Matt D

Kevin, I liked this more than some of your previous videos. In my opinion going off-script was a good idea. You have a mellow tone when you talk but I don't think it's boring at all. I would flip to another tab when I watched it but stayed focused on what you were saying the whole time. I've been asking my mecosystem 'What do we want to do?' but I like your approach of opening the floor to what others want to say and then spatially locating the thought. You're like a chameleon shooting its tongue to catch an insect.

Following the recent discussion with the Philosophy Film Club, you can find my commentary on The Matrix (1999) below. This theory is an expansion of a topic mentioned during the Film Club hangout and is one that I haven't encountered elsewhere. As always I'm eager to hear your thoughts. http://unraise.com/2015/02/15/the-matrix-part-1-a-metaphor-for-the-unconscious/

When a statist says he would use violence against me I scan the room for and exit and start inching towards it slowly. It's a lot more frustrating when the statist says he wouldn't use violence against me, but he's not going to change his opinion anyway. What he is saying equates to "I value being right more than I value truth." The worst possible outcome when you're an entrepreneur looking for investment is the 'long no'. Similarly, I really dislike the statist who drags you along for long periods of time not willing to come down on either side of the fence. We're in a plague so stop wasting my time, which could be spent on someone with intellectual integrity.

Hello, I'll be eating lunch near the International Students for Liberty Conference (ISFLC) in Washington DC this Saturday, Feb 14. Please message me or reply to this if you'd like to join me and other FDR listeners. We'll be at Noodles and Co. shortly after 12 noon. Look for the guy wearing an FDR shirt. All the best, Matt P.S. This is a classy restaurant so bring your finest toupee

Thanks for clarifying. We both agree that seeking self knowledge can be advantageous to overall happiness regardless of gender. But I disagree that social conditions make the decision easier for men. The social programming I have experienced is that psychology is a feminine discipline and that men who are openly interested in their inner self should be condemned as weak or unmanly. I will say that females are generally more attenuated to their peer female to female relationship and this could lead to difficulty and even volatility if the exploration comes up against their existing relationships. In a nutshell, it's easier for women to decide on the pursuit and easier for men to act on it. Is that reasoning similar to what you observe? I wouldn't say that virtue is something you achieve, like nirvana or zen. A person's actions can be virtuous provided two things are present: 1. choice; and 2. the capacity to evaluate the virtue of the action. For simplicity sake, let's equate evil with smoking. If you are brought up in an environment where everyone around you smokes cigarettes and you are told that smoking is the best possible means of health, and you are punished for not smoking, then it's reasonable to say we would be more amazed by someone who came out of these origins and after years of battling addiction became a non-smoker than we would feel toward someone who never touched or encountered cigarettes except in passing and received instruction of the deleterious effects of cigarettes on one's health. However, if you are brought up in an environment where people close to you smoke and punish you for not smoking, BUT you see ads against smoking, all of the top researchers proclaim that smoking causes cancer, your teachers sympathize with your plight and strangers tell you how awful it is to have to go through what you experienced, then we would not actually be awed or inspired when you decided as an adult to quit smoking. The degree to which the rest of the world condemns evil is the degree to which virtue is expected. That doesn't mean we value virtue any less, but it's not something we focus our attention on. Conversely, the degree to which the world turns a blind eye to evil is the degree to which we can admire the courage it takes overcome ungrounded falsehoods.

