true.
	I mean, if it was painful, well, it could, yeah, for sure.
	But for a lot of people, they get off on, they enjoy harming and hurting and sometimes even torturing children.
	Like it's an ugly side of human beings.
	Yeah, so what I'm saying is that behavior would be reflected in the child's brain that that had happened to them, that evil actions had happened to them.
	It would be stored in memory.
	It would be measurable with the right brain scanners would be able to detect that.
	And so that is a measure of evil.
	So you would say dysfunction in the child's mind would be visible in some sort of MRI or some sort of scan.
	Yeah.
	And from there, you would know that the child was being harmed by abuse of some kind.
	Is that right?
	Yes, that's yes.
	Okay.
	And I've certainly made that case before.
	And I think that's something that should, of course, happen in society, but it won't happen in society because the children who most need moral protection have no say in our society whatsoever.
	They don't vote.
	They can't choose where they go to school.
	They obviously can't choose their parents for biological reasons.
	So the children who need the most moral protection have the least moral voice in society.
	It's really terrible.
	They are in many ways the new serfs.
	Children are just the new serfs.
	You use them as collateral to borrow money against their future earnings.
	You stuff them into these horrible lack of concentration camps known as school, quote, education.
	And you drug them if they dislike what's going on and you constantly blame them for everything that's wrong with the system.
	I mean, they really are.
	We treat children so abysmally wretchedly that, I mean, almost they'd be better off working in the fields.
	100%.
	At least they'd be learning some practical skills.
	So I certainly agree with you that the effects of evil can probably be measured quite accurately in a child's brain.
	But looking at the effects of evil doesn't tell us about the origins of evil.
	So, yeah, no, it doesn't.
	But I'm just trying to relate how I have been thinking about the topics for a while.
	And so that's just one side of it is how evil can be reflected, not just in childs, but in the adults, the grown adult, after it's, you know, been through whatever it has been through as an adult, you can still find those memories with the right skin and technology.
	I think AI with Neuralink will even be able to read memories and possibly implant memories.
	Okay, but I don't think we're getting too far along.
	I don't think we're getting too far along to the origins of evil.
	Hang on, just collect yourself.
	Hang on, collect your thoughts.
	And I will take someone else and you're welcome back later on in the show, but I appreciate your feedback.
	Thank you, Stefan.
	Okay, take care.
	Bye.
	Dran Einen.
	Dran Einen?
	Dranainen.
	Dragon.
	Hit me with your fiery breath of reason, my friend.
	Don't forget to unmute.
	Hello, man.
	Yeah.
	So what's your answer to the origin of evil?
	Well, the origin of evil, to me, that there's sort of two places for it.
	One is child abuse, which is not a great answer because it's sort of self-encapitated.
	But to me, the definition of evil is when you create a moral rule and then carve out an exception for yourself.
	So for instance, a teacher who says to her students, like a government teacher says to her students, you should never use violence to get what you want.
	You can't push a kid over and take his sandwich.
	You can't elbow a kid in the face and take his toy.
	You can never use violence to get what you want.
	And then if a child sticks up his hand and says, hang on a sec, teach, I mean, don't you get your paycheck from our parents through taxes, which are force?
	So how can you say to us, we shouldn't get our benefits through force, but you do.
	And things like that, right?
	I mean, the government, of course, sets up a system where you cannot initiate the use of force to get things done, but the government is kind of defined as an agency of coercion.
	And so on.
	The parents, of course, who hit their children saying don't hit people.
	The parents who say to their child when the child is little, you are responsible for not studying for that spelling test.
	You know, the one in grade eight that you didn't do very well on.
	You knew two or three weeks ahead of time that you were going to have to do that test.
	And you are responsible for having failed to study for that test.
	And you're going to be punished because you did badly, even though I repeatedly told you to study for the test, blah, blah, blah.
	So they get mad at the kid at the age of, I don't know, seven, eight, nine, 10, 12, or whatever it is.
	You knew that test was coming.
	You failed to study for it.
	And that's really bad.
	And then when the children get older and the children, as adults say to the parents, you know, you did some pretty bad parenting there, mom and dad.
	You did some pretty bad parenting.
	You yelled, you called us names.
	You used force.
	You grounded us.
	You jammed us down on the stairs in timeouts.
	You spanked us and so on, right?
	And they say, hey, hey, man, we did the best we could, but the knowledge we had, I was raised badly.
	And I raised you better than I was raised.
	And, you know, there's no manual for parenting.
	And it's like, well, of course there is.
	So is it more important to study for a spelling test or more important to learn?
	Hang on, hang on, hang on, hang on, hang on, hang on.
	Yeah, yeah, sure, sure.
	Hang on.
	I don't know what it is with people.
	It's just wild to me.
	I'm in the middle of talking.
	It's so funny.
	Oh, well, I will continue to pound the drum of basic human politeness until it is heard throughout the universe.
	All right.
	So, yeah, when people create moral rules that they claim are universal, that they carve out a little exception for themselves.
	The thief who takes your property desperately wants to keep your property.
	So he wants to violate your property rights while at the same time maintaining his own property rights.
	That's kind of a contradiction that is innate to being a thief.
	So creating moral rules And then creating subtle little exceptions for yourself and then exploding with rage whenever these contradictions are pointed out.
	That to me is pretty corrupt.
	And then acting on that is kind of evil.
	Okay, go ahead.
	Yeah, so I was saying that sounds more like the propagation of evil, not the real origin, right?
	Because I was thinking evil is like an intrinsic attribute of the whole existence, right?
	Or all.
	No, sorry, I don't know what that means, an intrinsic attribute of the whole existence.
	If you could explain that, I'd appreciate it.
	It's like it was always a possibility, you know?
	Well, okay.
	Well, we wouldn't be talking about it if it wasn't a possibility.
	So, right.
	So, the origin of evil is like an intrinsic possibility to exist.
	And you're talking about the propagation of evil is like through ignorance, through ignorant actions, like, you know, be an asshole and further the trauma onto other people and such.
	And they again propagate that evil to the next around them and so forth and so on.
	You know?
	I'm sorry, I'm still not sure what you're trying to say about the origins of evil.
	Yeah, maybe it didn't have our origins, you know?
	Just our timeless attribute to the whole everything, to the eternity, you know.
	Okay, and listen, I appreciate everyone who calls in.
	I just wanted to point out that if you say evil is a timeless attribute of eternity, you're not really adding much to the discussion.
	Evil is not present in nature.
	I mean, you look at hermit crabs, they will steal each other's shells.
	You, of course, look at every creature that lays eggs has every meat-eating creature around it trying to steal those eggs, right?
	If you've ever seen, I remember many years ago going on a romantic walk with a woman, and we were down with the river.
	It was sunset, beautiful, lily pads and little insects whirring above the lily pads, and the sun going down and lighting up the trees, candy floss clouds in the sky, fading blue, deep azure, like God's own eyeball looking at us.
	It was just a beautiful, beautiful moment.
	And then we saw swans.
	And it was beautiful to see the swans slowly gliding across the lake.
	And then we saw ducks and ducklings.
	It was magical.
	I was like, man, this is a sign.
	We're going to be together forever.
	And then one of the swans darted forward and ate a duckling.
	It was like, oh dear, good feeling's gone.
	Good feeling's gone.
	It is slightly less, I would say slightly less romantic in that circumstance to see the old swan mowing down on a duckling.
	Bad, bad scene.
	But of course, the swan was not immoral.
	It was not evil.
	It was simply trying to get the most resources for the least amount of effort.
	You know, I remember many years ago, I was in Florida with my family, and my daughter has always had a fascination with lizards, catching lizards.
	We had a lizard for a while as a pet.
	And when we were in Australia, she caught a big, big giant lizard.
	And so she wanted to try feeding the gators.
	So she went into the gator enclosure and there was a gator guy there.
	And I was like, is it safe?
	He's like, yeah, yeah, yeah.
	It's totally safe.
	I mean, if somebody's about to hand you a Big Mac, you're not going to go hunting, right?
	And so they know that food is coming, so they don't bother going to hunt.
	So for them, having little kids feed them chunks of meat is the easiest way for them to get resources, right?
	So that's all what happens in nature.
	There's no contracts, there's no morals, there's no non-aggression principle, and so on.
	So evil came into existence the moment that someone tried to tell someone else to be good and not just efficient and not just hedonistic, because hedonism and efficiency is the hallmark of nature.
	So the moment somebody tried to say, this is good, rather than this is just hedonistic, that's when good and therefore evil was first brought into existence, if that makes sense.
	So it has to be something that has predated humanity as a whole because it doesn't exist in nature and it only exists.
	I mean, apes don't have morals.
	They have in-group preference, genetic proximity instincts.
	They have what is efficient and what is hedonistic.
	There's no concept of rape among even animals that use force to achieve sexual activity, right?
	I mean, dolphins and ducks in particular.
	So evil has to occur when there is an acceptance of the good that does not fall into the classification of efficiency and hedonism.
	And the good has to be something that goes against efficiency and hedonism, right?
	In the same way that there's no diet book that says, eat whatever tastes the best for you and eat a lot of it, because that's, isn't that what we want to do as a whole?
	What I want to do as a whole is sit down with a big vat of cheesecake or carrot cake and just mow down until my ass explodes.
	That's the general tendency to do what feels good, right?
	And so we have to have something in morality that goes against what feels good.
	And evil is very efficient.
	Corruption is very efficient.
	If you're the only thief in a world where nobody steals, it's incredibly efficient because nobody even really thinks about stealing.
	Everybody leaves their stuff out.
	There's no locked doors, right?
	There's no locked windows.
	And if you take something, because nobody's really stealing, everyone thinks, oh, damn, I must have just misplaced it or something like that, right?
