All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 6, 2025 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
55:35
In Which I Fail! Listener Conflict
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
So, I think this is interesting.
I had a conflict with a listener, somebody had called into the show, which to me was odd, but interesting to go through.
And since I rarely have conflicts with listeners, I thought this would be interesting for other people.
And, of course, have his permission to share this audio.
So, the conflict began on a show that occurred on the 7th of August, 2025, the show number 6053, and it's PMS Girlfriend Twitter/slash X Space.
And this person called in and was asking me if virtue was a positive action or simply the avoidance of a negative action, and so on, right?
And so, we had a conversation, I'll play it for you now, where I got impatient and frustrated with the conversation.
And I think you'll sort of see why.
So, here's the conversation we had initially.
So, I'm just curious, since UPB is inherently like a non-action because of the coma test, like is virtue an action or can it just be like an observation of a characteristic?
Well, have you ever dieted?
Yeah.
Tell me about that.
Well, you got to make a plan, a shopping plan, come up with spread recipes, find things you like, stick with it, and track your progress.
And what did you have to give up?
Stuff here, I guess.
Was that hard?
Moderately.
Okay.
And how much weight did you lose?
20 pounds.
And did you, when did you lose it?
And have you kept it off?
Yeah, I kept it off.
It's probably been three or four years now.
Well, congratulations.
I think you're in like 5% of people who lose weight and keep it off.
So good for you.
Congratulations.
Now, would you say that a diet is an action or a non-action?
In other words, other diets where you say, look, I just have to cut out X, Y, and Z, and I'm good to go.
I would say it's an action.
Okay, are there diets where you simply don't eat some stuff?
Like, let's say chips, cookies, chocolate, candy, whatever, right?
If you cut out all of those things, you will lose weight, right?
Yes, but you still have to eat, you still have to eat things.
So you can't just not eat.
Okay, bro, come on.
Like, we're smart people here.
Do you really think that I'm suggesting that people don't eat?
No, but there's still an action required of eating the correct things.
No, but the action is the same.
You're doing everything except eating candies, cookies, chocolate, and chips.
Okay.
So you have to replace those with some other foods, correct?
No, not necessarily.
Not if you're gaining weight a lot and you are cutting back your calories to lose weight.
Okay.
So are there diets where it is a non-action that is the success of the diet?
I would still kind of, I still think you have to, you have to be acting in some way.
You can't just be not eating.
What do you mean, not eating?
Because I mean, if you have a diet, even if you're cutting out a bunch of bad things, you have to be eating other things.
So there is an act of eating.
What the hell are you talking about?
When have I ever, hang on, when have I ever suggested that you don't eat anything?
I just said you cut out the bad food.
What's with the F-bomb?
My apologies.
I'm just not sure why we're circling because I've never introduced saying you cut out the bad food and all foods.
Right?
So that's a straw man, right?
So what I'm saying is that there are diets where you cut out food that is bad for you and retain everything else that you were eating before.
All right, so that's the interaction that we had.
And I'm sure you can understand why it was frustrating for me.
Perhaps you can understand why it was frustrating for him.
So I said, can a diet include not eating things?
In other words, it's a non-action.
And he wouldn't concede that point and said that human beings have to eat something.
And this seemed to me so obtuse that this is not debating or arguing in good faith.
So what happened was, and I haven't looked this up because I don't have a transcript, but on the Sunday show, I mentioned that I was impatient.
I dropped a muttered F-bomb, but the conversation actually got better and productive after that.
He seemed a bit startled by it, but it did sort of get him out of his circular thinking.
And we had a productive discussion after that.
So I was still wrong to F-bomb, but it had some productive elements to it.
So then he messaged me and he said, today on locals, this was the freedomain.locals.com.
He said, today on locals, you completely mischaracterized our interaction on X on Wednesday.
Your F-bomb didn't startle me.
I didn't let out some big gasp.
And I was listening perfectly.
You just didn't like my answer.
I had another listener on X even message me saying, you were treating me unfairly.
Now, that to me is an annoying message to receive.
Completely mischaracterize, right, our interaction.
Now, if I'm telling you this is what I thought of the interaction, I'm telling you what I thought.
It's kind of weird to tell me whether what I thought is what I thought or not.
Your F-bomb didn't startle me.
He said, I didn't let out some big gasp and I was listening perfectly.
You just didn't like my answer.
Right.
So that wasn't the case at all.
And to say I was listening perfectly is a bit of a stretch.
I'm not sure what it means to listen perfectly and so on.
But and then I just didn't like my answer.
That's psychologizing and saying he's perfectly in the right and I'm perfectly in the wrong and so on, right?
So then I wrote him back and I said, how do you know my experience was false?
Right?
How do you know my experience was false?
And he said, because it doesn't align with the recording of the conversation.
Even your own AI and Grok agrees to valid argument, not something that would warrant a, what the fuck are you talking about, in my humble opinion.
And he tried to send me a file, but of course it was all blocked for security reasons.
So there's a Grok argument.