Great points all around. Very stimulating conversation here. I'm wondering why you think it's not advantageous for a woman to seek self-knowledge or PA early in her life. I agree with you that, at least in this conversation, most women I encounter tend to be older (i.e. over 30). Are social and familial pressures greater on young women which is why they have to 'hit rock bottom' first? I would disagree that virtue is greater in individuals who had to overcome great challenges in life. Insofar as morality is objective we cannot say that one's upbringing accounts for a relative measure of their virtue. Otherwise we could never hold accountable abusive parents who did better than their parents. Of course, we may find it admirable and inspiring when out of the smoldering ashes of soul-destroying childhood misery arises an adult who strives to better herself and those around her. I think that sex is a drug. I won't deny that the more sexual partners a women has the harder it is for her to quit the addiction. Certainly men have a hard time telling whether a women is genuinely aroused. However, I don't think this matters. The one thing that men can judge just by looking at a women is her actions. Does she appear comfortable in her own skin or is she constantly trying to please other people? Is she open and curious about you or does she only like to talk about herself and her problems? We're 100% on the same page with regards to honesty in conversations between men and women. I think it's crucial to find out what a woman thinks of patterns in male and female sexuality. If she says that women shouldn't be looked on negatively for being promiscuous or that men need to have engaged in lots of sex in order to prove their manhood, then I would promptly run the other way. Once you are comfortable with the woman's trust I think talking about the influence of menstrual cycles on female arousal is great. I'm glad you brought up the subject here. I will say that men typically avoid these conversations with women and with other men, which I believe is a detriment to relationships as a whole. I honestly don't want lots of female partners because it would get in the way of achieving a happy marriage and family. So if a woman "demands" that I am monogamous in my thirties, that is not the primary issue for me. Let's say that the woman did not sacrifice immediate pleasures when she was in her prime of sexuality but instead engaged in casual sex. The question for me would be does she understand why she was promiscuous and has she addressed that problem in herself through self-work, therapy, and looking critically at the people in her life who enabled that behavior (the choice to show a lack of restraint and boundaries lies with the individual, but it does not occur in isolation). As I mentioned above, I admit this revelation is rare when women are in their twenties and I think it's entirely right to avoid or shun those women who won't admit the destruction they are causing to themselves and their partners.

First let me say I think this conversation is extremely important because we cannot achieve a philosophical world without women. Not because men are controlled by women, but because children are influenced so heavily by women as primary caregivers. Men have been trying for a long time to bring philosophy to the world and Stef/FDR has I think been so successful because it bridges the crater that we are told exists between the genders. MGTOW / red pill is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you assume that women will never change, then you're right - women will never change. But if men start holding women and mothers to a standard and criticize them compassionately and empathetically, and resist the urge to have sex with those who don't meet that standard, then women as a whole I believe will come to realize how much they need strong, virtuous men in their lives. You could be right about the inverse relationship between security and passion, and I think this matches with a lot of couple's experiences. I have another theory which is based on research on women's brains during orgasms. Since women are stimulated by the mind more than men, foreplay and smooching is more important to women in the achievement of pleasure during sex. I think there is a tendency during marriage or long-term relationships to forego some of the arousing bits that occur when a women is first dating. If men who trigger women's imagination get a greater sexual response from women that would seem to validate this theory. You can describe with absolute certainty a woman's nature.... That's a bold claim, my friend. You must have a lot of evidence to make such a statement. The article you posted demonstrates that hormones are released differently depending on where a woman is in her menstrual cycle. Okay, I can accept that as true. But to then say that she is morally a different person? That, assuming she was raised in America, she is therefore incapable of acting virtuously? Do you really believe that? There's also a major contradiction in your argument. You say that men are capable of acting philosophically against their biological urge, but then you say a woman in a committed relationship knows that her man won't leave her which leads her to feel secure which leads to unsatisfactory sex. If a philosophically enlightened guy is with a woman who cares more about sex than her relationship, the man won't stick around. So if a woman is not virtuous and her man is virtuous, she knows that her man won't stay which means that she won't feel secure... which, according to your theory, means better sex! Your argument can only apply if we assume that both the man and the woman are not philosophically minded. I will grant you this is true for a majority of relationships, but I fail to see why it's possible for men to be virtuous and not women. Low percentage does not equal zero percentage. In my opinion both men and women will be happier if they sacrifice sexual variety for the sake of their future children. It's like achieving a healthy body: you have to sacrifice immediate pleasures like fatty foods and tv -- but if you form habits with the goal of health you will not regret making the sacrifice.... quite the opposite.

That's a lot of reading. Welcome!

Hey all, I wanted to give a plug to a friend's conference which is centered around curiosity and starting discussions with questions rather than problems in society. For anyone in Vancouver, I encourage you to check out the website for the upcoming 2 day event. http://whatifvancouver.com/ Interestingly when I told my friend that I was interested in the question "What If... There Was No Government?" he responded much more positively and curiously than I expected. He is a former English professor who got fed up with how little actually gets done in academia so decided to start his own educational business. I recommend giving it a look.

