MMX2010

That's interesting. I'm about to say, on the FDR message board no less, that "I find it fascinating the degree to which people cannot explore ethics from an empirical / scientific perspective." (That's exactly like how I say, so many times, "I can't believe the degree to which childhood trauma negatively influences so many of our viewpoints.")

I agree with you, and I think Noesis is setting up a situation similar to the following: (1) If no humans existed, then human love would no longer exist and would, therefore, be impossible to understand. (2) Therefore, human love can neither be understood, nor be said to exist, because it vanishes whenever I imagine a world without human beings. But that line-of-reasoning is just a parlor trick, because if you really want to understand human love, you would never consider a world without human beings. You'd begin with a world that contains human beings, and then observe from there.

That's not true. If such a law was made tomorrow, then everyone would know that their government has become officially (and literally) insane, to the point where none of its laws would have any legitimacy. You have an interesting definition of "free-for-all". My definition of "free-for-all" is "a world wherein everyone is allowed to do whatever they want, such that no negative consequences will befall them AND such that no one tries to influence anyone else's actions". But what you describe, where everyone tries to protect their stuff, and everyone tries to morally influence each other, IS NOT a "free-for-all". In this case, I think the "Is-Ought" problem is easily surmounted by ignoring it.

My favorite counter-argument goes something like this, "If such a person really believe that property rights don't exist, then he can either ferry all of his money over to me, or pay my phone bill for me." (Think about it. If he doesn't believe in property rights, then he should have no objection to ferrying all of his money over to me, nor should he have any objections to paying my phone bill for me. But the moment that person objects, he destroys his own argument that property rights don't exist.) Not true, either. Someone who doesn't believe in property rights would never use the word "stealing", because "stealing" is when you take someone else's property against their will. Furthermore, "taking someone else's stuff" is not nearly as reliable a test of "Does this person really believe in the non-existence of property rights?" Instead, the best possible test is, "Does that person complain when their own stuff is taken?" Once you apply those simple tests, you find that everyone who says, "I don't believe in property rights!" is bluffing.

Do you think it would be productive to issue two separate podcasts: the first of which states the information about female lying with the word "men" replacing "women", the second of which says, "Oh man! I can't believe we screwed up like this, but when we said 'men' in our first podcast, we really meant 'women'?" This would be a simple bait-and-switch designed to provoke a series of "Those evil men!" responses, only to reveal that the truth is that women were being discussed the whole time.

Right now, my musical taste is very contracted. My two current favorite songs both remind me of FDR: Burn by Ellie Gouling and Brave by Sara Bareilles. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCT3Li5dfZE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUQsqBqxoR4 And I will also listen to video game soundtracks.

Welcome, beans. Funny, I never thought of what you observed, and I think it's a great observation.

Has Stef ever recommended particular books on how to do dream analysis? And do you have any recommendations for books on how to do dream analysis? Thanks in advance.

I'm struck by two particular replies in this thread. The first is from Lians, who says: And the second is from Mishelle, who says: I've been reading (slowly, and with much resistance) Nathaniel Branden's "The Psychology of Self-Esteem", and I realize that my emotionality (from my older, mirror self) was really just an avoidance of life. I didn't want to think, so I didn't want to live. I had internalized the myth that women were "caring and powerful" - so much so that they could take someone like me, who didn't want to live, and provide him with a purpose, a reason to live. Right now, though, I know that that's complete bullshit - because other people don't have the power to provide anyone with a self-generating, self-informed purpose. But, back then, I strongly believed in it - and when no woman would want to be with me, I just concluded that they were shallow. I still strongly doubt a lot of the cultural myths about female strength and female caring - (mostly because I don't see a lot of strong, caring behavior from women-in-general). But I don't think it's fair to only notice this in women, and to conclude that they're, therefore, more shallow.

lol. Don't get me wrong, I adore Supernatural. But the best American show ever is clearly The Wire, with Game of Thrones coming in a distant second. (I prefer politically relevant social commentary to well-constructed fiction all day long.)

Anecdotally, yes. But Ivan Ares' question can't be answered with anecdotal evidence involving a sample size of one. I, personally, feel bad - because I feel like I've missed my chance on developing romantic relationships with intelligent-but-not-superattractive women.

I've seen every episode. Starting watching on TNT from Season 2, Playthings and Night Shifter shortly after Season 5 ended. Then I bought all the DVDs for the first five seasons, binged watched them, and have been following live from Season 6 onward. I agree with everything you said about the show. And I think its best quality is to produce that really powerful episode from seemingly out of nowhere. (The latest one was the Mark of Cain episode. Just amazing. So fresh and sharp, and yet so familiar.)

On the one hand, I did like Stefan's recent description of women in his most recent call-in show: "Women live like they're two different women in the same body. The first woman goes out and does stuff, while the second woman has to live with the consequences of all the first woman does - all the while never realizing that the first woman exists." (I had to pause the podcast, because I was laughing so hard.) But, on the other hand, I think Mishelle's description of men is highly accurate - they don't care about deep conversations, are, in fact, intimidated by them, and are, therefore, shallow. (I also remember an article from who-knows-where, which quoted a Roman historical figure as saying that the women who used proper grammar were "really annoying". So I do think that, historically, men don't appreciate female intelligence.)