He said, in a debate about virtue and deciding if a virtue has to be an action or can be a non-action, would it be a valid argument to say that if virtue is an action, a diet by emission of sugar, for example, wouldn't be a virtue, but the virtue would rather be eating all the other non-sugary things, even if it was all the same food as before.
Just give me a one to two sentence answer with a definitive yes or no.
But that wasn't, that wasn't the issue.
That wasn't the argument.
The argument or the frustrating point for me was me saying that a diet can include eating less.
And he said, well, but you still have to eat food.
That is not what he characterized.
So that seems not accurate.
And I said, okay, so your perception is that you are 100% right and I am 100% wrong, correct?
And he replied, nope, open to the possibility.
I'm missing something, misinterpreting some other miscommunication on my part.
And I said, but that's not what you said, bro.
And I quoted today on locals, you completely mischaracterized our interaction on X. On Wednesday, your F-bomb didn't startle me.
I didn't let out some big gasp, but I was listening perfectly.
Anyway, so I quoted him and I said, I asked you, how do you know my experience was false?
You replied that I was wrong regarding the recording.
So now I'm totally confused, right?
So if somebody comes at me and says, I'm totally wrong, and then I say, so you're saying I'm totally wrong and say, no, no, no, I'm open to me being wrong.
Well, it's very confusing, right?
So he said, right.
So it would come down to, do you think responding to my argument with, what the fuck are you talking about is valid?
My opinion was no, that's in the recording, but up for debate, I think.
And I said, but I apologize for that.
But I did notice that we didn't have the same conflict after that.
That was my point.
My swearing was not responding to your argument.
I responded to tons.
I responded to tons of arguments without swearing.
It was frustrating that you were not listening at the tangents.
Haha, which occurring again now.
And I wasn't swearing at you, of course.
And he wrote, fair enough.
I definitely was trying to frustrate you.
Maybe I need to work on my questions/slash arguments.
The disconnect for me was that if it's a valid argument about virtue and it's frustrating, then it must be the way I am delivering it.
I was on the call with you.
He said, earbuds in, eyes closed, listening as intently to every word as I possibly can.
And then I wrote, I think a day later, I said, no, sorry, a couple of hours later, I said, so I listened to the convo again.
I kept saying that dieting means reducing food intake.
And you kept saying, well, you have to eat something.
Total straw man.
I said, yeah, but the first time you asked, I wasn't suggesting you were saying to eat no food.
Me saying, but you still have to eat things or can't eat nothing meant that a diet by omission of some item still requires consistent positive virtue of going to the store, buying non-sugary items or making smaller meals, setting a timer on when you can eat, tracking your calories, weighing yourself, etc.
That's where the virtue would be, not simply not eating some things, even if it meant the success of the diet and even if the action is the same as you suggest.
I think the response your AI gave summed it up perfectly.
Even if it's a shitty argument, it wasn't for lack of listening.
And I said, okay, well, let's try this a different way.
A friend of mine lost weight by simply stopping drinking cans of pop.
I just cut out eating dessert.
I stopped buying chips and dip.
So I stopped eating them at home.
Of course, I'm perfectly aware that some diets require extra work.
I said that later in the conversation.
I've been working out for over 40 years.
You should give me the respect of knowing that much.
If dieting is troubling for you, how about this?
Is quitting smoking an action or stopping an action?
He said, non-action, so therefore virtuous.
And I said, I'm not rehashing the debate here.
It's just annoying to be treated as if I don't understand anything about dieting and calories and human consumption.
If I didn't understand calories and eating, there'd be no point talking to me about abstract morality.
Right, so I'm trying to give him another analogy, quitting smoking, right?
Quitting smoking is like quitting dessert or not drinking pop.
You're just not doing things.
He said, that was definitely not my intent.
I know you're on top of your health and fitness and stuff.
I'm just trying to get a definite answer.
So stopping smoking is virtuous.
So then why would you be loftily informing me that people need to eat something?
He said, I just answered that.
I said, what that meant was that the act of eating something is the virtue.
Come on, I know you know people have to eat to live.
I said, were you clear in your communication?
Or did you just say people need to eat something?
I was not, he said, hence why I said I need to work on my delivery.
And I said, no, at 2 p.m., you said you were listening perfectly, but I just didn't like your delivery.
He said, the disconnect for me, he replied, he quoted, the disconnect for me was that if it's a valid argument about virtue and it's frustrating, then it must be the way I'm delivering it.
Right.
So if you're going to come on strong and say, Steph, you misinterpreted, you don't understand.
I was communicating perfectly.
You just didn't like my answer.
Then it's kind of confusing when you say, well, no, no, no, I need to work on my delivery, right?
So then I said, well, now you're saying that your delivery was faulty.
You also got a friend and AI to say that you were not at all at fault or had no errors in your communication.
He said, I was listening perfectly and my delivery was at fault, not seeing the contradiction there.
And I said, at 2 p.m., you claimed that I just did not like your answer.
And he said, you didn't like it because my delivery was poor.
And I replied, now you're saying that your answer was badly communicated.
Do you see the difference?
And I said, Lord, let's just talk it out.
So then we had, I said, it'll be a good show on conflict resolution.
So then we tried to resolve, we tried to resolve the conflict.