	When I was a kid, and I would lose something, and then it would turn up later in a place I'd already looked.
	I would have this sort of vague fantasy.
	Hey, man, I know what happened.
	Space aliens beamed up my keys to study them and then beamed them back down, but in a slightly different location because it's not an exact science to beam things around.
	So evil is efficient, otherwise it wouldn't exist.
	Evil is Darwinian.
	Evil is a way to get resources without having to work, right?
	So if you look at a great evil such as rape, rape is a way of impregnating a woman without having to woo and win her and get her love and commitment and attachment and affection and maintain the relationship.
	It is a brute force method to get a particular result without having to put the work in.
	All evil, in a sense, is a desire for the unearned.
	If you just go and steal a loaf of bread, well, I don't know if you've ever tried to make bread, but it's a complicated business.
	And it's a whole lot easier to just go and steal some bread and steal some bread.
	Learning how to get what you want through productivity and negotiations, learning a skill.
	Maybe you're really good at digging ditches.
	Maybe you're really good at building nuclear reactors.
	Maybe you're really good at singing or playing an instrument and you can busk or something like that.
	Well, that's a lot of work to get resources.
	For me, like I started learning computer programming when I was 11 years old, and it wasn't for like, I don't know, 16 or 17 years that I ended up being able to make some money at it.
	So it is very efficient to steal.
	It is very efficient to use force to get what you want.
	And that's Daridian.
	It is easier to steal an egg and get calories that way than to have to eat all of the food that is required to build an egg inside your belly.
	So evil arises with humanity.
	Evil is very efficient, and virtue has to be something that goes against efficiency and hedonism.
	Because if human beings always did what they wanted and what they wanted was the good, then we would need no science or no discipline or no theory of morality.
	Morality is specifically there to tell you not to do the stuff that you really want to do or would find efficient the animal within you who wants the greatest reward for the least effort in an amoral fashion as nature is.
	So if you've ever seen roadkill like in a warm climate or it's a cold climate too, you see roadkill by the side of the road and there's a bunch of birds pecking at it.
	Why?
	Because it's a lot easier to peck at roadkill than it is to go and try and catch your own food.
	It's efficient.
	So morality, like the disciplines of nutrition and exercise, is there to get you to do the things you don't really want to do.
	Exercising often feels uncomfortable.
	If you had the same symptoms of exercise without exercising, you'd think you were unwell.
	Oh no, I'm cramping.
	And the science of diet is there to tell you to eat what is good for you rather than what your tongue lusts after, right?
	It's the tongue versus the body.
	What the tongue likes versus what the body needs.
	Now, animals do not really deny themselves for the sake of the good.
	I mean, obviously birds are programmed to go and get a bunch of food and feed it to their babies and so on, but that's not virtue.
	That is simply an instinct.
	It's what they do.
	Ducklings, it's the cutest thing, right?
	I mean, we've had a whole bunch of ducks over the years and ducklings will follow the largest thing they see when they're born.
	And it is the cutest thing in the world.
	When my daughter was young to see her wandering all over hell's half acre with all these ducklings trailing behind her, it's cool.
	Of course, you know, you can imagine, oh, they like me.
	It's like, no, they're just programmed that way, which is fine.
	So, yeah, morality has to go against efficiency and hedonism because efficiency and hedonism lead you to use force, use deception, use theft to get what it is that you want.
	Josh, what are your thoughts on this subject?
	I'd love to hear.
	Yes, sir.
	You are not in my ear.
	Oh, hello, Stefan.
	Yes, sir.
	Can I hear you, correct?
	Go ahead.
	Hi, thanks for giving me a mic here.
	It's always great to listen to you, Stefan.
	You're one of the great minds of our time.
	Thank you.
	It's excellent that you're on X. Third time talking to you on X. This time I'm not driving.
	No.
	Okay, Stefan, we were having a conversation the other day, me and a group of people, and we were talking about hierarchies.
	And somehow we were talking about the hip-hop industry.
	And there was this, there was a female there, and she, I ended up getting into a repartee with her, I suppose, because I somehow, I asked her, do you think Jay-Z is demonic?
	And she said, I don't know.
	I don't know who he is.
	I've never met him, so I'm not going to say that he's demonic.
	So there's a group of people there, and she's a spiritualist.
	She used to be a Catholic, then she's a spiritualist now.
	I'm Catholic.
	And there was an atheist there.
	And I asked the atheist, I said, Mr. Atheist, is Jay-Z demonic?
	And he said, yes.
	So we started getting into this conversation about, like, Jay-Z demonic.
	Sorry, I just lost your audio.
	Can you fix your mic or something?
	Yeah.
	One second, I'll get off the door.
	Yeah.
	All right, there you go.
	Go ahead.
	All right, there you go.
	Go ahead.
	Okay, good, good, good.
	So, okay, so I made the claim that Jay-Z was demonic.
	Sorry, you're still very faint.
	You're still very faint.
	And also, I've got an echo.
	And also, I've got an echo.
	Really?
	Oh.
	I have audio issues all the time, Stefan.
	If you're getting an echo, then you might have to go on mute, because I have a Samsung.
	I don't know if this would be appropriate for you to go on mute, but that's the solution.
	Yeah, I don't know.
	It's a funny thing, you know?
	I mean, honestly, I mean, just get a headset.
	They're like 20 bucks.
	It's really not that complicated.
	All right, so Landon.
	Perhaps we can get your thoughts on the subject.
	What's on your mind?
	Hello, hello.
	Going once, going twice.
	Can you hear me?
	Excuse me.
	Sorry, my mic was muted.
	No problem.
	Thank you.
	I think that evil is inefficient, and I'd like to back up that argument.
	First of all, would you rather spend time with a positive, productive person or like an ornery, lazy person that's like, oh, go get me this, go get me that, just leaving their garbage around?
	Or would you rather spend time with somebody who's like, positive, productive, keeps a clean house?
	Sure.
	Okay.
	So, in my opinion, community is much more efficient than being solo.
	And evil equals ostracism and a lower rate of survival.
	So, if you have a stronger community, like a strong family, you have a much more chance of having a prosperous life.
	So, are you saying that evil equals ostracism?
	Yes.
	I'm saying that if you act evil, you will be ostracized from a solid community, a community with values and morals, a strong, solid community, like a family.
	You know?
	Sorry, are you saying that families as a whole ostracize evildoers?
	Yes.
	Because they violate family values and they weaken the family as a whole and lower their rate of survival.
	Okay.
	So, given that there are a lot of evildoers in the world, are you saying that all evildoers as a whole are without family because they've been ostracized?
	Well, they kind of join together, but then you end up with like a bunch of nagging old hen narcissists.
	No, no, hang on, hang on.
	I need you to listen to my question and try to answer it.
	Okay?
	So, your theory is, and it's a fine theory, I'm not, you know, I just want to run it through.
	So, your theory is that evildoers get ostracized from their social group, right?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	So, by that logic, there should be a significant number of evildoers who are isolated and rejected by their social group, their family, their friends, and so on.
	Right?
	They should end up alone.
	Absolutely.
	Absolutely.
	Look at the streets of like San Francisco and all the homeless.
	Wait, hang on.
	Are you saying that all the homeless are...
	Sorry.
	Are you saying that all the homeless are evildoers who are ostracized by their family?
	I'm not saying that.
	I'm saying that they're affected by evil more so than someone who's productive and has a job.
	Okay, hang on.
	Now my head is spinning, right?
	So I said, there should be a lot of evildoers who are ostracized by the family.
	And you said, look at the homeless.
	And I said, are you saying the homeless are evildoers?
	And you said, no.
	So I'm a little confused now.
	They're people who are affected by evil, right?
	You said evil doses.
	I'm not saying that.
	I'm not saying that all homeless people are evil.
	Okay, so then that's not responsible for the people.
	People who are homeless make poor life choices.
	And people who make poor life choices are, in my opinion, more likely to be evil.
	So it's just logical.
	It rationalizes.
	I don't think calling something logical makes it logical, but okay, so what percentage of people would you say are evil?
	Just roughly.
	I'm not saying down to the list.
	What's the definition of evil?
	Really?
	Like, how evil is evil?
	What are you talking about?
	Someone who stole a pen or somebody.
	Hey, bro, you're using the term evil.
	Don't ask me what it means.
	You're using the term.
	You can't use the term repeatedly and then ask me what it means because you are working with the definition of evil.
	You said evil is inefficient.
	Evil gets ostracized.
	So what do you mean by evil?
	Well, by evil, I would say I would say that the universe has a balance and there's productive people and there's destructive people.
	There's people who build and people who destroy.
	There's people who produce and people who consume.
	And it's pretty binary, maybe some gray area, but I would say that the destructive, chaotic, selfish people are evil.
	And really, when it comes down to it, I think the best description of evil would be selfishness.
	Okay, but you're using synonyms for evil, like destructive.
	And of course, things can be destructive without being evil.
	People can also be selfish without being evil.
	I mean, somebody.
	That's the binary that I was just trying to.
	Okay, so are you going to have a habit of talking when I'm in the middle of talking?
	Because it's really rude.
	I'll try not to.
	Well, no, just don't.
	You don't have to try not to.
	It's not that hard to wait till I finish talking, right?
	Okay, so your definition of evil is selfish.
	Now, by that means, what that would mean that it's impossible to be selfish without being evil.
	All selfishness is evil.
	Is that right?
	I mean, am I saying that?
	Does one equal the other?
	Yeah, you said the definition of evil is selfishness.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, like pure selfishness would be the definition of evil.
	Okay.
	So you can be selfish in a way that you're looking out for your own survival, right?
	But I guess it depends on where your worldview is coming from, how you experience life.
	Hang on, how you experience life is a word salad.
	It doesn't help me understand what you're saying.
