TheRobin

Maybe you can try saying that it's like before you were born? Maybe that gives it a bit more clarity, idk. If one can have any clarity in that sense about something that by definition is unknowable.

For me personally, when I first found the show I found the listener call-ins very intersting and helpful, not to a small part because it helped me understand how some principle work in practice in our everyday life. So while I listened to a lot of his "solo-talks" where he'd present an argument or line of thought around a topic (which I too found very intersting) I find that more and more I barely bother to listen to those anymore (not inlcuding the Truth of-series though), but I still find new insights in most of the call-in shows and I still find great value in those.

I'd recommend you ask in the FDR - Europe facebook group. (https://www.facebook.com/groups/FDR.Europe/), there are quite some Europeans around. There's also the EU call once a week (or at least there used to be, haven't joined them in a quite a while)

As far as I know this has been debunked by studies. Iirc those studies even showed that it's the opposite and homeschooled children are more socially capable than their peers in public schools. Imo, just ask people for the data to support their claims, see if they have any. But a good argument in the absence of data is probably to just point out, that most of the time in public schools you're not even ALLOWED to talk, let alone have conversations or learn how to negotiate etc. It's all just do what you're told and don't annoy the teachers too much, which isn't really what one can reasonably call socialization. Let alone what happens outside the classroom with bullying and whatnot. Ah, quick google search: that might help http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/13/home-schooling-socialization-not-problem/

As the saying goes "What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". Unless he actually makes a case for any of his claims, rebuttal is neither needed nor possible. And the fact that the author just goes on asserting things without hestiation and seemingly without noticing that none of what he sais constitutes an argument based on either evidence or reasoning I think you'd rather have to talk about methodology first before debating concretes, cause atm he seems to be incapable of doing so anyway, so you'd just be wasting your time respnding to that as if it was an actual argument.

If you accept that you are real and you're experiencing both matter and energy, then what further proof do you require? And/or what do you mean with the word "real" then?

Well, as the argument would go, you can transfer 10 million dollars worth of bitcoins twenty times around the world in 5 minutes and for a few cents transaction costs. Isn't that some pretty tangible savings when you compare it to banking which not only has high fees but takes days if not weeks for some transactions?

I'm not entirely sure I understand what you mean. Can you give me an example of how it would look like if it required noticable personal effort? Like, I've had a lot of trouble having any empathy most of my life and thanks to a lot of self-therapy and changes in my life I got to a point where I can feel emapthy again both for myself and others, but so far I haven't noticed a difference as to my approach to women or men. It's usually more a thing of whether the other person has empathy or not which will change how I feel about them (and how open/empathetic I express myself towards them).

In a recent call-in show I hear Stef saying that a good question to ask a date is what they think the other gender brings to the table in a relationship (or to the world as a whole). (As in "What do men/women bring to the world/partnership/marriage?") I find that question extremely difficult to answer for me, no matter which gender. Maybe it's just my huge lack of experience in dating (never had a girlfriend so far and basically never had a date, am 30 years old atm), but I find it hard to think in terms of genders in such a manner. Like I don't think I would ever say that "men" as a whole bring (or don't bring) anything particular to the world/partnership and I wouldn't even know what that could be. And the same with women of course. I don't know if anyone has any pointers/opinions on that please let me know. And/Or How would you answer that question when asked by your date?

So his solution to greedy bad people is to give some greedy bad people basically absolute power over everyone else witthout any personal liability or possiblity for repercussion? I think he just forgot that government is a group of PEOPLE as well, so the whole argument falls apart there.

There was no doubt significant dysfuncton in the family, but that doesn't automatically mean sexual abuse. Another explanation might just as well be the Psychologist acting out his own unresolved trauma or abuse and "getting revenge" on other parents (maybe not even consciously trying to manipulate his patients). Or an even more sinister theory might be that he's simply a Psychopath who enjoys toying with the mental and emotional health of already very emotionally weak people. Neither of that is unheard of sadly. But for the topic of memory recovery in general, I just found a bit of a longer summary on the studies and critiques and counter-arguments and all, but I haven't gotten through with it yet, so I won't comment on that until I'm done with the read. (http://www.jimhopper.com/memory/ for those intersted)

Now I'm the one who's baffled at your posts. So you agree that memories can be fabricated (at least to a certain degree), but you also claim to be sure that this wasn't the case in that instance. Why is that? And as I said, denormalizing a memory isn't the same as recovering memories altogether. I'm happy to change my stance on the topic, but again, to my knowledge (i.e. what a google search on the topic brought up) there is no proof to this date that people can repress a decades worth of memories, especially if it's about something traumatic that happened to them. The only thing I ever heard is a complete memory loss due to continuous trauma, but that would be a different thing and also correlated to measurable brain substance loss in certain areas iirc. But if I'm mistaken please post me a link to a study or similar and I'l gladly change my mind on the matter.