And here's the conversation that we had.
And you can listen to it and let me know what you think.
Thanks.
All right.
Can you hear me?
I can hear me.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Okay.
Okay.
So, yeah, let's hash this out.
I'm annoyed.
You're annoyed, I guess, or at least I'm annoyed.
And let's sort it out.
I'll record this.
You can stay anonymous.
We'll just put this out as a show on conflict resolution, if that's all right.
Yeah, I like it.
Okay.
Okay.
So was it Wednesday?
Was it Friday, Wednesday last week?
Yep, Wednesday.
Yep.
Wednesday.
Okay.
So Wednesday, you and I had a conversation wherein you were asking about UPP and negative action, right?
Right.
Okay.
Non-action.
I guess non-action.
Non-action.
Okay.
And let me just see here.
I'm just looking for a transcript.
I listened to it today again because you were bothered by something I said on Sunday where you seemed a bit startled by my swearing.
But after that, I felt the conversation got more productive and it was just something I noticed.
You know, I'm still sorry for swearing, but that bothered you.
Well, just to clarify a little bit, you were discussing people not listening on calls.
Yeah.
And then you brought up my call as an example saying, well, I had a guy not listening and then he was startled by an F-bomb.
But then after that, he seemed to listen better.
So I just took an issue with that, just being that I was listening in my perspective as closely as I could.
And I don't think that was an accurate representation of the conversation.
What was inaccurate?
What was what?
What was inaccurate?
Oh, that I wasn't listening.
But how can you tell?
How can I tell if I'm listening?
Yeah, how can you tell if you're listening?
Well, I have my attention and focus on the words that the other person is speaking.
Okay, you don't need to give me a definition of what listening is, bro.
You keep treating me like I'm an idiot.
What do you think my real question is?
Do you think my real question is asking you to give me a definition of what it means to listen?
No, but I think that's how I know I'm listening.
But no, how do you know that you're listening?
Right?
So how do you know that you're listening and understanding what the other person is saying?
I didn't listen to a conversation in Japanese, right?
That doesn't mean that I understand.
I didn't claim to understand.
I didn't claim to understand.
I said I claimed to listen.
Well, but if you listen and don't understand, does the other person feel listened to?
See, listening is dependent on the other person.
That's what I'm trying to get across.
If I am talking and you are not understanding what I'm saying, but you assume that you understand what I'm saying, then I don't feel listened to, right?
If I speak to you in a language you don't understand and you kind of nod and go along, then I don't feel listened to.
So my point is that if you say I was listening, then how do you know that you're listening in a way that the other person feels heard?
Well, I would assume one way would be to respond to the questions and respond to what they're asking and saying.
Well, respond how?
Because if you respond as if you understand what the other person is saying, but you don't understand what the other person is saying, are you really listening?
I think yes.
So listening is entirely on your side, and it's not on the other person's side.
So you get to decide whether you're listening to someone.
The other person has no say on whether they feel listened to.
I do think it's an objective to the listener because you can be.
I didn't, sorry, you think it's what?
It is objective to the listener.
So it is by the perspective of the listener, yes.
So whether you're listening is not your decision, it's whether the person who's talking feels heard or feels understood.
I think the opposite is that it would be whether or not you're understanding what's being said, you can still be listening internally, regardless of whether or not it was understood.
I mean, that's an interesting question.
So by listening, you simply mean hearing sounds.
I think it goes a little deeper than that, but that's a good idea.
Okay, so it goes deeper than that.
So if I tell you to drive north and you drive south, have you been listening?
I could have been.
Go on.
I could have been holding the map upside down and I listened to you perfectly and I knew I had to go north, but I just turned because I have the map upside down.
So there's layers, other factors that come into play here.
Okay, fantastic.
So if I say go north and you drive south and then I say, no, no, no, hang on.
you're driving south, not north, and you continue driving south.
Are you listening?
Um, I guess no.
Right, no.
And that was the conflict that we had on Wednesday.
Was that so?
Just for those who don't know, I won't go over the whole transcript.
People can listen to it and tell me if I've mischaracterized anything.
But you asked me about positive versus negative ethics, and I gave you the example of a diet.
And I said, if you're dieting, and I didn't say 100% of the time because we talked about other kinds of diets, but some diets, you just take away food.
Like a friend of mine lost a lot of weight because he just stopped drinking soda, right?
Or pop.
And I myself, I don't even buy chips and dip.
I don't buy cookies.
So I don't have them at home.
I don't eat them.
So that's a non-action.
And that's what I was talking about.
You remember that, right?
Yep.
Okay.
So when I said some dieting involves a non-action, you said, well, you have to eat something.
Well, no, at first I didn't agree.
I said, yes, but you still have to eat something.
Okay.
So when I say dieting involves eating less and you say, well, you have to eat something, is that good listening?
I don't think it's bad listening.
It's terrible listening.
Objectively, factually.
Because it's a straw man.
So if I say to diet, An example of dieting is to eat less.
And you say, well, you have to eat something.
That's a straw man, right?
Well, and I think we went into this a little deeper in that, and I didn't explain it well enough what I meant.