	So I need to understand.
	So you're saying that selfishness can be healthy and good and also evil.
	Yes, if you define the word that way, yeah.
	No, don't make it subjective.
	I'm trying to understand your thinking here.
	If you're saying that selfish is evil or evil is selfishness, and then you also say, well, selfishness can be when you're trying to survive and so on, right?
	So is selfishness always evil or is it sometimes evil?
	Okay, sometimes evil.
	Okay, so how do I know which is evil selfishness and how do I know which is good selfishness?
	Well, I suppose you could refer to something along the lines of the universal or universally preferable behavior.
	You know, treat others as you want to be treated, right?
	Would you want to work for something and have somebody take it from you?
	So if it's selfish in a way that it violates somebody else's basic human rights, then that would be evil.
	But if it's selfish in a way that it protects you or your family, like say you try harder and you work harder so you get the better job and you go to the better restaurant, that's selfish, but not evil.
	Okay, you're not harming anybody else.
	So if you're going to say that evil people get ostracized, then I think you're going to have a certain amount of trouble because obviously there are countless evil people who don't get ostracized.
	Is that fair to say?
	Well, ultimately they do.
	What do you mean?
	I think that one way or another, ultimately, they do get ostracized.
	Ultimately, their evil catches up with them.
	The only way that they continue in their evil is that they're hidden.
	When they're exposed, they're ostracized.
	Okay, I mean, let me ask you this.
	Sorry.
	Let me ask you this.
	So whatever your political opinions, would you say that those who lied to get America into invading Iraq, which caused, you know, the slaughter of like half a million civilians, and they used depleted uranium shells, which has caused genetic destruction of entire populations, particularly around Fallujah and so on?
	Would you say that lying America into a war was evil?
	That's a tough one because I don't I tend not to get into global politics like that because there are so many unknown.
	The public is not privy to all of the information.
	So how do we know what's they said they knew for certain that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and he didn't, right?
	We know that, right?
	Well, do we really trust anything that they say?
	I mean, they did say, okay, we know that they said that on TV.
	Yes.
	We know that.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	So they lied, claiming a certainty that they did not have, right?
	And that was instrumental in starting the war or the invasion of Iraq, right?
	Okay.
	So the people who were the architects of that invasion, this was horrible and corrupt.
	And, you know, I mean, I think that lying about a war, starting a war, and then, you know, causing the deaths of half a million people or more is pretty bad, right?
	Right.
	So have the people who did that, have they been ostracized from their families and from society?
	Well, look at George Bush.
	I guess if you consider him as one of those kind of people or Dick Cheney, like their political careers, their legacy is shattered.
	You know, their own party, their own party's base hates them.
	So who writes history in the end?
	I'm sorry, I'm a little confused here.
	You said that people who are evil, the evil catches up to them, they suffer, and they get ostracized from family and from society, right?
	Right.
	And you said who, like the people who lied about going to Iraq.
	So I said, like, people like George Bush or, you know, John McCain or John Kerry.
	Those people are ostracized from their own party.
	No, that's not true.
	No, that's just not true.
	George Bush is still welcome to speak at events.
	He's done entire events with Barack Obama and with Bill Clinton and so on.
	So, no, they're not ostracized in that way.
	They're certainly not ostracized from their family.
	They're not ostracized from society.
	They're still drawing their pensions.
	They still pull in money for public speaking.
	They still sell their books.
	Yeah, their political careers are over, but they're also older, right?
	So they may have retired anyway.
	And of course, you can't serve more than two terms as president.
	So I don't think that they fall into the category that you were talking about of suffering and ostracism.
	Okay.
	I disagree.
	I think that if you, I mean, you know how X works.
	Everybody's seen the painting of George Bush sitting on his butt playing with an airplane.
	What?
	You know, you have X. You've seen memes.
	I mean, George Bush is frowned upon by.
	Has he been ostracized?
	Hang on, hang on.
	Come on, man.
	I'm saying.
	No, come on.
	Have some integrity here.
	Hang on.
	Hang on.
	Have some integrity here.
	You said that evil people get ostracized by their societies and their families.
	And now you're saying, well, somebody made a satirical painting of him.
	You understand that it has not happened in the way that you integrate.
	Hang on.
	Hang on.
	It has not happened in the way that you said it was going to happen.
	And just these particular examples, right?
	There are people over COVID who lied and caused untold destruction of wealth and health.
	Have those people been ostracized by their family and society?
	No, they have not.
	There are people who lied.
	If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, said Barack Obama.
	And this turned out to be false.
	And has he been ostracized by his family and by society?
	Does he wander the wilderness or is he stuck in the homeless encampments in Los Angeles?
	Of course not.
	I mean, he's made a huge amount of money.
	He's welcomed most places he wants to go and so on, right?
	So, I mean, Oprah has done some pretty sketchy things to put it mildly, and she's still very wealthy and welcome just about everywhere.
	So political leaders, Woodrow Wilson, lied to get America into the First World War and then savagely broke the First Amendment to attack reporters who were reporting on things.
	And he, of course, is lionized and was never ostracized by his family, was never ostracized by his society.
	So I'm afraid that I appreciate the thought.
	And I do love the idea that, of course, that people are going to suffer negative consequences for their evildoing, but they don't.
	No, in a free society, I talked about ostracism, of course, being a great mechanism, but it sure ain't there now.
	And just in general, like, so, and I'm sorry, I'm going to move on, but just in general, you know, what I would really appreciate from people, and you can call me out on this if I drift away from this standard, is that you need to have the maturity.
	You need to have the maturity to admit when you're wrong.
	And this is nothing to do with me.
	This has nothing to do with me or this show.
	I'm telling you, you have to have the maturity.
	So if you say, well, evildoers get ostracized from their friends and their family and their society in there, right?
	And then if I can come up with, you know, a large number of examples of people who did great evils who've never been ostracized, what you have to say is, that's a good point.
	I'm going to have to think that through a little more carefully.
	I missed something.
	And that's, look, we're all struggling with trying to get to the truth and trying to get to reason and trying to get to evidence.
	But you need to have the basic maturity to participate in these kinds of conversations.
	And this is the Socratic method, right?
	Socratic method is, here's the principle.
	Okay, can we find counterexamples to the principle?
	Everything falls to the ground.
	Hey, what about helium balloons?
	Hey, what about birds?
	Hey, what about clouds?
	Hey, what about smoke?
	Right?
	Hey, what about sycamore leaves in a high wind?
	Right.
	So when you have a rule, you think of exceptions, right?
	That is, that is how things, how things work, right?
	So when somebody in Plato, Plato's time, or when Plato's recording what Socrates did or writing about it, and somebody says, the good is what is beloved by the gods, right?
	The good, morality, the virtuous, is what is beloved by the gods.
	And then, of course, Socrates says, do the gods love something because it is virtuous or is whatever the gods love virtuous?
	In other words, are the gods following a moral rule that is bigger than the gods or beyond the gods or more foundational than the gods?
	In which case we should examine that moral rule, not what the gods claim to like.
	That's number one.
	And number two, the gods fight and disagree and oppose each other and go to war with each other.
	So if you say the good is that which the gods love, well, the gods are in opposition to each other.
	And which god do we choose who's in the right?
	So it doesn't really, you know, so these are just basic questions that you need to ask.
	And, you know, I say this, you know, with great encouragement and great positivity, that you need to be able to say when you're wrong, right?
	Because if you can't say when you're wrong, you're never engaged in a conversation.
	You're only engaged in a monologue that gets interrupted.
	And so if you put forward the theory, which is, well, evil doesn't prosper, right?
	Because people get ostracized by family and friends and society.
	And then, of course, we can think of Kemi.
	We can think of people who do get ostracized.
	You know, some murderer gets thrown in jail and his family disavows him.
	Sure, it happens.
	I'm not saying it doesn't happen.
	But it sure as hell isn't a general principle because if you think of two farmers, right?
	Simon and Adrian, from Life of Brian, right?
	Simon and Adrian, the two farmers.
	Now, Simon likes to plow his fields with a fork, whereas Adrian uses a giant plow, you know, a giant plow.
	Well, one is more efficient than the other.
	So what's going to happen, of course, is that Simon, who plows his fields with a fork, is not going to grow much food at all.
	And Adrian, who plows his field with a giant plow, is going to grow a lot more food.
	And so Simon is going to starve to death and he's going to have to sell his land.
	Adrian's going to be able to buy it because he can produce a lot more food because he'll start using giant plow on Simon's land instead of a fork.
	So what happens is things that are inefficient, those resources tend to shift To those who are more efficient.
	So in sports, right?
	Whatever the metric is for efficiency, it could be speed and running.
	It could be sinking hoops in basketball.
	It could be home runs in baseball.
	It could be touchdowns in football.
	So whoever's more efficient at getting those things tends to win the game, right?
	So the more efficient tends to displace the less efficient.
	Now, if stealing, if lying, if a fault, assault, murder, if these were all so amazingly or horribly inefficient, then the question is, why are they still here?
	Why are they still here?
	If you're going to say, well, human beings desperately need a tail to survive, well, we have the little tailbone, right?
	A little nub between our ass cheeks.
	And the tail is gone.
	We've evolved past the tail because the tail was not efficient.
	So if you're going to say, well, you know, human beings desperately need a tail in order to survive and flourish, they say, well, where's the tail and why is it gone?
	You have to answer the question of efficiency.
	If evil is inefficient, evil doesn't reproduce.
	Evil gets ostracized.
	Then why are there still evildoers?
	And why are there so goddamn many of them?
	You've got a problem.
	And evil has efficiency to it.
	All right, let's get to another caller missing in action, aka Mia.
	Voices onto your mind.
	Hello.
	Lovely to be here.
