Kevin Beal

My guilty pleasure: Taylor Swift

Intro In order to retain things better, it's best to engage multiple senses. Writing is good because there is a touch and visual component, and when it comes to journaling and self knowledge, it's useful the way that writing out math problems is good for learning math. Daniel Mackler has said that he really likes journaling by typing on a computer, which means that he can easily search for keywords later. I've known people (including the therapist I went to for 4 years) who swear that actually using a pencil or pen is massively better than typing. And I'm sure that there are pros and cons to both. I have about 3 1/2 composition books full of journals, which is nothing compared to some of the other people on the boards (e.x. @cherapple). And I don't dislike it, but one thing I have a hard time with is how fast I write. I write in all capital letters which I prefer, but with that and the fact that it's by hand, I go relatively slow. The Problem This is a problem for me because I have a train of thought I want to follow, but in writing it down, I tend to lose the momentum of the thought as the writing lags behind. And when I catch up, I'm often pulled in another direction. Sometimes it's even frustrating. I'm a pretty fast typist by comparison (I code for a living), but still, it's not as fast as simply talking. And I'm actively engaging in the activity of typing while I'm chewing through some novel thought. And I don't like to have anything distract me while I'm trying to process things. I will even turn off the lights and get comfortable in my bed and I run a rain generator in the background to relax me and cover up any ambient sounds like my roommate rummaging through the fridge or my cat scratching her litter box. The Solution Inspired by the donator only series about the Mecosystem (similar to parts work in IFS therapy) I decided to try and figure it out and see if what the all the fuss was about. My experience is apparently very different than what other people have reported on the boards, which I find very interesting (an example of how it works for me here). After doing it for a while, I started to really like the format a lot. I talk into my phone with a voice recorder app and I just talk freely. I think also that it could definitely compliment therapy. With a therapist I want to get their feedback as much as possible, and not necessarily go on a stream of consciousness rant following my thoughts to the end. Although, that too sometimes. Audio Journaling I don't always want to do mecosystem work, but I do quite like the format. And I don't really care much for just writing what I did that day in my journal; I'd rather have it be aimed at processing something. (I also don't know how to use semi-colons). And there was something Stef said that struck me. He said something like "all the memories we have, we have for a reason. There are countless things we never remembered, so why the things we do remember?" So what I've been doing is getting into a relaxed state like I described above and then turning on my recorder. I say that I'm just going to let the first childhood memory come up that wants to come up and then we'll explore it, keeping in mind that I remember it for a reason. I've been finding this incredibly valuable. And way more satisfying that handwriting in a composition book. An example of how this went for me was in exploring the following memory: I'm around 8 years old, it's midday and the sun shining a bright white light into the house, and I'm sitting in the dining room watching my mother in the kitchen cooking or doing dishes (I can't remember) and she's singing and dancing to the oldies station being pumped out by this little black radio in the window with white paint speckles on the bottom right of it's face. I'm enjoying this a lot and I go into the kitchen for some random reason and my mom grabs my hand and pulls me into a spin, and I'm suddenly dancing with her. This is one of my favorite memories. And thinking about it evoked bitter sweet feelings. It stands out in contrast to the much more common experience of my mother which was not fun and not taking joy in my company. I remembered how I resented her in my early teens, and how I judged her to be shallow, avoidant, stupid and a whore for marrying my stepdads who were alcoholic deadbeats who she didn't seem to respect very much, but had some money. I always really liked my younger sister, but my other sisters either bullied me or did other things I didn't like. The teachers I had were generally women who were not very bright and didn't try and earn my respect. And I had a "worldview" about women, that they are all, to varying degrees, like my mother, who was indifferent and inappropriate, or my sister who repeatedly humiliated me. And this presented a huge dilemma for me: I didn't respect women, more than that I often resented womankind, and I desperately wanted affection, and to be loved, and desired. I started to see how this universal judgment about women had affected decisions I had made. On one side I would get a terrifying annihilation panic when approaching girls I liked because girls are dangerous, and on the other side I was overlooking girls' really bad qualities and how disrespectful they were toward me because,... girls are dangerous, and I should not expect much virtue from them, but desperately hope that I could get that affection I wanted so badly, and be desired and loved. I've raised my standards considerably in the past few years and I don't take much shit from people, including women, but this part of me is still alive and kicking. And I had never seen so clearly how these things related until audio journaling about it (and then talking about it with @Joel Patterson). I think that the reason I remembered that event in the kitchen with my mom was because events like that one did a lot to shape my expectations about girls and dating. Questions I don't know anyone else personally who journals this way. Even people who do mecosystem work tend to do it on paper. Have you tried journaling like this before? Have you tried taking this approach to processing your past by starting with random memories? Are there other targeted approaches to journaling that would be good with this format? Do you journal in some way that isn't handwriting or typing or audio? I'm really curious. I've been experimenting with ways to level up with my work on myself, because the route I perceive as standard doesn't work for me as well as I'd like. Thanks for reading this ridiculously long post, and I'd love to know what you think