And maybe if I had, you would have felt more listened to.
But what I meant by that was that if you take a diet by omission and remove items, there's still a positive action of eating something.
So when I said you have to eat something, obviously I didn't mean that you can't just not eat, period.
Like that wasn't the intent.
And I apologize for that.
So help me understand when I say dieting means eating less and you say, well, you have to eat something.
I'm talking about dieting, not eating.
So, okay.
So what I mean was that you still have to eat something, meaning you still have to go to the store, you still have to buy things, you still have to, you know, make your meals.
There's still something involved.
Okay, so your contribution to the conversation was to tell me that human beings do require calories.
No, what?
No.
My contribution was saying that the positive virtue of a diet, even if you're excluding items, is the act of going to the store and buying the items, cooking them.
No, that's not a diet because you're doing that anyway.
Let's say that you eat 3,000 calories.
Hang on, hang on.
So let's say you eat 3,000 calories and then you decide to cut it down to 2,000 calories, right?
Okay.
And you do that by cutting out the junk food that you eat, right?
Now, you don't have to go and buy it.
You don't have to store it.
You don't have to open it.
You don't have to eat it.
You don't have to throw out the wrapper.
You probably poop a whole lot less, whatever, right?
So it's less action if you're dieting, right?
Okay.
So is that virtuous?
That's the question.
No, no, no.
No, no, we weren't.
I was trying to establish an analogy.
So if you tell me when I say dieting means eating less, and then you keep repeating, well, you do have to eat, you know.
I repeated it once.
I said it once, and then I repeated myself once, one other time.
Right.
So it wasn't like I was going on and on and on here.
Like we were in a little bit of a circle momentarily.
No, I wasn't.
No, I wasn't in a circle.
I wasn't.
Well, you said we were in a circle.
Okay.
So do you think it's helpful to say to someone who has exercised and I've successfully, I'd lost about 30, 40 pounds or whatever, like 15 years ago or so, and I've kept it off.
And you said that you had dieted and kept off 20 pounds, which again was great.
So do you think it's helpful to say to someone who's pretty expert at dieting that you still need to eat some food?
No, and I apologize for that.
I was assuming the intent of what I meant was there, and it wasn't.
So I apologize for that.
And I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by that.
I appreciate the apology.
And you didn't apologize during the show.
I apologized three times during the show.
You did not apologize then and you did not apologize later until just now, right?
Go.
No, is that is that you say like, okay, like I'm forcing you to say something, right?
Like I apologized three times over the course of the show.
You didn't apologize during the show, and you came at me, you know, kind of hard this afternoon of a text, right?
Right.
At the time, I didn't think I had done anything wrong.
Looking back, I see now that it wasn't clear because you thought I was talking about just getting calories and that it was beyond that.
No, it's not, bro.
It's not, I thought that's what you said.
Like if I say go north, and then later you said, Well, um, I thought I thought you meant go north.
It's like, but that's that's what I said.
That what you said was, but people still need to eat or people still need food.
Okay, I'm not understanding that.
I'm sorry.
Okay, well, let me just, so let me just sort of read back to you what you texted me, right?
So you said, uh, today on locals, I think this was, was this, oh, yeah, this was today.
You said, today on locals, you completely mischaracterized our interaction on X on Wednesday.
Right.
So that's coming at me pretty hard, right?
Right.
Okay.
Your F-bomb didn't startle me.
I didn't let out some big gasp, and I was listening perfectly.
You just didn't like my answer.
I had another listener on X even message me saying you were treating me unfairly, right?
Right.
So you're saying that I'm lying or completely misunderstanding or mischaracterizing our interaction, that I'm wrong about it startling you, and you were listening perfectly.
I just didn't like your answer.
And that another listener said, oh, Steph was treating you unfairly, right?
Right.
So that's coming at me pretty hard.
Is that fair to say?
Yeah, I agreed to that already.
Yep.
Okay.
All right.
And then I replied quite calmly, right?
I said, how do you know my experience was false?
Which is an important question, right?
So I had a particular experience of that conversation, and you had a particular experience of that conversation.
Now, if you message me and you tell me, Steph, your experience of the conversation is false, that's kind of a it's kind of a hell of a thing to say to someone, isn't it?
Like if I say, I don't like the taste of this cheesecake, would you ever tell me that I'm wrong?
So that was my experience.
Now, you and I had a different experience, which is fine.
I mean, we're different people.
We're on different sides of the conversation.
We don't get to see body language.
We don't get to see our facial cues or anything like that, right?
So when you're coming at me hard, saying, Steph, you're wrong and unjust and unfair and everyone agrees and blah, blah, blah.
And I say, well, how do you know my experience was false?
Because I was telling people today, I wasn't calling you a bad guy.
I did experience you as not listening.
And so when I had that experience in the conversation, and then you tell me, Steph, your experience is wrong, which means either I'm completely crazy or I'm lying, right?
So how do you know my experience was false?
I mean, that's an important question, right?
Would you say?
Yep.
Okay, so then you texted me and said, because it doesn't align with the recording of the conversation.