	So my take on this whole evil business, the previous gentleman was saying, obviously, about human choices, i.e., the choices people make in poverty, or as you were saying, whether you steal a loaf of bread.
	So I don't think evil is rooted necessarily within the human choices themselves.
	I believe it's the intent behind it.
	So with selfishness, is it, you know, the protection of resources?
	You know, so back maybe in wartimes or even way before that, you know, when you had to survive or feed your family, you know, and you were protecting resources, I wouldn't see that as evil.
	But then if you were being selfish in order to see another suffer intentionally, that's where I feel it enters evil.
	So where evil has its place, I would think everything in the universe seems to be a balance, a very delicate balance, even within your human body, you know, pH levels, acid levels, everything, the way your brain works, it's all give and take.
	Everything in nature is balance.
	So surely with the good, you would need the bad in some element, way, shape, or form to ensure that balance within the universe.
	That was just my thoughts.
	Okay.
	So tell me a little bit more about the intentional infliction of suffering.
	So the intentional.
	So unintentional would be, for example, like you just used with the war that was, you know, the lies that were told in order to start that war with a meeting for America to go and invade or fight.
	That on the people that had decided, oh, yeah, let's go do that, supported their government's choice.
	They had no idea, really.
	So that was more ignorance.
	I don't believe you could have that intent of evil if you're ignorant, you're unaware of the actual evil that is at root.
	Now, the people higher up who decided they were going to make their moves and to encourage the public to agree with them to make their moves, that intention is evil.
	So that is intentional suffering.
	They know that this war is going to kill or cause famine or, you know, etc.
	That I don't believe any good can come from that.
	But then that's the whole, that comes into the whole question of war in itself.
	So I don't know if that answers the question.
	All right.
	Can you think, and this is also the Socratic challenge, right?
	So can you think of a time when somebody is inflicting, intentionally inflicting suffering, but it's not evil?
	Intentionally inflicting suffering, but not evil?
	No, I don't know.
	It depends what you, well, then you'd have to define suffering, wouldn't you?
	Because I mean, it's your term.
	I don't have to define it.
	That's the beauty of being on the receiving end of an argument.
	Theoretically, sorry, like out loud.
	So I guess, say, a doctor performing an operation, you know, after you're in pain, you're suffering, but it was the intention was for the greater good.
	So I can't, I don't know if I can think of an example off the top of my head.
	Well, no, I mean, a doctor who is operating on you and sometimes they have to do it without anesthetic for whatever reason.
	That's the intentional infliction of suffering.
	But it's audio.
	But that's not sorry.
	Continue.
	Well, that's the intentional infliction of suffering.
	I've had to fire people over the course of my career that causes them to suffer.
	It's the intentional infliction of suffering.
	You know, most of us have at one time or another been in a romantic relationship and we want to end that romantic relationship for whatever reason.
	And we know the other person's going to cry and take to bed and be sad and anxious and upset for weeks or months maybe.
	And yet we go ahead and do it anyway.
	So there are times when, and these, you know, if you're a professor and you have to, I mean, when I was in theater school, there were a couple of people who were kicked out of theater school for whatever reason, which cost them immense suffering, right?
	They'd literally moved to Montreal to become actors.
	Their dream was to become actors and performers and so on.
	And for whatever reason, they didn't cut it.
	And so they were cordially invited to not return.
	Or as a friend of mine said once in university, I did so well, they gave me the year off because they basically said, go away for a year and come back.
	All of these things are the intentional infliction of suffering.
	But I don't think we would call them.
	I disagree.
	I wouldn't say that, I wouldn't say it's intentionally trying to inflict suffering because you're not, you know, if you're breaking up with somebody, you don't necessarily, you know, they're going to cry, but you don't necessarily, you're not intending or you don't want that to happen.
	So the intention isn't to make them sad.
	The intention is to make yourself happier, to move on with your life, to do what's best for you.
	The intention is that if the intention was just, you know, if you were narcissistic and was just like, I'm just bored of her, you know, I want to see her cry for me and work for me.
	That intent, I would then say, would be evil.
	Does that make sense?
	Like getting rid of, say, as you said, students that didn't make the cut, you're getting rid of them because they're not good enough.
	You're saving them from further heartache in the future, you know, knowing that they're not going to make it.
	You don't want to see them suffer, but they're not good enough and they need to go down a path that is more suitable to them.
	At the time, they may suffer, but I don't believe the intent is evil still.
	Okay, so it is not just the intentional infliction of suffering.
	It's the sadistic infliction of suffering.
	And it's balanced, even if somebody suffers in the moment.
	If it's better for them in the long run, then It's not bad, is that right?
	Not quite.
	It's close.
	It's the intention.
	Like I said, are you intending to just make them suffer?
	Or are you doing something with purpose, like for a greater good of some kind, you know, and then the evil or the perceived evil, the suffering is collateral damage?
	Sorry, can you just say that last part again?
	I'm afraid I couldn't follow.
	Sorry.
	So like the intention.
	So is the intention in what you're the action you're taking, are you trying to make them suffer just to see them suffer?
	Or is it something that is the suffering going to be collateral damage with whatever decision you're making?
	Okay, got it.
	So you're talking really about interpersonal sadism, is that right?
	I'm not entirely sure, Stephanie.
	Well, I mean, interpersonal sadism would be that you get some girl to fall for you and then you just break up with her because you enjoy watching the suffering and you enjoy her crying and it gives you a sense of power or, you know, some parent who beats a kid because they had a bad day at work and want to feel like they're re-establishing their power or status.
	So I think you're talking about interpersonal sadism as wrong and bad, right?
	Yeah, I would guess, yeah, I'd say so.
	Or like, you know, people that inflict harm on animals or cause destruction of something unnecessarily for just for the gain of themselves, you know, that intention to kind of cause suffering for whatever frill or reason.
	I would say that is where the evil more lies, just in my eyes.
	And that is a delightfully, and I say this with no sarcasm, that is a delightfully female response.
	It really is.
	And I, again, I say this with admiration and respect because this is a very, very female perspective.
	Is it?
	How so?
	Well, okay, so let's say that somebody's cruel, right?
	Dates some woman and then breaks up with her just for shits and giggles or whatever it is, right?
	Should that person go to jail?
	No.
	So it's not that evil because we don't even put people like that in jail.
	There are levels of evil, aren't they?
	You know, have you murdered somebody?
	He didn't murder her.
	Do you know what I mean?
	It's what she came up with first.
	And that's the female side, which is, and listen, listen, kindness and consideration in interpersonal relationships is really important.
	I mean, that's most of us aren't going to be tempted to murder people, but we're tempted to be petty and maybe a little cruel in our personal relationships.
	So again, I say this with great respect, and men should listen to women about this kind of stuff, but it's in the feels bad category.
	If you just intentional infliction of emotional distress and so on.
	Well, even in so-I would say it's rude and it's bad and it's dysfunctional and it can be cruel, but it's not anywhere close to the serious evils of the war.
	No, but like that's what I'm saying, even in even in the concept of war, you know, like you said, to intentionally make people vote to go ahead with or to be happy with going ahead and attacking another country, knowing that you're doing that under false pretenses or false allegations, that surely is evil.
	I would certainly agree with that.
	I think that the real evil is the initiation of the use of force that you use to pay for the war and the initiation of the use of force you do use to destroy civilians.
	Okay, let me ask you this.
	Under COVID, I'm not sure where you stand on COVID, but certainly a lot of the claims that were made over COVID about the efficacy of the vaccines, the efficacy of lockdowns and masks and all of that stuff has been proven to be not particularly true.
	Is that a fair statement?
	I'm not sure where you are on COVID.
	I'm just going to say that as a completely fair statement.
	Okay.
	Now, do you think that the people who lied about COVID, and the reason I say they lied is not because everybody had the perfect knowledge, but they had a certainty which was not supported by the evidence.
	So the people who lied over COVID, did they get a lot of money and power?
	Well, a lot of them, more than likely, yes.
	I would say the people like with COVID, the people that put out information because they believed it was correct and beneficial.
	Well, no, no, we don't.
	Hang on.
	We don't know their motives.
	I don't know what people believed.
	I only know what the facts were that they claimed a certainty that they did not have.
	Right.
	That's what I'm saying.
	Unfortunately, we can never know anyone's motives.
	No, no, but we just know the facts that they did come.
	They did claim a certainty that they did not have.
	Right.
	Okay.
	So, I mean, they said there's no way it came from a lab.
	It's from the wet market and the pangolins and things like that.
	And then they knew for certain that the vaccines were safe and effective.
	And, you know, neither of those really turned out to be true.
	And they knew this.
	Oh, they claimed all of this when the data was still being hidden and all of the manufacturers were demanding exclusion from liability.
	Like all the evidence was that there was not good stuff going on.
	So those people who lied was that, oh, and of course the media, by frightening everyone, had everyone tune into the media, which allowed them to sell more ads.
	And of course, by frightening the population, everybody then clamored for a vaccine that was paid for through debt and the tens of billions of dollars made by the vaccine manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, and so on.
	So a lot of people made out like bandits.
	And the big box stores got the governments to close a lot of smaller stores, driving people out of business and getting more revenue and income for themselves, not just now, but in perpetuity.
	And the teachers got to stay home and not have to go to school.
	And so there were a lot of people who got a lot of benefits, material and money and power, out of lying or pretending to have a certainty that they had no rational reason for having over COVID.
	Is that a fair way to put it?
	Yeah, which would suggest evil.
	Like I said, if it's not out of ignorance and if you are going along with it, just knowing that there could be intentional suffering and you're gaining off of that, then yes, I would definitely say that falls under the category of evil.
	Now, were the people who lied over COVID, was their goal to inflict suffering or to gain material or political rewards to make money and gain power?