If any anyone is interested in a good listener convo about internalized parts and inner critics: Flourishing Through Self Attack - A Mecosystem Listener Conversation http://media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_1815_flourishing_through_self_attack_a_mecosystem_convo.mp3

Hi Hanna! I think what you are saying makes a ton of sense, and I can relate. I am confident that your hunch is entirely correct, that is to say that the guilt is not your own and for the reason you stated (you're acting consistently with your values). And also that you've internalized someone from your past, provoking these thoughts in you. And as a general rule, I think that when it doesn't collide with your values, that is a very good sign that something is up. What this sounds like to me is what I'm calling preemptive self attack. This is something we learn when we are repeatedly humiliated. People would rather risk dying in a war than be humiliated. Humiliation is so incredibly costly to our psyche, because it's meant to dehumanize people, and people who are not people, well, it's not a big deal to ostracize them or attack them. So, we develop inner critics which protect us from potentially re-experiencing humiliation. It senses the potential for humiliation and then activates the kind of response you've experienced before in these situations. That way you don't end up doing the thing that would get you humiliated. And by "humiliation" I mean it as a more general term to do with bullying, contemptuous treatment, passive aggression, etc. And it may not even be humiliation, but whatever it is, it's bad enough to permanently mess up your healthy emotional defenses, your judgment and your self efficacy. I think also that your hunch that a way of resolving it is by empathizing with it is wise. This is what I have done with some success: I externalize it. I get that part of me onto paper, or I literally engage it in conversation, anything to un-blend with that part which seems to feel like you, rather than a part you've internalized. You can be a hell of a lot more objective about your guilt this way, practically seeing it as if it's another person feeling it. And if you don't externalize this part, instead of being able to learn from the part, you are more likely to go into anxiety management mode and look for relief, effectively suppressing it, and then when it comes up again, you're like "oh crap, I forgot about that...". And it may be the case that this part is doing an invaluable service, but it's hard to know without un-blending with it (externalizing), first. I often record these conversations with different parts of myself with a voice recorder. I'm assuming you haven't done this kind of inner work before, so, I would highly suggest treating any new feeling that comes up as if it's a new personality that you cohabitate with, and that you can engage in conversation. Here's what a typical example looks like: Me (M): "Does anybody want to talk?" [pause] [a feeling arises] Part (P1): "yea, I'm feeling guilty" M: "what are you feeling guilty about?" [pause] P1: "I'm feeling guilty that I am going to be a jerk telling Bob how I think he's totally freaking bass ackwards about his statement about child raising" [i already have context for what this part would like to say, so I skip that] M: "Why would that make you a jerk? What would you have to feel guilty about, I don't understand" [the part might stumble, not knowing how to respond] Another Part (P2): "I'm feeling irritated" M: "interesting, irritated about what?" P2: "well, why the hell should you feel guilty about that. Bob is the asshole! He thinks hitting kids is fine!" M: "Yea, that's interesting. Considering that it doesn't make sense to me that I should be focusing on me in that exchange as the jerk. What do you think about that?" [by "you" I'm referring to the first part] P1: "I'm feeling a little relieved, to be honest, but the feeling of guilt is still there" M: "Really? Are you still convinced that you would be a jerk? Or is it something else?" [pause] P1: "Well, I just think that I shouldn't be telling anyone how to think if I've still got a lot to learn myself, like that makes me pretentious or something" P2: "As compared to what, though!?" And it would continue like that continuing to get some distance from that part, and have a more honest evaluation of the circumstances. It's kind of funny how very literally this is how I talk to myself... If this is of interest to you, I'd be more than happy to answer any questions. I think you are definitely on the right track and if I could sum up my advice in a single sentence: try and externalize the internalized part so you can be more objective about it, good or bad. And props for making the progress you have with it already! Is this helpful at all?