Let's assume you're right. That women view sex as transactional and therefore the sex in a secure relationship is less passionate or emotionally intense. What does that mean? From what I gather it means that the man in the relationship has to work harder to please the woman sexually. We hold up the virtue of the free market and welcome competition because it produces quality. Sex, though, is only one part of the transaction. For a number of reasons women may decide that monogamy with worse sex is preferable to great sex with many partners (at least you can make this case absent the state). And men do the same. I can understand how your dick might want more passionate sex with an engaged female, but men have the option of choosing the path which is more advantageous to their long term happiness, certainly the case if you wish to raise a family. Are you saying that women use philosophy to gain resources and/or sexual partners? I implore you to elaborate. To argue this point you must explain, in my opinion, how men are not using philosophy to gain resources and/or sexual partners, and also how a philosophical defense of monogamy excludes the critique of women's sexual choices. I would put forward that philosophy challenges men and women's choices around sex.

Thanks! Let me know how it goes next time you find yourself in this scenario.

Hello good people, I made a new blog post called 'Being Honest About Being Honest'. It's my first real blog so don't give me feedback... okay, maybe a little. If you like the writing you can subscribe at http://unconsciousconnection.com ~Matt

Hi DaVinci, Yes I've been through something similar with my brother, which could mean that what I'm about to tell you is skewed towards my experience. I just want to say that up front. I assume when you say you can't talk about things that genuinely matter you are talking about things like honesty, integrity, and responsibility. I also assume from what you wrote that you are able to talk about these values but he repeats back the family propaganda and shuts down the conversation when it become uncomfortable. I know this situation and it sounds similar to what my brother said to me. "Sure, things weren't perfect but why are you being so sensitive? Grow up and move on." I took his advice. I got professional help and I moved on from my relationships with him and my family. I held out hope that my brother would change for about a year. Ironically he introduced me to anarchy and thereby Freedomain Radio and thereby self-knowledge, so I felt gratitude towards him even though I know these events happened largely by chance. He didn't enjoy listening to the podcasts about the family but was intrigued by abstract concepts like DROs, things that would not have an actual effect in his life. Even though we could talk about things that were philosophical (like the predation of the state) I couldn't be around him without self-erasing because there was simply too much history between us. Stef said once that relationships fundamentally never change. If two people in a relationship are committed to growth in themselves from the beginning then the fact that they are always changing never changes. My question for you would be -- if you knew your relationship with your brother would never change would you still want to have that relationship? It's easy to blame yourself: "If I would only open my heart wider then maybe he would react differently," we tell ourselves. Indeed, RTR will help you gain certainty, but don't be tempted to self-attack because he rejects the real you. Will I ever talk to my brother again? I don't know. I know that right now I don't have any desire to pick up the phone and call him. My guess is that when my parents are dead he may pursue some personal growth if he hasn't already inflicted the same insecure tendencies on his own kids. I'm not placing any bets. I really wish you the best on this difficult issue. It sounds corny, but whatever you decide I know you'll make the right choice. M

No problem. I didn't have a dreamed prepared anyway so we're going to reschedule for next week. David- is there a time which works better for you? I have another call at 6pm but 4pm (8am in Australia) would be fine. Everyone who's interested in joining us on the 24th -- Please send me your dreams and/or skype name. Thanks!

I'm reading Dan Pink's book Drive at the moment. He mentions Deci in his introduction and there's a chapter called 'Why Carrots and Sticks Don't Work'. Immediately after that chapter is a subchapter which goes through the exceptions to that rule. I'll let you know what I find out once I get to that point! ...but enough with the science, what about the personal?! I'm curious to know what kinds of motivation were used when you all were growing up. Was it effective? @JP - sorry if you mentioned that in your videos already as there are some I haven't watched. I'm assuming there is a reason the people on this thread are interested in the topic, at least I think that's the case for myself. I'd be happy to share if you like.

As far as I know there aren't any meetups happening in Pittsburgh or Cleveland. But if you want to start one I can help point you in the right direction.

Using the built-in calendar makes a lot of sense! I'm personally trying to get the word out about a weekly dream analysis call I organize and this would be perfect for that as well as the meetups and regular call-in shows. You know better than anyone here how to make magic happen on the boards. Let us know how we can help push this through.

What do I value most about women? 1. Their wilingness to talk about a particular relationship problem I'm having with another person. 2. They tend to be very direct about the things they like or dislike. 3. The fierceness with which they guard the people who are most important to them. 4. They usually aren't afraid to ask for help. ...I'm sure this list will grow as I become more intimate with quality women. In conjunction with the OP's question Stef also suggested asking your (female) date what her relationship is like with her father. For people who haven't healed their childhood traumas they often cannot separate their relationship with the opposite sex parent from the opposite gender as a whole. I know I used to be very cynical of women because I was raised by a narcissistic, petty, passive aggressive mother. Now that I've made friends with women who are quite different I'm able to see more clearly the value that women in particular can bring to the world.