From what I understand the difference between deinal on the part of the perpetrators and false memories on the part of the victim is that there's to my knowledge no proof that one can repress years worth of memories and then having them access via therapy. Where as there is enough evidence that one can make people believe they did something which never happened. One experiment I remember reading about was when they photoshopped a family photo of a trip that never happened and the people then started remembering the event. (Not everyone ofc, but I think it was over 50% who "bought" the false trip as a real memory). So if there's real abuse, you would assume that uncovering the memory isn't necessary but rather that giving the victim a safe space to talk and express the memory is what is needed. And/or ofc denormalizing a constant bad/evil behaviour on the part of the caregivers, which is again something different. Like, when people are asked about their childhood and they say it was "normal" or "good" but when you ask concrete details they very quickly give you information that contradicts these adjectives. But neither of that is false memory, but rather false story/interpretation of the same memory.

You might've missed my comment then. Apparently most of what that book claims to be true is just false. They're criticized for botching the evidence (leaving out all the parts that don't fit their theory) and making gross mistakes when it comes to the very basics of evolutionary reasoning. (here again to link to the review of the book that forwards these critiques http://www.epjournal.net/articles/the-myth-of-promiscuity/getpdf.php?file=EP10611616.pdf)

Oh, too bad, was really curious about part 4 as well, but makes sense ofc. Btw since we're already on the topic of stuff that might come out in the future: What's the status of the documentary, if there's something you can say about it?

Sorry, I'm a bit late to the conversation and I really don't want to disturb the flow you've got here. I just found out by watching the video and reading some comments taht there is a book called Sex at Dusk, which is heavily criticizing the Sex at Dawn. (here for a review on that book http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/EP10611616.pdf). I haven't read either book though. But simply from the reviews, it would appear that the critique takes apart most of what Dawn is based on.

well, I "only" read Illuminatus and the one with the Multiple Worlds (forgot it's name) and this man is completely batshit. I think if it wasn't for the sex and drug scenes in the books I doubt anyone would care about his ideas.

To answer your question backwards here: I don't think it violated the NAP at all. If people actively restrict you from accessing your property then I think you can make a good case for that not being much different than theft in a way. Imagine parking a car on a parking space and then some guy just building a stell wall around it while you're working. Given that you now can't access your car anymore you might as well not have it anymore, which would be identical to it being stolen. Another thing is, IF the bigger store has that much more money that they can buy up the whole roadbuilding company that you have your contracts with then they're magnitudes bigger than your store already, so what do they gain that is worth it for them in the first place. The negative publicity (assuming that this is somehow legal to cut you off from your property) would cut into their profits and just because people might no longer be shopping at your store doesn't mean they will at the other one. So even from a purely economic standpoint it would be comeplete non-sense and people who act in such a way usually don't have big stores in the first place. But most importantly, that's just not the way people actually behave unless there's a state that is justified by people. I mean, just ask what would happen if you try and do something like that in your circle of friends and see how people react. Most people understand quite well how justice and fairness works and when someone tries to be just get advantages by being a rule-lawyer then it's so obvious and met with condescension that they usually don't do that for long (or just don't have friends/business partners anymore, but then saying they got the bigger business wouldn't work either)

I don't see the contradiction in those statements. Just because you accept responsibility doesn't mean you automatically apologize to people. Also, I'm not sure what else you can do except noting correlations when it comes to social sciences. What else did you have in mind in terms of how to gather knowledge in that area? And lastly, I do think that the second experiment, where they primed people about people's ability (or inability) to change and the following change in them accepting responsibility shows nicely that there does seem to be a connection between the two. Or why else would there still be a correlation if there was no connection?

Intersting article. tl;dr: People who believed that it's possible to change ones personality were more likely to take responsibility for mistakes they made. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ulterior-motives/201412/what-makes-some-us-own-our-mistakes-not-others?utm_source=FacebookPost&utm_medium=FBPost&utm_campaign=FBPost

Two minutes of poisening the well without any actual argument, exactly the reason I distrust the alarmists so much, because either they're retarded in thinking this is the way to argue when apparently the whole world is at stake or their just dishonest amd don't actually have any arguments

I see. Well, I'm not sure there's much I can add, since I too don't have that much experience with peaceful parenting (basically, I just hear from others and how they handle certain things etc.) But in my opinion: Just call in, Stef usually has some good ideas (also he's actually a parent, unlike me). Plus I'm sure you're not the only parent (or step-parent) facing not only the difficult task of figuring out how to peacefully parent, but also how to transition from non-peaceful parenting into it. Either way, it would be a talk I think I'd very much enjoy hearing and would bo of value to quite a lot of other people.

Has there been any apology, talking about the past behaviour and making it clear that you and the mother were wrong and that you now want to change and the like? Because if he's been subject to that sort of violent behaviour all his life then self-control might not be the thing he's lacking. It's more that there is probably a lot of legitimate anger towards being treated badly which will come out one way or another unless there's genuin apologies resitution and a complete acknowledge of the responsibility on side of the adults that teated him that way (including ofc letting it happen). Mind, that this is not a proffesional opinion or anything ofc. But did you have any talks with him about your past behaviour? Of so, how did it go?

Maybe these tests show the truth and everything ELSE is the lie!

Why is that a problem to begin with?