	So that's a very big question because there's a, well, it depends if you're a conspiracy theorist or not, doesn't it?
	No, I don't want to start using conspiracy theories.
	I try not to use too many CIA terms.
	We're just looking at facts, reason, and everything.
	Well, then you would assume that they were doing it for money and power, yes, because what else would you want it for?
	So the intentional infliction of emotional distress through sadism doesn't apply to this category, I think.
	And listen, it's your thesis.
	So if I've got anything wrong, please, please let me know.
	But then I think it's fair to say that the people who lied over COVID were willing to inflict emotional distress, fear and hostility and the dividing of society into the clean and the unclean in the traditional horrible sense.
	So those people were willing to inflict emotional distress with the goal of gaining money and power, but it was not just sadistic.
	It was greedy, if that meant, like the infliction of emotional distress was not an end in itself, as it would be with sadism, but it was a means to an end, which was the gaining of money and political power.
	Yes.
	So just saying the intentional infliction of emotional Distress is not quite enough because there are a lot of people who inflict emotional distress with the goal of something other than the emotional distress, which is say the money and power of a COVID.
	Right, but are still suffering or whether it's whether you're financially gaining while watching others, you know, locked away, knowing that they can't go to work, but you're racking up that money.
	There's you're still inflicting some kind of suffering.
	It doesn't matter how they're suffering, does it?
	Yeah, I certainly would agree that they're inflicting suffering, but that's not their primary goal.
	Now, here's another challenge.
	Have you ever had someone in your life who pretends to be suffering in order to control others?
	Yes.
	Can you give me an outline of that experience?
	Yeah, there was a family friend who had a habit of being very elaborative on certain issues to get more people around her and get what she needed from people.
	So, yes, I would say collaborative on certain issues.
	Yeah, I think, I mean, I think I've certainly experienced that.
	And most people will have that even as kids.
	Some kid is like, oh, you pushed me.
	Oh, it hurt.
	You know, you see people, of course, in footer, sorry, soccer, soccer, you know, they get tripped and oh, my leg, you know, because they want the ref to give somebody a red card or something like that.
	So, and of course, hypochondriacs will control others through, oh, you know, this, this, when you disagree with me, you give me such a headache.
	You know, this kind of stuff.
	You know, like, I'm going to munch housens that as well.
	Right.
	Right, right.
	So the problem with having suffering as your metric for immorality is that people fake it.
	People pretend to suffer.
	People, like, a lot of people will self-attack in order to get other people to stop criticizing them.
	Like, you know, it's the traditional, you know, you go to criticize your mother about some aspect of her parenting.
	She's like, well, I guess I was just the worst mother ever.
	I guess nobody was worse.
	Like, oh, I was so terrible, you know, and then you just have to comfort her.
	So people will mimic suffering in order to gain resources.
	This happens, of course, with single mothers and single fathers, but a little bit more common with single mothers, where, you know, they have, you know, three children by three different men and they say, well, but, you know, the men just fooled me.
	They just lied and they were perfectly great.
	And then they just turned on me and that they're victims and so on, right?
	As opposed to, well, they made bad decisions and they have to have some responsibility for that.
	So the problem is, of course, that people can, if you have sympathy for those who suffer, there are a lot of people who will then mime or mimic suffering in order to gain your sympathy.
	And they're really good at it, right?
	I mean, the reason that we have actors is because faking suffering or faking anything is really good at getting resources from sympathy.
	It's a really good way to get resources from sympathetic people.
	So it is a big challenge that way.
	Yeah, I was going to say, would that then fall under the category of evil because of the intent of the faking of the suffering?
	But that's the problem.
	Well, we've seen that.
	I'm sorry.
	Sorry, go ahead.
	So that's the problem.
	You can never truly know someone else's intent or if they're truly suffering.
	And that's, I guess, the issue lies on that.
	It is a big problem.
	And of course, I think John Stossel many years ago was filmed a homeless woman who said, oh, I just need, I just need bus fare to get back home and blah, blah, blah.
	And then, you know, at the end of her shift, she just went and took all of her money and she went to her nice apartment around the corner and went in.
	And so, and that's a big issue, right?
	It's a big issue is when people pretend to be suffering in order to get resources, they're exploiting people's sympathy and making people less likely to want to give to another person who is genuinely suffering.
	So pretending to suffer is a big, a big mimicry problem and is not solved by saying that suffering is the definition of immorality.
	And I mean, we can see that happening all over the place at the moment.
	So that's, I mean, I do love the definition.
	And it's really, really important, of course, in your personal relationships to be sensitive towards other people's suffering.
	But the mimicry problem is a very big one and it's kind of taking over the world at the moment.
	Correct.
	Because from every side, obviously, Israel can put, like, for an example, Israel can put out how they're suffering.
	And then you've got Gaza, they're suffering.
	And it's the whole Ukraine, Russia.
	Anyone can say they're suffering, as you said, but the intent behind even faking that suffering, would that then come under evil?
	Because someone else is going to then truly suffer because of what you're doing.
	So, yeah, you've brought some really, yeah, you've made me think hard about some things.
	So I appreciate you having me up, Stefan.
	No, great, great questions and comments.
	And thank you so much for joining the conversation.
	All right.
	History journeys.
	You are, my friend.
	What are your thoughts on the origins and definitions of evil?
	Hi, Steph.
	I think the origin of evil, you know, it seems to, at least in my experience, like a lot of the evil seems to emanate from people who have cluster B personality disorders.
	Because I feel like with people like that.
	Okay, hang on.
	Hang on.
	I'm going to give you, I'm going to give you communicating with the world 101.
	Cluster B personality disorders.
	How many, what percentage of the population do you think is aware of what that means?
	You're right.
	I should probably explain what that is.
	Cluster B personality disorders.
	So those are people who are narcissists or people who are histrionics, also psychopaths.
	So that's what that's what that means.
	Okay.
	And what would you say is the most elemental characteristic or characteristics that tie those personality issues together?
	Yeah, well, because like I feel like with people like that, like whenever there is like in the absence of any real turmoil or conflict, at least in my experience, they seem to manufacture it even when it's not there.
	And like, I think that's kind of where like the origin is, right?
	Like if you're just like looking at who's not.
	No, but why, why would why would that be a personality structure?
	I mean, we're talking five, six percent of the population at a minimum.
	I think it's higher than that, but let's just go with the official guesstimates.
	So why would there be this urge to create problems where there were problems?
	Because that would seem like an unnecessary expenditure of energy of them.
	And like from an evolutionary standpoint, why would we have people like that in society?
	Why would that be so relatively common?
	I think a lot of it has to do with like relative positioning, like with these people, like they're always comparing themselves with the other people in their lives.
	And they always kind of seem to be jockeying for like a dominance type position.
	So, you know, when they start the drama, like usually it's like it's because they're trying to get resources or they're trying to have that dominant position over someone where they can like control them or tell them what to do.
	But even with like the last caller, when she was talking about how people who fake suffering to get resources, right?
	Like that sounds a lot like a histrionic, right?
	So I don't know.
	Like there's not really a way to like actually like, I think, verify that claim.
	But like, I just think.
	Sorry, verify which claim?
	The claim that the evil emanates from cluster rep personality disorder type people.
	Like they're kind of like the initiators of the evil act or the evil intent or evil utterances.
	But yeah, that's.
	Okay, well, let's take a concrete example because I always like to sort of pull from empiricism.
	You could tell me if it fits sort of what you're talking about.
	So we'll take a sort of typical example of a bad mother, a bad mother who was selfish, who worked a lot, who hit her kids, who called them names, who yelled at them or whatever it is, just a bad parenting, right?
	Now, if her adult child, let's say at the age of 20 or 25, sits down with her and says, look, I got some real problems with the way I was raised.
	It's caused me a lot of problems.
	I don't trust women.
	I don't trust figures of authority.
	I have problems sleeping.
	I have anxiety, whatever it is, right?
	I've got negative self-talk because you kept calling me retarded and dumb and stupid and an asshole or whatever it is, right?
	So what is her most efficient strategy when the child comes to confront her as an adult on her parenting faults?
	What is her most efficient strategy from an amoral standpoint?
	Well, they do things like denial, right?
	Like they absolve themselves of all moral culpability, responsibility, painting themselves as all good.
	Like, so there's kind of like that primitive splitting mechanism where they, you know, it's like black and white, you know, it couldn't be me.
	I'm all good.
	Like, you know, yeah.
	So they make excuses, they gaslight.
	They say these things never happened.
	If the child insists, they say, well, it happened, but rarely.
	And if the child insists, they say, yes, but I was abused and I was doing the best I could and your father was distant.
	Like, so it's a constant series of minimizing and excuses.
	Is that a fair way to put it?
	Yes.
	Yes.
	Now, what is the purpose of that approach to the conflict?
	The purpose for that kind of response from the abuser?
	Yes.
	Well, because I think it's because if they were to admit fault, then they would be overwhelmed by feelings of shame and guilt.
	And that could like potentially drive themselves.
	No, no, no, no.
	No, no, that's a feeling, feeling, feeling.
	No, we're talking about practical, sorry to be annoying.
	We're talking about sort of practical consequences.
	Why would they take that kind of approach?
	Because saying, well, they'll feel overwhelmed or bad.
	Well, those emotions are there in order to produce a particular result.
	Right.
	So it's not about emotions.
	It has to be about something practical because the emotions serve the practicality, right?
	It's not, I don't know if you remember this, this, it was like a day flip when you were younger as a man, assuming you're straight.
	But girls were like, went from just kind of annoying to, oh, does your sister really have to play baseball?
	Because, man, now we got to cover her and she can't hit the ball, whatever it is, right?
	So it cliches.
	And then suddenly like the switch flips and then you're like, girls, girls, girls become completely mad and go crazy.