I dunno what you mean by "shallow" - but I definitely think women are much more "resistant" to the findings of evolutionary biology. Men are portrayed as aggressive, unfeeling, uncaring entities who only care about banging as many women as possible. But when both men and women hear this, they conclude that this is bad, and that society would improve if men learned to overcome this natural tendency. Women are portrayed as gold-digging, lazy, parasites who want to work as little as possible in exchange for resources. But when both men and women hear this, they recoil in horror at the "misogyny" and "unfounded speculation" behind these conclusions. Hence, women are much more "resistant" to these findings - (if that's what you mean by "shallow").

@LovePrevails - I thought Tyler Durden's suggestions were brilliant. But I also think you need to be angry enough to follow those suggestions. So first get really annoyed that your friend is doing this to you, then remember what Tyler Durden suggested, and finally do what Tyler Durden suggested.

This may or may not be helpful to you, because I'm only sharing something important I realized less than two minutes ago. I've been seriously under-estimating my own value, as both a person and an entrepreneur for years. And the cause for this is definitely my own insecurities (which, to be fair, were very much the product of how my parents neglected to teach me very important skills). Now here's the crucial part. YES, I feel very sad and very angry. But it's important that I only feel regret (which is motivating), and never feel shame (which is de-motivating).

Your analysis is brilliant, Tyler. Thanks very much for posting it.

Imagine that you're a member of a six-person science-team, charged with investigating an important question. You spend five years of your life agonizing over data, arguing with your team members, discussing various possible answers, painfully abandoning a couple of answers you wished were true, bravely summoning the willpower to seriously (no, seriously....no, for real seriously!) consider answers you hope aren't true. And, finally, you find it. You present your answer to the general public who replies, "Funny. Just two hours ago we received our own different answer to this question by throwing a handful of rabbit poop into the air and noticing that the majority of the poop landed in this particular spot. Can't we just agree to disagree?" THAT has always been what "agree to disagree" has felt like. dsayers gave an excellent explanation, but I would add, "People who agree to disagree are seeking an equality that they haven't earned."

I very much like the new format, where Mike reads the listener's questions. I find it much easier to follow the conversation.

My post may not be as deep as anyone else's, but my perfect motivation for working out (and sticking with it) is to treat it like a game, where I'm just trying to show off to myself that I can do it, and have gotten better at it than last time. There are also a couple of Stef podcasts about RTR - especially #981 that can help: http://media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_981_RTR_Reader_Conference.mp3 The best one-liners were: (paraphrased): (1) Stef, "I think you guys are reluctant to discuss FDR because you think we're living in a world where we're surrounded by irrational, hostile people and we're the few rational ones. But once you realize that what we're doing ISN'T WEIRD, your reluctance will disappear." (2) Stef, "Most people have no reference to reality other than the convictions of the people they're talking to; so if you think FDR is weird, they'll think FDR is weird." Stef's second quote can easily mean, "Most people have no reference to the reality of who you are other than your convictions; so if you think you're weird, they'll think you're weird."

My current favorite is: "Abusive people want two things: they want to hurt you, and they want you to stay."

Thanks very much, Kevin Beal, for posting that collection. I hadn't seen those before and am currently finding them extremely useful.

@dsayers: I like your response so much that I've memorized it and plan to use it.

@Kevin Beal - I definitely loved the "Counterfeiter Payback" podcast. I both wish I knew of it much earlier in my life, and am glad that I didn't because I wouldn't stirred up so much shit (and outrage!) with it. The "post altering" tactic and the "So we agree?" tactic are hilarious.

Sorry if this post is disconnected, but I'm trying to juggle multiple people's responses in this thread. First of all, I have a lot of agreement with STer, who asserts that "we can't cite scientifically-supported facts when we like their implications, while rejecting those same facts when we hate their implications." And I've enormous sympathy and support for his appeal to empirical science. Secondly, I admire the force with which Kevin Beal fights against the "sympathy for abusive parents" argument that permeates our culture. Thirdly, I thought xcellent's reply, "I think there is a misunderstanding between how people here feel about abusive personal relationships (friends, family, lovers, colleagues) and between what you (STer) consider as an important step to better understanding abusive behavior." was slightly misguided. I think there's an important wall between "how we handle our abusive parents" and "how we describe the cognitive capacities / degree of moral culpability of ALL abusive parents". How we handle our abusive parents must always be a deeply personal decision, in which our emotions and instincts must lead. But the second must be an impersonal, deeply scientific decision in which our emotions mustn't interfere with the scientific findings. --------------------- Some relevant personal details: my father is a highly abusive individual, but I'm also very certain that he has severe brain damage that causes him to be abusive. Stef's comments that, "some people are just so fearful of self-criticism and self-attack that they'll bully anyone, in any way, just to rid themselves of it." perfectly matches my father. And, sometimes, when I hear these descriptions, I feel deep sympathy for my father's painful childhood (which he only rarely has mentioned, but I know was very bad). But I'm also extremely scared of letting that sympathy draw me closer to him. And so my sympathy is always followed by a cold (but firm) "No." to the question of whether I should forgive him. So, overall, I think it's possible to be both scientific/mildly sympathetic about my father's brain-damage (and that of all brain-damaged abusers) and coldly self-protective about what he did to me.