And I'm not sure exactly what that means, because the recording of the conversation is not my experience of the conversation, right?
Right.
Do you understand the difference?
Yes, I do.
I mean, if I say I like jazz, and then you say, well, that doesn't align with the recording of the jazz, that doesn't make much sense, right?
Right.
And then it's, then you went to even your own AI and Grok agrees it's a valid concept, not something that would warrant a, what the fuck are you talking about?
I mean, I think that the text, I think what I said was like, what the fuck are we?
And then I said, what the heck are we, right?
I corrected myself and I apologize for the swearing or something, but I didn't swear at you.
Well, you said, what the fuck are you talking about?
Straight up.
I don't think I did.
I listened to it again just this afternoon.
I was like, what the fuck are you?
I listened to it a few times.
Okay, that's fine.
Okay.
So let's say I said, well, what the fuck are you talking about?
And then I corrected myself and said, what the heck?
And then you said, what's with the F-bombs?
And I said, sorry.
And we moved on, right?
So that's not a big deal, right?
You mean we're big boys, so we can handle some salty language.
Now, so then you sent me this thing, which was, was this my AI or Grok?
The first one was your AI, and then the second one was Grock.
All right.
Fire block for security reasons.
I don't know what that means.
Anyway, so you said in a debate about virtue and deciding if a virtue has to be an action or can be a non-action, would be a valid argument to say that if virtue is an action, a diet by omission of sugar, for example, wouldn't be a virtue, but the virtue would rather be eating all the other non-sugary things, even if it was all the same food as before.
Just give me a one to two sentence, answer with a definitive yes or no.
And the AI said, yes, the argument is valid.
If virtue is defined as an action, a diet emitting sugar would not itself be a virtue, but actively choosing non-sugary foods could be considered the virtuous action.
So I was talking about a diet as removing things from what you're eating, right?
So when I stopped eating candy bars when I dieted, right?
So that's a non-action, right?
My friend lost weight by stopping soda.
So that's a non-action, right?
Okay, good.
So again, I'm not really sure what the purpose of that.
So then I said, okay, so your perception is that you're 100% right and I'm 100% wrong, correct?
Because that's what you said.
You completely mischaracterized Steph, our interaction on X. And I was listening perfectly.
You just didn't like my answer.
And another listener on X messaged me and AI said that I'm in the right.
So this was 100%.
And I just wanted to double check on that, right?
Because when people come at me, that's fine.
Obviously, I could make mistakes.
I could be rude and stuff like that.
So you had come at me with, Steph, you're 100% wrong and I'm 100% right.
That's how you were writing, right?
I mean, you weren't self-critical at all, right?
That's right.
Okay.
So then I said, okay, so your perception is that you're 100% right and I'm 100% wrong, correct?
And then you wrote, nope, open to the possibility I'm missing something, misinterpreting, or some other miscommunication on our parts.
So that was the first time I'd heard any self-criticism from you at all.
Or even potential, right?
So is that fair?
Is that right?
Is that just to me?
Is it right to come at me saying, Steph, you mischaracterized everything.
Everyone thinks you're unfair.
Your own AI disagrees with you.
Everyone.
Sorry.
So everyone being two AIs and some listener on X, right?
So three entities, yes.
Okay.
Well, everyone you consulted, right?
I didn't consult the person, but yeah, the two AIs, yes.
Okay.
So is it fair to say, Steph, you're 100% wrong.
I'm 100% in the right and repeat that a couple of times.
And then when I say, oh, so I'm 100% wrong, and you're 100% in the right, say, no, no, no, I could be wrong.
I mean, okay, I was wrong about that.
I'm sorry.
I should have been more open to the fact that you weren't completely off and that I was missing something from the get-go.
Well, that's kind of rude, isn't it?
To say to someone, you're 100% wrong.
You completely mischaracterized our interaction.
Grok says so.
Your AI says so.
Someone on X messaged me to say how unfair you were.
I was listening perfectly, Steph.
You just didn't like my answer.
I mean, that's really aggressive, right?
Yeah, I agree to that.
And you were wrong.
Okay.
That's the point.
Don't come off like an asshole if you could be wrong.
Yeah, that's good advice.
And then, so I said, that's not what you said.
So you said, no, I'm open to the possibility I'm missing something, misinterpreting, or some other miscommunication on my part.
And I said, but that's not what you said to me.
And you said, I just didn't like your answer, rather than you were, you know, kind of loftily informing me that people need to eat, which is kind of annoying, right?
Uh-huh.
I mean, if you're an expert mathematician and I call you out publicly and I say, hey, man, remember that two and two make four, right?
Would that be annoying?
Yeah, probably.
What do you mean, probably?
Come on, man.
Be honest.
It would be annoying, wouldn't it?
I mean, I'm sure there's stuff that you're a complete expert in and you wouldn't like to be publicly lectured about blindingly obvious things like human beings require calories.
I don't think necessarily that saying something simple is automatically annoying.
And it wasn't a lecture.
It'd be two plus two equals four is one sentence.
I don't know if that's justified to be annoyed at.
Well, no, and that's why I thought we'd had a miscommunication.
So I took another run at it and then you just said it again.