	At least I did.
	And so you'd say, well, but that's lust.
	And it's like, yes, but the purpose of it is the reproduction of the species, right?
	And the purpose of it is to fertilize an egg and raise some kids so that the species can continue.
	So that's the feelings are serving a material process, if that makes sense.
	So for these kinds of personalities, what goal are they trying to achieve with this gaslighting and histrionics and refusing to accept blame and responsibility and all of that?
	Well, they're trying to avoid punishment, right?
	Like that's like the material consequence of what happens if they admit fault.
	Okay.
	And what kind of punishment are they trying to avoid, do you think?
	Well, like, I don't know.
	It depends on the situation.
	It could be like legal punishment or it could be, you know, like in their interpersonal relationship, like they may, they may become estranged.
	They might lose access to that person.
	Right.
	Okay.
	So they've invested a huge amount of time, effort, energy, and money into their children with the expectation of a payoff, right?
	Which is a continued relationship in the present and in the future, continued access to grandchildren and perhaps comfort and a place to live and some money in their old age.
	Is that fair to say?
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	So let's say the kid is 25.
	The mom had him at 30.
	So she's 55 and she's got another 30 years to live to get to 85.
	So she is attempting to rescue with minimal effort the continued resources, time, care, and attention of her children.
	And the best way to do that is to gaslight them.
	Because if she admits fault, if she says, oh, yeah, no, it was, it was bad.
	Yeah, no, it was really bad what I did.
	How does that go for her?
	It would go really badly.
	And why?
	If she admits fault?
	Yeah.
	Well, because then that would logically mean that there would have to be like punishment, right?
	Or consequences.
	Okay.
	And what would those consequences be?
	Like she could lose access to that person.
	Like that person would have a reason.
	Well, but why, well, hang on, but why would she be more, and I agree with you, but I'm just, let's just play it out.
	Why would she be more likely to lose access to the person if she admits fault than if she gaslights?
	I'm not sure what you're getting at.
	Can you click on that?
	Well, sure.
	So most, hang on.
	So most abusive parents will not admit fault.
	I mean, it certainly has happened.
	I've had conversations with parents who were pretty bad to their kids.
	Their kids confronted them as adults and then they called me up and said, thank you.
	It was the best thing that ever happened.
	But it's really already been one or two.
	So the vast majority of parents will not admit fault and will double down on gaslighting and the avoidance of responsibility.
	And that's an evolved process.
	In other words, that has to be the most efficient way for them to retain their resources.
	Otherwise, everybody would have evolved to just admit fault, if that makes sense.
	So you think that that response is kind of like a evolutionary survival mechanism?
	Well, it's survival.
	They're not about to die, but it has to be the most efficient way to retain access to resources compared to admitting moral fault and taking responsibility.
	Otherwise, it wouldn't be so universal.
	The response would not be so universal, if that makes sense.
	Okay.
	Yeah, I didn't consider that.
	That it could be like sort of like an evolved response that these people have.
	But yeah, I mean, that was pretty much the only point that I wanted to bring up.
	Well, let's, if with your permission, let's just do another couple of minutes on this because I think it's very interesting.
	I hope that you do as well.
	So the reason why I think, I don't know, obviously, but this is sort of my conjecture.
	The reason why parents double down and don't admit fault Is that doubling down is their best chance to retain access to their children?
	It's their best chance.
	And to take an analogy, knowing that an analogy is not proof, is a criminal more likely to go to jail if he confesses or if he denies the crime.
	If he confesses, he's more likely to go to jail.
	Yeah, if he confesses, he's going to jail, right?
	And so if you confess immorality, as you say, you get the punishment.
	If you deny immorality, then you are less likely to receive punishment.
	So it's simply an evolutionary mechanism designed to minimize punishment.
	Now, of course, we can say, ah, yes, but if you admit fault and you take responsibility, we're going to admire you for all of that.
	But the problem is it depends on the length of the issue.
	So I'll sort of tell you what I mean by that.
	And you can tell me if it makes sense to you or not.
	So if Agnes, Agnes, use the name Agnes.
	So if Agnes was a bad mom, like, you know, really bad, you know, like yelling, hitting, calling names, never there, dumb kids in daycare, whatever it was, right?
	So she's a bad mom.
	And if she's confronted and she says, yes, I was a bad mother.
	I should have done better.
	I should have read books.
	I should have been there for you.
	I did the wrong thing.
	And I knew it was the wrong thing at the time.
	I just chose to continue.
	Why do you think that would be worse for her than denying and avoiding responsibility, blaming the kid, gaslighting, blaming the dad, whatever it is, like not taking any responsibility?
	You're asking if Agnes, if she were to admit that she did fall, like, why would that be worse?
	Yeah.
	Because then she's going to be punished.
	Well, no, but why would she be more likely to have a negative consequence from that than if she just gaslights?
	I'm not sure.
	Well, I'll tell you what I think, and then you can tell me if it makes sense to you.
	So the only way that Agnes can avoid punishment, so to speak, is if she says, I didn't know I did anything wrong.
	I thought I did right.
	I did a lot better than my parents did.
	I did the best I could with the knowledge I had.
	I had a really bad childhood.
	I make big improvements.
	So if she says, I did the best I could, then she's not in the situation where she knew she could have done better, but decided not to.
	So if she goes back and she says, oh, yeah, man, I knew it was terrible at the time, but I kind of enjoyed it.
	You know, I guess I kind of got off and yelling at you kids and it made me feel better, relieved my stress, all that kind of stuff.
	So if Agnes says, and remember, she's like 55 at this point, right?
	Yes.
	So if Agnes says, knowing that I'm doing wrong and knowing what is better does not change my behavior, if she confesses to that, right?
	Then she is confessing to have had knowledge of the good, but chosen corruption and immorality.
	So telling her that what she did was bad isn't giving her any new information.
	And so you can't ever trust her going forward.
	Because at this point, for Agnes, let's just take, you know, 25 to 55, right?
	So for 35 years, Agnes, as an adult, has known what is better and refused to do it, which means she can't be trusted going forward because she is not ignorant of morality.
	She chooses corruption while fully knowing that it is corrupt and fully knowing what morality is.
	So telling her she did something wrong, she's known it all along.
	And so normally what we do is we say to, we say this to kids, right?
	You did wrong because you didn't know the right, the good, right?
	So most kids have had the experience, you know, most parents have had the experience.
	You come out of some store with the kid, right?
	And, you know, you're in the car and they take out a little candy bar and they start munching on it.
	And you say, wait, hang on, where'd you get the candy bar?
	And they say, from the counter, like it's just right there.
	And then you say, wait, you just took that?
	Yeah.
	I mean, you know, I take stuff at home.
	I took stuff there.
	And then you say, no, no, no.
	Sorry, you wouldn't know this, but that's stealing, right?
	And you go through the whole thing and you go back and you pay the store owner of the candy bar.
	I mean, but we don't sit there and say, that kid is evil, right?
	He's just, he took the candy bar because it was right there and it was, you know, pretty colorless.
	And like, does that make sense?
	Like, we wouldn't blame the kid for being evil, right?
	Yes.
	No, you would not.
	Right.
	Now, the reason that we punish people as adults is because they have the capacity to know better.
	They do know better.
	And they still choose what is wrong.
	So the corrupt parent, in this case, Agnes, what she's doing is she's saying, I was in a state of nature with regards to virtue.
	I didn't do any wrong.
	And if I did do some wrong, it was the very best that I could do.
	Yeah, you're right.
	That does sound a lot different than somebody who, you know, knows what is wrong and they still do it anyways.
	Like that's not the state of nature.
	Yeah, because if somebody knows what is good and right and true and virtuous and repeatedly and consistently chooses immorality, you can't fix them because they don't lack knowledge.
	Like I like to be polite, but if I go to some culture or some country where I don't know what the standards are, right?
	There's sort of a famous story, I can't remember from which culture, like if you go into that person's house and you say, oh, that's a beautiful painting, or I really like that vase or what a beautiful rug.
	They have to give it to you.
	Now, I mean, if that happens, I'm polite.
	Oh, that's a lovely, that's a lovely vase you got.
	That's a beautiful vase.
	Where's it from?
	And then they start wrapping it up for me.
	I'm like, but what are you doing?
	It's like, well, you like it?
	We'll give it to you.
	I'm like, oh, I was just, I don't want the varse.
	I mean, I like the various, but I wasn't right.
	So that would not be rude on my part.
	I just wouldn't know the culture, right?
	Does that make sense?
	Yes.
	So if the person already knows what the good is and they're in their mid-50s and they've consistently chosen corruption and immorality or evil, and they already know what the good is, then teaching them the good will not help them.
	Does that make sense?
	Yes, that makes sense.
	Like a narcissist, they will like, you know, narcissists do know that they are aware when they are, you know, acting out in an evil way.
	They just don't care.
	Like they'll just do it anyways.
	And like, you know, in court, like from a legal perspective, they like using narcissism, personality disorder as a defense would not work.
	Right.
	Ignorance of the law is no excuse, right?
	And the reason we have to say that is then everybody, otherwise everybody would simply Claim to be ignorant of the law, right?
	Right.
	So, the reason why somebody would say, I did not do wrong, or if I did, it was not wrong at the time.
	This is presentism.
	When I was a kid, everybody spanks, right?
	So, who, you know, now it's changed, but how was I supposed to know?
	Or I didn't know any better, or my parents didn't teach me better, and all that kind of stuff, right?
	Like, if you and I are traveling in Japan, and I don't really say anything to anyone, and you say, Well, the reason you're not saying anything to anyone is because you don't speak Japanese, right?
	And so, you teach me some Japanese words or whatever it is, and then you hope that I'm going to actually speak to a couple of people or you teach me some phrases or something like that.