Science, sure. This thread? Nope.

*bump*

You embed videos simply by pasting the url (don't make it a link). If I'm not mistaken, the video The Truth About Stefan Molyneux video was an excerpt from a call in show in response to demands that a truth about him be done. It don't believe it was meant to be any kind of presentation like the other Truth About's, but rather something impromptu that allowed him to put across an important message. I think I remember Mike posting on Facebook after this video came out that another, longer video would be coming out about Stef's life. One of the reasons given for doing these Truth About videos was to show the fault in the people we regard as heroes, so that people can stop idealizing and get to doing good works themselves. To this end, Stef has done multiple podcasts talking about mistakes that he's made. But if you're looking for scandalous stuff, from what I remember, he has never assaulted anyone, never did drugs, drank to excess a few times in his teens and has been basically sober ever since,... you might be pretty bored at the lack of scandal. I quite like JtO, but I believe he mistook the purpose of the video. I too would be interested to hear more about Stef's life and any serious errors in judgment that he's made that he hasn't already brought up, but more than anything I'd love to hear his experience of being idealized, and the dangers therein. I have my own theories, but I have not been idealized to nearly the same degree he has, and I can see with my own eyes how that can have negative effects. I know it's not so simple as to say "hey, I've made these really bad mistakes, I'm human and I'm a lot like you", or to say falsely that "I'm immature and unwise and bla bla bla" which wouldn't really help anyway. People have got to try and empathize with you rather than idealize. It's a nice dose of reality to get an exposé about a popular figure, but to do yourself, it doesn't really do it in the same format. What do people expect exactly? Some confessional?

Hi Tom! For what it's worth, I would be very interested to check it out. It sounds like a very cool project As far as the metaphor goes, it's empirically testing out rational virtues as a philosopher, focusing on action rather than theory, correct? I think the canary is a great symbol of that. I really like it a lot. As far as people understanding, I know that some people won't get it, but that's because so many people don't read or try to understand what's on the page in front of them. As a web developer, I've noticed this. People, most of the time, will not understand what to do without an incredible amount of pushing in the right direction. Like giant arrows on the page animated pointing to a button you need them to push to continue. But I think that's going to apply to most ideas people will come up with. I've seen heat map tests done where you could see where people click on a page the most, and they just click on the highest contrast thing on a page. People clicked often on a heading on a blue background with white text saying, basically, "fill out the form below". The best way to get people familiar with a brand or concept is through video, where they can be completely passive while information is dumped into their brains. I think this applies to me as well, and I'm sure most people in the first visit to a site. So, just speaking with a couple years of experience (not an expert), I would stick with the name that resonates best with you and that you will be excited to promote under that name. Is "Freedomain Radio" a good name? I didn't know what it meant for a couple years, lol.

If people were more honest about their intentions then this would be avoided, sure. But how do people end up in the friend zone? I know guys who flirted and did pretty much everything short of saying "hey, I find you attractive and want to go on a date with you" and they still got friend zoned. That is to say it was obvious for everyone to see that they were interested, including the women who continued to accept favors and support from these guys. And instead of shying away, they do just enough to maintain that one sided relationship the way that it is, because it's really nice to have someone want to give you things and listen intently. When a friend zoning happens, it's pretty clear that both parties are responsible for that unfortunate situation. It's usually pretty obvious to me when someone is attracted to me before they ever say anything, and I don't think I'm special in that way. It's easy to say that people should be more direct, but the strategy of getting to know each other like friends and then ask out later actually works out for a lot of people. I'm sure you know a couple like that. If rejection is a big enough negative for you and you don't mind wasting more time, then it's not the worst strategy in the world. It works both ways, but to take the typical example, one reason that women friend zone guys is to have them as a backup in case that the person they are crushing on doesn't want to date them, specifically because they know that friend zoned guy is into them. It's really not so innocent as you might think:

I'm really glad you had such a positive experience and took your heart in your hands and did something very courageous. Good for you, man! I guess it depends on what you mean by "bullshit" when you refer to the friend zone, I might agree.