And then I was like, what the hell is going on?
Like, why is this guy telling me that human beings need calories?
Right.
I literally couldn't, I literally couldn't be alive if I didn't know that.
Which is kind of why, like, I would have hoped that you knew that I would have known that and that I wasn't just talking about sustenance to live.
Like I said, of course.
And that's why I patiently explained it again.
I'm like, well, he must have misunderstood something because I'm talking about diets that take away food.
Of course, I do understand that some diets require you add food like protein and so on if you want to work out.
I get all of that.
So I explained it again.
And then you just said, oh, but people need to eat something.
You said it again.
So do you understand what I had meant to say now?
So if I understand it correctly, you had meant to say that a diet is not a non-action because you substitute other foods.
And you were using the term diet in the sense of human beings are omnivores.
We have diets that include fruits and vegetables and meats and stuff.
And so to have a diet is to eat something.
Whereas I was using the term diet, and I thought quite clearly, to mean a reduction in the food that you eat.
That's not exactly what I was trying to get at.
I was saying.
Was it the bit about, well, if you don't eat a candy bar, maybe you eat a banana.
So it's still an action.
That's sort of along the lines, but of yes.
But what I'm saying is that a diet, if you're removing things, there is still an action associated with it.
Even if you stop buying some things, there is an action of buying because the food isn't, it's not the same food every week that just kind of recycles.
I want to be obvious here, but you still have to go to the store and continually buy the items and stay on top of the diet.
So by pointing out, no, no, I understand that, but that's that's if you're doing some, I don't know, special carnivore diet and you're only eating meat and you're changing everything.
But and that's why I said this is a diet where you just take away things.
I don't think that changes anything.
Even if you're continuing everything else except you're not eating MMs, I think there is still a positive action involved in that.
Okay.
So my friend who stopped drinking, he stopped going out to buy sodas, taking them home, unpacking them, putting them in the fridge and throwing out the bottles.
So he reduced actions from something to zero.
And that's an action.
No, it is not.
So that's what I'm talking about.
Right.
But he's still participating in positive actions.
I guess, I mean, I guess it's a distinction.
I understand it.
I understand.
No, no, I'm happy to be schooled.
So let's do another one that may be a bit easier.
So if Bob is a guy, Bob's a chain smoker, right?
He smokes four packs a day or something like that.
And then he quits smoking.
Right?
Right.
That's a non-action.
Yes.
Okay.
So that's a non-action, right?
Right.
So is Bob acting in not smoking?
No.
So how is that different from Bob not buying soda?
Well, okay, so they are both non-actions.
But the question was, is a non-action virtuous?
No, no, no, we still, no, we just, because we didn't get to virtue.
We were just doing the diet analogy.
So we don't have to get to virtue.
We were trying to get to diet analogy, right?
So if Bob, if Bob not buying soda is a non-action, then that's what I was talking about.
So I was skipping over the diet part and going straight to the root of the question, my original question.
In that, yes.
Well, but you weren't telling me that.
You weren't saying, Steph, I'm going to jump out of the diet thing because I'm going to talk about the virtue thing, but I'm going to pretend that I'm talking about the diet thing because you weren't talking about virtue.
You were talking about eating.
So you were using my analogy, but trying to jump to virtue while still talking about human beings need to eat something.
I mean, you understand that's, that's pretty hard to follow, right?
I do see, yes, I do see how that was not well delivered and hard to follow.
And not listening.
I'm still going to push back on that.
I think I was listening, but.
No, no, because when I'm trying to explain something and you're going off on some other complete tangent without telling me, you're not listening to me.
Because now your preference or what you want to talk about has taken over the conversation and you haven't communicated that to me.
So you're kind of hijacking the conversation to go on to the ethics thing, I think, or based.
I mean, I don't know exactly how, but somehow by saying human beings require calories, we were now talking about ethics.
I honestly have no idea how that works, but that's what you were saying.
But if you're listening, you respond to what the person says.
If you go off on some tangent, then you're not listening anymore.
Right.
And I did say yes to the first time you asked, and I thought that yes to the first time I asked what you said, can a diet is a diet a non-action?
And I said, yeah, but because I was trying to get to my original question, but you kind of went off the, we actually went off a little bit about the dieting, and I was trying to pull it back a little bit.
So that means you're not listening.
You're asking me a question.
I spend about a minute giving you an analogy.
So listening is trusting that the guy who solved the entire problem of secular ethics might have something useful to say.
Also, you do understand, I'm not just talking to you, right?
It's a live show.
It goes out to a mainstream non-technical audience, right?
So I can't just talk to you.
I have to frame it in a way that people who haven't read UPB can follow and understand.
Because otherwise, I would say, pay for a private call, we'll hash it out.
And then I don't have to worry or take into account the general audience, right?
Yep.
So I need to find a way to translate the question of positive or negative ethics into a context that people as a whole can understand because you're calling into a public show.
It's not a private conversation, right?
All right.
So let's see, what else did you say here?
Okay.
I kept saying that dieting means reducing food intake, and you kept saying, well, you have to eat something, which is annoying, right?