All- I'd like to schedule another Skype dream analysis for this Saturday, the 17th of Jan, at 2pm Eastern Standard Time. Please join the facebook group here and indicate your preference to participate as well as whether you have a dream to share with the group. Looking forward to some good conversation about dreams! Matt

Hello- There will be a meetup taking place in DC the Sunday after next, the 25th of Jan. For more details request to join our Facebook group here. If you're in the Washington DC metro area we hope you'll join us for some good conversation and enjoyable company. Truly, Matt

I'm sure they have overcome something in their life, but if they didn't have the connection with their teacher as a child (like you have with your students) then I don't think they will feel the same satisfaction at mastering a skill. Instead they will feel the momentary relief from anxiety or judgment (negative economics). I like the explanation that Dr. Hallowell gives in his book The Childhood Roots of Adult Happiness. The cycle begins with connection, then play, followed by practice, mastery, and finally recognition. As you say, peacefully coaxing them to move through this cycle is to their long-term benefit and will lead to greater satisfaction in their adult lives. JP, I'm sorry that I nitpicked at your description of intrinsic value. I don't think my critique added anything to the debate.

If you're asking someone to prove their virtue, don't you already know the answer? The beauty of virtue is that everyone sees it whether they acknowledge it or not. My opinion is that you don't have to ask a virtuous person to prove it because it will be obvious from outer space.

I agree with you. I think parents use this language to avoid asking the child why he/she enjoys the activity. Yes JP, I missed your reply entirely. My apologies. I would still question whether the activity has intrinsic value or whether "biological equilibrium" (aka happiness) has intrinsic value. I agree there is a fallacy with regard to how intrinsic/extrinsic is mostly used to describe the individual student. My thesis is that using intrinsic in either context is a fallacy. Have you had success getting parents, teachers to change their instruction as a result of explaining the misnomer?

So far no one has addressed my initial comment, granted I didn't make the point very well, that we don't do an activity for the sake of doing the activity but rather we do the activity because we are rewarded with happiness. Thus being happy would be the only thing we can say is intrinsically motivated. When mastering a particular skill we either do it because it makes us happy (what is typically called intrinsic motivation) or because it leads to something else which makes us happy (what is typically called extrinsic motivation). So I don't really understand why having those two terms is important....

I have enjoyed reading this exchange so far. Obviously, I'm very sorry to hear that you are feeling depressed, sagi. I had different results than Kevin with regards to therapy and so it may be helpful to get a different perspective. Looking back I wish I had followed some of the advice he is giving in this thread. 1. For starters I just googled 'therapist near me' and came up with a name that was in my neighborhood. When I called the woman said she was retired but asked some basic questions about what I was looking for help with and then gave me three names to follow up with. One I ruled out because he was a psychiatrist, and between the other two I chose the female because I thought it would put me in the least comfortable situation. I was definitely following my gut here, but it's interesting that I didn't even try calling the other therapist for a comparison. 2. On the first meeting I asked her about her approach and she said "I don't have an approach, we just talk". I remember thinking that was a cool thing to say but I didn't think to ask her how she would know if the therapy was successful. That could have saved me a lot of time and money. Two months into the therapy I finally began to ask her more questions such as, "what is your take on prescription medication?" and "why did you become a therapist?" To the first question she gave an answer that didn't satisfy me and to the second she refused to answer. I told I was irritated by her refusal and that was the end of the discussion. 3. I quit therapy because I wasn't seeing progress no matter how much I opened up. I was progressing on my own outside of therapy and I think that's how I was eventually able to see that the relationship was not productive for me, and in many ways was damaging. She was not able to stand up in defense for my traumatized child -- she validated my feelings by nodding at the right times and sounding empathetic but she didn't validate that what I experienced at the hand of my abusers was wrong which is what I needed to hear. My experience indicates that you will benefit from being ruthlessly critical in your initial questioning while looking for a therapist. I see Kevin posted links to Dan Mackler's website. Mackler has said that finding a great therapist is a real challenge simply because so many haven't brought their needs to their own parents or if they have forgave their parents for what they did. I don't mean to discourage you but to let you know what to expect. There are lots of effective ways to heal and gain self-knowledge (journaling, meditation, therapy, playing) so the best strategy is to try them all, in my opinion.