	But if, on the other hand, you know that I speak fluent Japanese, there's no point teaching me Japanese.
	I already know Japanese.
	I'm just choosing not to speak.
	Does that make sense?
	Right, yes.
	So, educating me on Japanese will not cause me to talk unless I genuinely don't know Japanese, right?
	So, the reason that they claim to be ignorant of morality to either have not done anything immoral or to be ignorant of morality is because they want to dangle forward the hope that if you teach them virtue, they will then be virtuous in the same way that if you teach me Japanese, I will love to speak to people in Japan.
	Does that make sense?
	Yes, yeah, it does.
	So, it's a really good, it's a really good strategy to gain to be able to gain resources because if you can claim, of course, that if you can claim that you simply lack knowledge of morality, then you hold forward the belief that if the child teaches you morality, then you can be good.
	But if you already have for 35 years known what good and right is, then teaching the parent morality won't make them good because they already know what morality is and don't want to be good, if that makes sense.
	And so, the argument that I generally put forward in my conversations with people who are examining family corruption and immorality is: I say, well, you say the parent hit them, right?
	Like, really hit them.
	I say, well, did they ever hit you at the mall or in a parent-teacher interview?
	Or did they ever hit you when there was a security guard or a cop around or on an airplane, right?
	And of course, they didn't, which meant they knew perfectly well how to not hit children and that it was disapproved of, which means that teaching them virtue will not help.
	Does that sort of make sense?
	Yeah, it does.
	Those people are really scary, by the way.
	That's, yeah, that's really scary, you meant?
	Yes.
	Right, right.
	Right.
	Right.
	And so that's why pretending to be ignorant of things is a really great strategy.
	And it's your best chance for it is your best chance for retaining the resources called your children.
	Like if I'm in some foreign country and I do something, I don't know, jaywalk or something like that, right?
	And then the policeman stops me and wants to give me a ticket.
	And I say, oh, I'm new to the country.
	I had no idea.
	I'll never do it again.
	I really didn't know.
	He's more likely to let me go.
	Whereas if I say, oh, yeah, no, I know it's illegal here, but I just wanted to do it anyway.
	He's going to give me the ticket, right?
	Right.
	All right.
	Well, thanks.
	I appreciate that.
	And I'm glad we had to dig through that.
	When I look at automatic responses, I always look at the evolutionary advantages first, especially when it's a very, very common response.
	And, you know, I mean, children do this, right?
	I mean, you've got two kids playing and one of them knocks over the lamp and you come in angry as a parent.
	I'm not saying you should, but if you do, what are the kids going to point at each other?
	He did it.
	He did it.
	Right.
	They'll just immediately try and get the other person to be at fault.
	So every time there's a fight and the teacher comes and breaks it up, he started it.
	No, he started it, right?
	So because they want to get the self-defense, defense, so to speak, and all of that.
	All right.
	Well, I appreciate your feedback and let's move on.
	Thank you.
	Moig.
	Moig.
	Schmoig, the dragon magnificent.
	What is on your mind?
	All right.
	You cannot be heard.
	I cannot hear you.
	Going once, going twice.
	Vorsprung.
	Also a great dragon name, by the way.
	Vorsprung.
	What is on your mind, my friend?
	Hello, hello.
	Good afternoon, or should I say good morning?
	It's been a long time.
	Hope you're doing very well, too.
	I am.
	Thank you.
	What's on your mind?
	So how do you deal with boredom in your partnership?
	If you don't feel like your partner completes you, how do you deal with this?
	I'm sure you've heard me before.
	I think we spoke a long time ago, but forget about that for a moment.
	Just want to know, how do you make sure that if you're feeling bored, you can make things work again in the sense that you want to find the things that made you love your partner from the very beginning.
	Thanks.
	Okay, that's fine.
	We can switch topics.
	We were talking about the origins of evil, but that's no problem.
	So can you give me an example?
	What's going on in your life?
	In my personal life, I feel like I have very little to talk about with my partner.
	When we do talk, it's usually just like procedural stuff.
	Like, what do we do today?
	How's the baby behaving?
	I'm very happy about that, by the way.
	But still, it's just trivial stuff and there's no deep conversations.
	And whenever there's a possibility for a deep conversation, it just gets washed away in the daily, you know, dealing with the stuff we have to deal with.
	And were there good conversations in the past?
	Good question.
	We had conversations about psychology of our philosophy.
	And that was a long time ago, but we don't, I mean, the daily grind seems to wipe those away.
	Like, has wiped the opportunity for those things away?
	I mean, technically it hasn't, right?
	Because you could, if you wanted to.
	Like, we can't reverse time and be 20 again, but we can have topics of conversation if we want.
	It's not like the, it's not like you've been locked in separate prisons in separate countries, right?
	I mean, so you could have these conversations.
	And then the question is, why not?
	Why don't you?
	Fair enough.
	Most of the time, I don't feel like when I have a conversation with her, I can sort of like open up.
	And if I do open up, sometimes I get criticism in the sometimes which when she opens up, I also get criticism.
	Hard to explain.
	I just have a feeling that my relationship is going well on the surface.
	But deep down, I feel unsettled.
	I don't know how to express this.
	And when did you feel this is it contempt that you're feeling on the part of your is it your wife, your partner?
	What is her status?
	No, no, you're my wife, but my partner.
	Your wife.
	And how long have you been married?
	Yes.
	Sorry, how long have you been married?
	We've been together for about five years now.
	Okay, and you have kids?
	What are their ages?
	Seven or so.
	Okay.
	And when was the last time you had regular deep Conversations could be more than a year now.
	So, was it when she got pregnant?
	That it diminished?
	It sort of I think it diminished right about, you know, four or five months old.
	You know, when she was pregnant with baby, pretty much around like four or five months pregnancy.
	It's not really connected to intimacy.
	Intimacy is fine.
	The problem is.
	Oh, you mean like a sex life?
	Correct.
	Okay, intimacy.
	That's right.
	But it's mostly about whenever we had a conversation about how we're going to deal with things with the baby or how things should be done in the house or something like that.
	I don't feel like...
	And the wife just looks at the orange that he put in the bag and she takes.
	Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.
	I don't know if there's a real estate.
	Yeah, for those of you who don't know, the wife puts the oranges in the bag and then the man takes them out of the bag, gives them to his wife to get her approval, and she shakes her head in contempt and tosses it aside, even though it's the one that she chose.
	And it's the way of saying that the wife is not judging the husband.
	She's not judging the orange objectively.
	She is judging the husband negatively.
	Correct.
	I haven't had that conversation with her specifically, but that's exactly how I feel because a couple of times I like just made that suggestion of X and eventually we end up doing X anyway.
	It took a while because I suggested X. So now I feel like I just probably should.
	Sorry, you suggested what?
	Sorry, you suggested what?
	I didn't get the word.
	Just generally, just we do X and then X ends up doing it happening anyway.
	And but when I suggest X, it's like, oh, yeah, well, that's not happening.
	And then X needs to happen eventually.
	So it happens.
	Needs to be done, right?
	So it gets done the X way.
	So what is your relationship to helping out with child care as a whole?
	So she's mostly a stay-at-home mom.
	Actually, she works for zero hours of the week.
	She doesn't work at all.
	But I do work in the office for at least four days.
	Okay.
	So first and foremost, don't put it that way.
	I'm sorry to be annoying.
	Do not put it that way.
	Do not say that she doesn't work.
	She's a stay-at-home mom.
	She's got the most important job around.
	I just wanted to point that out because if she feels contempt from you, then she's going to return that most likely to you.
	No, I completely agree.
	I'm super happy she's a stay-at-home mom.
	It's the most important job.
	I could quit my job to take care of my kid if I needed to.
	And I'm very happy I could do that.
	But I'm also very happy that she does that.
	I don't think she feels very happy doing that, but she does it anyway.
	Now, I do take care of the kid when she has anything to do.
	At any point in time, if she needs to do something, I'll just take time off my job and take care of the kid.
	No problem.
	And although it can be a bit hard because the kid's very young, I'm happy to do so.
	I hope that answers the question.
	Would your wife agree with your assessment that you are an involved father who enjoys taking care of your child?
	I am not sure about that.
	I think she would agree that I involve myself sometimes.
	I think she'd like me to be more involved.
	And what would she like you to be doing?
	I think I am happy with my level of involvement, but if I need to step up, I could do it.
	I'm sorry.
	I'm not sure why it would matter in particular whether you're happy with your level of involvement.
	Is your wife happy with your level of involvement?
	No, I don't think she is.
	And what would she like you to be doing that you're not doing?
	Good question.
	And I think more time with the kid.
	I'm sorry, more time?
	With the kid.
	Okay.
	And do you have any hobbies or activities that are taking away time from your family, like video games or sports or travel or anything like that, which is putting perhaps more of a burden on your wife?
	Not really.
	If I have one hobby these days would be home automation and I try to do that on the weekends.
	And if I have to take care of the baby when she's busy doing something, I'll do it happily.
	So how many days?
	Sorry, how many hours a day would you say you're involved in childcare?
	Maybe one hour a day during the weeks and the weekends.
	Okay, well, there's your now, come on, man.
	There's your problem.
	What are you talking about?
	This can't be confusing to you.
	You're doing one hour a day of childcare?
	On weekdays?
	Yeah.
	What?
	How is that possible?
	One hour?
	Do you work in another country?
	What does this mean?
	Okay, when do you leave in the morning when do you get home from work?
	I usually leave in the morning around 9.30 for work.
	Before that, I do something like half an hour when I get home.
	It's usually 7, 7.30 p.m. and the baby is already in bed.
	In the workdays, when I do leave to the office, when I stay at home, I obviously do.
	How long?
	Sorry, how long is sorry about that?
	How long is your commute?