And you were trying to get to some ethics thing, and I was trying to explain it to both you and the general audience in terms that would make sense.
And we did get to the ethics thing, right?
Yeah, mostly.
What do you mean, mostly?
Well, I didn't get a well, we didn't end up getting a definitive answer on is a non-action virtuous or whether or not the man in the coma is virtuous.
I didn't really get a definitive answer on either of you.
I said he's not evil.
Right.
That's what I mean.
And if we can get human beings to not, we have a hundred-year week.
I think you're listening to me.
Maybe you're not listening to me.
That's not what I didn't ask if he was evil.
Well, that is the answer.
He is not virtuous, but he's not evil.
Okay.
Thank you.
I didn't get the first part there.
Well, but that's what I said.
I mean, the coma test is if you have a virtue that requires someone in a that condemns someone in a coma, it can't be a real virtue.
Clearly, a person in a coma can't be virtuous, but he can't be evil, right?
Okay.
Yes, I agree.
Okay, so when I when I say if we can, so a non-action is neither good nor evil because that's what the coma test is, right?
Right.
And so if we can just get people to stop being evil, then at some point we can get them to start focusing on being good, right?
So, I mean, it was a pretty good answer for, you know, a 10-minute conversation with a couple of, and that's why I put the analogy in of like people bleeding out and you don't want, they don't need to run a marathon.
We just need to stop the bleeding, right?
Right.
Okay.
So Now, you replied to me when I said dieting means reducing food intake, you kept saying, well, you have to eat something, which is incomprehensible and annoying, right?
And so then you said, well, I said, yeah, but the first time you asked, I wasn't suggesting you were saying to eat no food.
Me saying, but you still have to eat things, can't eat nothing, meant that a diet by omission of some items still requires consistent positive virtue of going to the store, buying non-sugary items, or making smaller meals, setting a timer on when you can eat, tracking your calories, weighing yourself, et cetera.
That's where the virtue would be simply by not eating some things, even it meant the success of the diet.
And even if the action is the same as you suggest, I think the response for your AI gave summed up perfectly.
Even if it is a shitty argument, it wasn't for lack of listening.
Okay, so I think earlier you were saying that you had shifted it to some sort of, you were trying to wrestle the dieting analogy to get back to virtue.
Mostly, yeah, yes, I would say yes.
Without telling me that.
Well, I asked the question at the beginning of the call, but yes.
No, no, come on.
Come on.
Come on, man.
Come on.
Let's be friendly about this, right?
So this is a bad habit you have.
I'll just be straight up with you.
You can take the coaching or not.
It's no matter to me.
But when you, again, annoyingly tell me, well, I did ask the question at the beginning of the conversation, that's really provocative.
Because you're telling me something that I already know.
But it wasn't like I just sprung that out of, like, I just took a left turn into this virtue discussion that came out of nowhere.
It was established, wasn't it?
Okay, but why on earth would you think that I'm saying it came out of nowhere?
Do you think that I don't know that you asked a question about virtue?
Because you said I didn't tell you about it.
I didn't tell you about it.
You didn't tell me that you were changing the context from the analogy of dieting back to virtue directly.
And you should have told me that.
Because when we're talking about dieting and you're trying to sidewedge in some ethical discussion without telling me, it's confusing.
I understand that.
Okay, and that's what I mean by not listening.
You're now running your own agenda and it gets confusing.
And then, you know, so by telling me, well, deaf people need to eat and then saying, well, you know, I did ask this question about ethics.
I'm just telling you, man, that's it's really provocative.
Because when you tell people things they already know in a very superior tone, it's just provocative.
That's all.
Okay.
Is that bad, provocative?
Well, listen, it's fine to be provocative if there's a point, but it's kind of insulting to say to people, well, people need to eat, you know, and, well, I did ask a question at the beginning of the conversation, right?
It's treating people like they're idiots.
Now, if I was an idiot, you wouldn't be calling me up asking me complex questions about virtue, right?
For sure.
I mean, was this ever a thing that happened to you when you were younger?
Were you ever treated as incompetent or dumb or anything like that?
I kind of imagine this habit comes out of nowhere.
I'm not sure if it comes from my experience necessarily, but because it's a pretty finely tuned instinct that you have here.
And obviously, I don't know the origin of it, but all right.
I will think about that and see if I can improve that.
Okay.
So of the things that you said at the beginning that I completely mischaracterized our interaction, you don't get to say that to me.
And I don't get to say that to you.
Because if I have an experience of something, you don't get to tell me I'm wrong.
And this is just relationship stuff that's really, really important.
So if you said, Steph, I was really frustrated by a conversation, do I get to tell you that you're wrong?
No.
Right?
If I say, I didn't feel listened to you, can you tell me that I'm wrong?
No.
But you did, right?
Repeatedly.
Tell me that I was wrong, mischaracterized things, and that you were 100% right and I was 100% wrong.
So don't do that to people.
And I say this with affection, right?
You're a very smart guy and all of that.
And I appreciate the conversation.
But seriously, man, you cannot do that to people because quality people just won't want to spend time with you.
Because nobody's going to want to be told, oh, I love this song.