By copying and pasting the text you want to quote within a special bracket, like this: [quote]The text I want to quote[/quote]

It's like you're doing everything you possibly can to shut down discussion. It doesn't seem to matter how consistently it's shown that you misunderstand my position, nothing gives you pause. Bitcoin is not money and that's final!

I'm talking about the early internet versus the internet of today. It's the same sets of protocols, but more abstractions and technologies have been developed on top of it. The right way of thinking about bitcoin is not as a money for the internet, but as the internet of money. I'm talking about the exact same technology you are, but I'm just trying to point out the implications that you don't appear to understand. Can we agree on that much at least? In having a discussion, in order to lead you to my conclusion, I need you to accept certain premises, and if we can't agree on anything, it will be impossible for me to have you understand what I'm saying. Are you ready for the next item on your list, or do we need to keep working on this one?

I can only address one thing at a time. And I chose the one below. If we can agree on that one, then I'd be more than happy to move onto another. I have something I could say about each one, but first things first. When I said that I don't care much about bitcoin the units, I mean that in the same sense that I don't really care about the tech that displays an email. I care a lot more about IMAP, POP3, SMTP and HTTP, the protocols which make email possible. If the actual composition of emails themselves changed it would not matter fundamentally. And Gmail is one example where this happened with the "conversation" representation of those emails. It's a useful abstraction. In the same way, particular "coin" technologies could be developed to use the bitcoin blockchain as it's payment network and bitcoin units themselves as the underlying basis for its value, the same way gold or whatever else would be the basis for some commodities based currency. If that point is sufficiently explained for you, I'm ready to move on to another point you made.

Jeffrey Tucker looks at the Regression theorem and it's relation to bitcoin.

That's really great to hear Adam! Welcome to the boards I can very much relate to wanting to conform, ...and pretty much your whole post. Very well said. What was it like for you discovering the more personal topics? Was there something drawing you in to watch those videos? What are some podcasts that have had an impact on you that you think are worth checking out?

Hi Seeking Wisdom! Welcome to the boards How have the last 2 years been for you? Was it a pretty big shift for you, or were you already feeling pretty disenfranchised? Have you had any luck in spreading the ideas you've been learning?

Welcome Scott! I'm sorry to hear your transition was painful however necessary. That is what I kinda like about christians is the commitment to some kind of principles. I got a whole lot of relativistic crap growing up, but fortunately grew up without religion, so you're upbringing sounds very different from mine. It's interesting to me that you were more committed to principles than to religion. Does that mean that you didn't really believe in the existence of gods? Have you experienced a lot of moral relativism? What is your experience of that?

From what I understand, there is no way to organize enough computing power, even for the fed or a group of governments. And, no, they couldn't steal all the bitcoin. http://learncryptography.com/51-attack/