	I'm sorry.
	Can you repeat the question?
	Sure.
	How long is your commute?
	It's roughly 29 minutes, half an hour to work and then back.
	Okay, so you're working 10 to 7, is that right?
	So you leave at 9.30, you get there around 10 o'clock, you get home at 7.30.
	Okay.
	So that's nine hours a day, right?
	So why are you working so long?
	Usually because that, all right, I could come home earlier, maybe an hour earlier.
	That would be okay.
	But it's usually I'm in the zone and at work, I just zone out.
	Sometimes I don't even have lunch.
	So you stay late at work?
	Not that late.
	I come home at seven.
	Bro, you said you stay extra at work because you're in the zone.
	Hang on, most people work seven and a half hours.
	So if you get to the office at 10, right, you should be down 5, 5.30, home by 5.30 or 6, right?
	Instead, you're home 7, 7.30, right?
	Well, that'd be nice.
	Yeah.
	And you can do that, right?
	I could stay one hour less at work.
	It wouldn't make that much difference.
	The baby goes to bed at 7.
	So if I get home at 6.30, okay.
	No, let's say, no, but you get home at 6, right?
	And why do you go into work at 10 and not say 8.30 or 9?
	I do have, as you probably already remember, I do have trouble sleeping.
	And so I wake up a little bit late.
	Well, don't you think your wife has some trouble sleeping too?
	I mean, she's a new mom, right?
	Well, yeah, when the baby is like waking up at 5 or 4.30 in the morning, I do actually go Get the baby and then feed the baby, but not every day, maybe twice a week.
	All right.
	So, do you want to spend more than an hour a day with your baby?
	I do.
	They recently cut our hours.
	So, we used to be able to go to the office only three times a week.
	And now we have to go to the office basically four or five times a week, depending on what the boss says.
	That's not answering my question.
	Do you want to be able to spend more time with your baby?
	The answer is, in principle, yes.
	On days, I'm like, oh, yeah, I can see why my girlfriend would be a bit upset about spending time with the baby.
	I'm sorry, your girlfriend or your wife?
	I'm sorry if I misunderstood.
	My wife, my partner.
	Oh, sorry, your partner.
	Okay.
	And why aren't you married?
	I guess I should probably pop the question.
	But the answer is, I promise I would.
	And I guess I'm going to have to.
	And yeah.
	Sorry, you promised.
	Sorry, you, you, hang on, sorry.
	You promised that you would marry the mother of your child.
	And when did you make that promise?
	Before that kid was born.
	Okay.
	So you said you would make an honest woman of her, as the old saying goes.
	You said that you would marry the mother of your child, and then you broke your word.
	No, no, I haven't.
	Yes, I suppose I did.
	And I need to make right on the promise.
	Yes, you're right.
	So you stay at work when you don't have to, which puts an additional burden on your partner.
	And you promised to marry her and you haven't made any moves in that direction, right?
	You're going to get another woman married.
	You know that, right?
	I'm just asking a question.
	You promised to marry her and you haven't even bought a ring, right?
	Say it again, sorry.
	You have promised to marry her, but you haven't even bought a ring.
	I bought the ring.
	I haven't popped the ring yet.
	Sorry, you have or have not brought the ring?
	I have bought the ring.
	I haven't shown the ring yet.
	Okay.
	And so she doesn't know.
	And to her knowledge, you haven't moved on asking her to marry you after you promised.
	Fair enough.
	Yes.
	Well, why do you want to stay at work rather than be home with your wife?
	No, sorry, your partner and your baby.
	Yeah.
	So this might sound superficial, but I'm a little concerned that I feel less into her and I feel like I don't really have meaningful conversations at home.
	And so I prefer to do the work stuff.
	Yeah, that sounds awful, but it's true.
	That's fine.
	So if you choose to stay at work rather than spend time with your wife and your baby, then she is doing almost all the child care, right?
	Almost all the childcare.
	That's correct.
	Right.
	Now, have you ever spent the entire day with your baby without your wife being there?
	I have, yes.
	It is tiresome.
	Yeah, it's a burden, but it's also beautiful.
	Okay, but it's a burden.
	And how many times have you spent the entire day with your baby without your partner being there?
	Since the baby was born and came home from the hospital, probably less than 10 days in total.
	Mind you, it's a seven-month-old baby.
	Right.
	And what is your partner doing when you're home with the baby over those 10 days?
	Where is she?
	Well, it's usually visiting the family, lives in a town, one townover.com.
	Okay, got it.
	Got it.
	All right.
	So she's done, let's say, seven months, 30 days, whatever.
	She's done 210 days and you've done 10.
	I think that would be a fair assessment.
	Go on, please.
	Okay.
	So you've done only a couple of percent of full-time baby taking care of compared to your wife.
	Yes, please keep going.
	Okay.
	Like if you had done 21 days, that would be 10%.
	You've done 10 days, so a little under 5%.
	So she's doing 20 times the full-time baby care than you are, right?
	Oh, yeah, absolutely.
	Now, when does your baby goes to bed at 7, 7.30?
	When does your baby wake up?
	Well, most days, around 5 a.m., 5.30 a.m., he wakes, still is in the age where he wakes up multiple times during the When does he wake up for feeding?
	For the day, usually 7 a.m., yes.
	7 a.m.
	Okay.
	So when do you get out of bed?
	If you're going to work at 10?
	Maybe 8.30.
	Maybe 8.30.
	Okay.
	And do you spend much time with your son in the morning?
	Lately, more than before, but usually a couple of minutes, maybe half an hour.
	Okay, a couple of minutes, maybe half an hour.
	Okay.
	And when do you go to bed?
	Fairly late.
	When I get home, it's usually, you know, sit down with the girlfriend, watch something on television, talked a little bit about anything, and then I go to bed.
	And then usually before I go to bed, I usually end up watching a couple of videos and then I fall asleep.
	But that's not.
	When do you just answer the question?
	What time generally do you go to bed?
	To go to bed early, like 9, 9.30.
	Sorry, 10, 10.30 to sleep, usually at 1 a.m.
	Why don't you try going to bed earlier so that you can wake up with the family and spend time being a dad in the morning?
	It's usually difficult for me to sleep in tonight.
	It's always been like that, but I guess you could try harder.
	I don't know.
	Well, I mean, I don't know.
	I mean, there's a bunch of stuff that you could look into.
	There's a book I read many years ago called Say Good Night to Insomnia that was pretty good.
	So you can look into something like that.
	Okay.
	It's called Say.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Now, has your girlfriend expressed any dissatisfaction at the fact that she's with the baby for 12 hours and you do maybe an hour?
	He has.
	She has.
	Okay.
	So she says, I need more help.
	I need more partnership.
	I need you to step up as a husband or as a boyfriend and a father to help me with the baby.
	Yep.
	Okay.
	And when did she first express that?
	A couple of months ago, probably like when the baby was three months old or something.
	We were more, I was more involved back then.
	The baby is since sort of chilled.
	I put him to sleep quite a few days of the week, but not as many as my girlfriend does.
	Okay, so four months ago, your girlfriend was expressing dissatisfaction about your investment as a father when you were doing more than you are doing now.
	So you have responded to her asking you to do more parenting by doing less parenting.
	That seems to be correct, yes.
	Well, I'm just going by what you're telling me.
	I don't have any, I don't have any drones over your house, man.
	Okay, so if you are asking, let's say you ask your boss for a raise and he instead cuts your salary by 20%, how do you feel?
	I would probably feel demotivated.
	Well, you'd feel upset and unhappy, right?
	That's right.
	Now, if your boss, after you asked him for a raise, cut your salary by 20% and then said, hey, man, let's just go out for lunch and chat like we used to, how would you feel?
	Probably as motivated to chat as I used to be before.
	Well, that's it.
	That's your issue because the whole problem you're having is your girlfriend and you don't seem particularly motivated to have conversations in the way that you used to.
	And that's because you are not helping her with the child care.
	She made a request of you to do more than an hour a day when she's doing 12, 14, 16 hours a day, depending on how the baby's sleeping.
	So she's, you know, again, you're doing 10%, 8%, 5% of the childcare.
	And I know you're paying the bills, so I'm not saying that's irrelevant.
	And I'm not saying it's got to be 50-50, but you're not also proactively dealing with your insomnia to the point where you can go to bed earlier and get up earlier.
	And you're also not spending enough time with your kid because your kid needs to pair bond with you, right?
	As well.
	You, the father, in particular, the son needs to have a strong male presence in his life to grow up healthy and happy, right?
	Yes, I do play with.
	And you're choosing to stay at work and watch stupid videos rather than spend time with your son.
	All right.
	Some of the videos are not stupid.
	Some of the videos are from you.
	But.
	No, I don't want you watching videos from me.
	It's stupid to watch videos from me at the expense of spending time with your son.
	You are banned from watching videos from me, no matter how smart my videos are.
	It's stupid to watch videos of me instead of spending time with your son.
	Fair enough.
	That makes sense to me.
	All right.
	All right.
	Good.
	Well, I'm glad we've got a plan.
	Deal with your insomnia.
	Apologize to your partner.
	Give her a ring and spend more time with your son.
	Good plan?
	Feels like a great plan.
	Thank you so much, August.
	It's been great to.
	It's always great to hear you.
	It's also great to speak to you, man.
	I hope you have a great day.
	Thanks.
	All right.
	Thanks, man.
	I appreciate that.
	And send me some wedding pictures.
	Host at freedomain.com.
	All right.
	If anyone's listening to this, still appreciate everyone dropping by.
	Yes, thanks, man.
	Freedomain.com slash tonight.
	Have a glorious and beautiful evening.
	We will talk to you tomorrow night for Friday night live.
	Lots of love from up here, my friends.
	Take care.

▲