No, you don't.
You're lying.
Could you imagine saying that to someone?
No.
Why?
So if I say, look, this was my experience of the call, how can you tell me that I'm wrong?
You can tell me that you had a different experience.
We can talk about it.
That's fine.
But don't come in all hot and telling me that I'm mischaracterizing things and I don't understand and I'm wrong and I was mean.
And like, that's not good.
I mean, you can ask me and you can say, hey, you know, I was kind of surprised you had this experience of the call.
Tell me more.
You know, then you have a good conversation.
But when you come in hot and, you know, Steph, you were unjust and mischaracterized anything and I listened perfectly.
You just didn't like my answer.
Then you're telling me what my experience is.
And what I want to tell you to do is to get lost.
Don't come in and tell me what my experience is and isn't.
You dictatorial son of a bitch.
Not that I'm calling you a dictatorial son of a bitch, but that's my impulse.
Yeah.
In the same way that if you said, I was really sad last night and I said, no, you're not.
You're just lying about that.
Wouldn't you tell me to get lost?
I mean, isn't it slightly different?
Well, I guess until the beginning of the call, I would not have said that listening was necessarily on your end.
So if I'm listening, to me, when you say I'm not listening, I would say, how do you know?
How do you know that I'm not listening?
But I guess I understand now that it's because I wasn't responding correctly or in line with the conversation.
So no, because I kept repeating what I was saying and you kept repeating what you're saying without rebutting.
That's not listening.
Well, I was thinking it was a rebuttal because what I was saying was not what was going across.
Right.
And the way that you communicated it was, if I say, well, dieting involves cutting back on your eating and you say, well, you still have to eat, that's a non sequitur, right?
Yes, it is.
Okay.
And so you communicated poorly.
And so did I, because I swore and I apologize for that.
But it's funny because, you know, this is the interesting question about this kind of stuff, which is that I think you came in hot because I apologized.
And this is always the challenge with apologizing, is that sometimes when you apologize, people get aggressive.
I don't know if you've ever noticed that in life as a whole, but it certainly was the case in my family that if you apologized, oh, yeah, remember you apologized for that last thing, but you're so certain about this now.
So I've sort of noticed that, I mean, when I apologize, some people, you know, take it with good grace and appreciative.
And a lot of people will apologize back, right?
So if I say, you know, I'm sorry, I swore, and you can say, like, I'm sorry if I was frustrating or I'm sorry if this conversation was frustrating you.
And that's just kind of a polite thing, if that makes sense.
Yeah.
And I was trying to say, was I, when I said, what's with the F-bomb, am I being inappropriate?
Am I being off here?
And I got cut off.
So I was trying to get to the bottom of why you were frustrated briefly.
Well, but you didn't, right?
Because then today you came in very aggressively calling me bad and wrong.
Well, yes, that was for the second.
That was the second call.
I was already past the Wednesday call.
This was now Sunday when you were saying that I wasn't listening.
Right.
And does that give you the right to call me bad and wrong?
No, no, no, no.
I'm just saying that.
No, no, but you did.
But you did.
Right, I did, yes.
So the fact that I did not experience you as listening to me and I didn't feel listened to in that moment, which you've now admitted was not ideal listening.
So let's say that I say I wasn't being listened to, and I had good reason for that, right?
I mean, not 100% right about everything, but I had good reason to feel not listened to.
Does that give you the right to get aggressive and call me bad and wrong?
No, it doesn't.
Unjust, treating you unfairly.
I just don't like your answer.
You were listening perfectly.
Oh, dude, that's really aggressive stuff.
And if you have people, like you say, oh, you did something that was unpleasant to me, and I apologized three times over the course of that call, and then you come in hot, I don't want to have anything to do with the conversations.
I'm just telling you that.
Because when I do something wrong, I apologize.
When you do something wrong, you don't even notice it.
You just come in aggressive, right?
Yeah.
So that's asymmetrical.
And that means as well, usually, it means that if I apologize, you view it as a status thing.
Like I've apologized.
Like, you know, the king doesn't apologize to the slave, but the slave better grovel before the king, right?
That was, I mean, I could be honest with you, that is not part of it at all.
Like you apologizing was not part of the secondary message because that was about the statement about the call, not about the apology.
It was nothing to do with the apology.
Well, I would, you're very sure of things, but you've been wrong about a bunch of things in this call, but you're now equally sure of that.
And I wouldn't be so sure of that.
I wouldn't be so sure that the fact that I apologize didn't make you feel kind of punchy and superior.
It's possible, right?
I'm not saying it is.
It's possible.
And it certainly would accord with a bunch of people's thoughts and feelings of experience and experiences of conflict, right?
Whoever blinks first, whoever apologizes first, is in the lesser or subjugated position or subordinate position, we could say.
I could see that possibility, yes.
Okay.
And that didn't put forward as a certainty, but I think it's definitely a possibility.
All right.
I don't feel at all satisfied with the conversation.
I think you're still very cagey and hedging and all of that, but it's kind of late here, so I think we'll have to call it a night.
All right.
Sounds good.
All right.
Bye.
▲
Export Selection