Well it should comfort you to know that any kind of "meta" coin can be built on top of this protocol, including ones tied to gold. The bitcoin unit is a representation of the store of value. This can be entirely subjective (in an ontological sense) or tied to any good or whatever you want. I don't even care that much for bitcoin the units. They are wicked cool in a lot of respects, but there are better ways of doing everyday purchases, and I'm sure some meta coin will gain traction at some point that utilizes the protocol but prevents double spends in a much quicker way. Bitcoin as a currency unit has other problems too we can get into. The same way that implementations of email had problems and abstractions on these protocols were developed to create cool things like gmail that can handle multiple accounts or be a kind of agency management tool. The point is programmable money. I'll elaborate below. So, if I have this right, intrinsic value is C/P demand, (which is to say for reasons other than being used as a medium of exchange) and because, ostensibly, bitcoin units lack this, this is makes it unsuitable as a currency? And this is true because Mises' regression theorem, which matters because "values are traced to the ultimate subjective use values of the marginal consumers who value such goods and services for their objective-use values which they expect to consume". And because bitcoin units ostensibly have no objective-use value, they will fail as a currency in a way that gold will not. The lack of an "objective-use value" is supposed to result in a circular argument where this money has purchasing power because it has purchasing power. Something like that? I am not an expert on Mises or praxeology or catallactics or any of that, but this does not make sense to me. Or if I have understood correctly, then I believe it's irrational. What money is, is an ontological (claims about existence) issue (by definition, obviously) and the value it stores, transfers, etc is always subjective, regardless of the physical traits of that money. The very fact that cryptocurrencies could exist in the first place for however long is proof of this. Bitcoin is not not money, obviously. The best way that value was exchanged by people has historically been with things like gold which remain valuable to people even if they aren't used as a currency. But I'm sure you wouldn't say that because it's how things have had to be in the past, it must be so in the future. So, what of this issue of circular reasoning? A money has purchasing power because it has purchasing power is not logical, but that's not how I would describe bitcoin at all. And it may shock you, but it's not because the utility of the bitcoin protocol that I know it has value. Bitcoin the currency has value and is money because people agree that it is. It's the exact same ontological basis for you having a job or that you own the car you do. There is not seal of ownership etched in the aether around your car, and you are not made out of accountant atoms or racecar driver atoms or whatever it is you do for a living. These things are determined because of the institutional reality we all operate in. There is no definition that I could find online for "objective-use value", but I'm assuming that all of this refers to what Peter Schiff was talking about in his debate with Stef about bitcoin: that gold has value as jewelry, in engineering because of it's physical properties, but as soon as you use the word "value" you are talking again about something that is ontologically subjective. That is to say that I don't see how gold escapes this regression theorem problem any more than bitcoin does. The value we put in money is according to epistemic (claims about knowledge) standards. Whether that standard includes ontological concerns just depends. What kind of money do you want? Do you want a money that has the overhead involved in transferring the ownership of gold (or other physical goods)? Maybe. It depends on what you are using it for. In whatever way you want to transfer or store value, the bitcoin protocol can cover it. I personally don't care about a commodities based currency, and that will come with certain costs and advantages. One of those costs may be that it doesn't last as long as a currency that is based on commodities, but so what? Programmable money can cover almost any use case, and the thousands of alternative cryptocurrencies, side chains, meta coins, etc will be developed to fit the needs that people have, including tying cryptographic and distributed representations to physical property. This is much bigger than you seem to realize...

John Cale - I Keep a Close Watch

How is this not just another way of saying "if something doesn't have value to people, then it has no value"? Value is subjectively determined by conscious agents. We could just say that gold's divisibility, durability, scarcity, etc are antithetical to how we value goods. "Intrinsic value" means nothing without agents subjectively making this determination.

The bitcoin network has more hashing power than all of the top 70 or so supercomputers in the world or something like that. There is no group that could do this, for one thing, but also your statement "doing whatever they want with them" is false. From what I understand, what they can do is control the next block for a single double spend which would be immediately noticed by every miner who tried to mine that next block (something like that, please correct me if I'm wrong guys). It's not a viable threat according to all the experts I've heard comment on the issue. If bitcoin is taken down by a vulnerability in it's design, it won't be because of a 51% attack. Other threats could, though. A quantum computer could theoretically make some of it's elliptic curve cryptography useless, but I don't understand it well enough to elaborate. It would have to be something that was invisible, long lasting and couldn't easily be patched. A threat like this could exist, but no one seems to have found it yet.

The world we live in was designed by sociopaths, and your value as an ethicist is essential. The Fascists That Surround You series was put out back in late 2012 about the prevalence of clinical sociopathy and the situational sociopathy of the general population, that is to say people you know. Part 1 Part 2: Sociopaths Part 3: Statists Part 4: Society Part 5: Nature vs Nurture vs Ethics Part 6: Ethics for Psychopaths