Ace

That whole worst case scenario thing is very helpful. I first heard of that sort of idea from some motivational type audiobooks from Brian Tracy. It's true, whenever you feel apprehensive about taking a certain course of action - just play it out in your mind, what the worst possible outcome could be. Invariably you realize that none of the things you are afraid of doing are going to lead to permanently crippling consequences. I was very much afraid of asserting myself in the past. And I think I still am in certain circumstances. Understanding where that comes from is very valuable. But, I don't think understanding and being able to rationalize the cause of the feelings make them automatically go away. In the end it largely comes down to the typical thing they say, that you have to confront the fear. It doesn't make it easier to begin with for sure. But it's true, the kind of thing like asking a girl out- the first number of times you do it it's terrifying but after you've gone through that and realized first hand that whatever the outcome, life goes on and you're okay, it's not a big deal anymore and the fear dissipates. You have to be conscious of it, recognize the situations where you refrain from asserting yourself when you desire to do so. And like the other poster said, a lot of it has to do with the relationships you have. I realized that a lot of people I've spent time with only liked me because I didn't assert myself. And so you get used to that, and start to believe that that gains you acceptance. But those kind of relationships are just obligations.

I watched Manhattan and Annie Hall this weekend and was wondering what others who have seen them think. Mild spoiler alert. I like his humour, thought both were pretty funny. I've never seen a Woody Allen movie before, his whole style/sense of humour reminds me very much of Larry David/George Costanza, I have to believe it was a major influence. It is like a lot of movies in that the effort is made to be really deep but it's all pretty shallow and ultimately unresolved matters they address. In both movies there's a fair bit of talk about seeing psychoanalysts, and I read that Woody Allen has been doing it for much of his life. But in the films that is treated more as kind of a novelty or indulgence of the characters. I think FDR has ruined my ability to just mindlessly enjoy movies lol, I pick out all the contradictions now. Ie. his character is an intellectual, not religious etc. but in Manhattan after he quits his job he says he's worried now he won't be able to send his father money so he can get the best seat in the Synagogue. In both movies the characters have largely rejected the values of their parents consciously, and speak mockingly of them, but they still go along with them. I guess that's going half way at least. Most people never even go as far as acknowledging that their parents are full of shit, let alone addressing it with them. And with these accusations that Woody Allen may have sexually abused his adopted daughter back in the day I'm sure there's all kinds of deeper analysis that could be done about him making a movie where he's dating a 17 year old girl! For most of the film he doesn't believe it's serious or of any real value and tries really hard to convince her that it isn't. And then at end he contradicts everything he said before. So the moral is probably the he's just a manipulator with no integrity. It's always entertaining though how stories about New York so often follow the same formula - intellectual (or at least pseudo-intellectual) people who are constantly moving from relationship to relationship and the trials and tribulations of that. Maybe that's the truth though? I remember Gavin McInnes on RedEye he said, which I thought was funny, "New York is an elephant's graveyard for ovaries. The men are perpetual teenagers incapable of monogamy." All in all though I enjoyed both. And Diane Keaton was really cute back in the day.

Haha I saw it and think it's like a lot of artsy independent movies - it's just pseudo-intellectual drivel. I think some of these type of directors think that making something that's controversial instantly equals profound. It's like that movie Elephant by Gus Van Sant. The whole frame narrative with the professor from Good Will Hunting, can't remember his name - oh man when he's telling his stories about fishing etc. it's so pretentious is made me cringe.

it's Windows 7, Internet Explorer 11.I found now that it works if I click on the light switch button at the top of the sort of word panel. It seems it switches to sort of a plain text format, not sure the exact terminology. So you lose the ability to use any of the buttons on the panel, but it lets me quote and copy and paste this way.

Well I think Wuthering Heights could kill just about anyone's love of reading lol. I love to read but hated that one in school. It makes sense that a lot of people don't like reading because their whole memory of it is that of being forced into doing it, in school etc. I really like audiobooks. I do most of my "reading" that way, I travel a lot for work so whenever I'm on the road I have some audiobooks going. It's nice because you can do it while you're doing something else. Atlas Shrugged is really profound, but I think deeper books like that are tough to follow as an audiobook. I took a class on Ulysses by James Joyce in university and there were huge portions of it I probably had to read 4 times, constantly flipping back and forth to the annotations to understand it. I think the key is to just pick a subject that interests you. The important thing is to learn new things. There's no rule that says you have to like reading. If listening to podcasts, watching documentaries etc. is more to your taste, that's fine too.

Just pull the tried and true Simpson's method next time - "I'm prejudiced against all races" But more seriously - of course they want you to feel bad - it's one of those things absolutely everyone says "It's your civic duty!". I don't think you can get in trouble. I believe there is some kind of charge that exists for people trying to scheme to get out of jury duty but it's almost never applied. But that's more for someone coming up with a lie of some kind, if you have a moral objection, they'll be critical but can't really do anything. It's so funny in a way, I think there are certain religions that are opposed to serving on a jury and the people who claim that would be let off without question or criticism. But if you have a legitimate moral objection - ie. the system is corrupt and in reality it's anything but a fair and impartial trial etc. - you're not a good citizen. If you have a legitimate and ethical justification for seeking restitution from someone, you don't have any other choice to go about it than through the system as it exists today. So it wouldn't be hypocritical. I think the feelings are fairly common. I find that whenever I'm faced with someone trying to tell me to do something, trying to take a position of authority that can't be questioned - it makes me angry, almost a physical sensation. And I think that goes back to the same things every thinking person has experienced growing up - you need an explanation and justification for why you should do something, but all we got was "because I said so". And because we were taught to just submit to authority, and were made to feel bad when we tried to challenge it, we're sort of conditioned to feel guilty when we do it as adults.

The state is so pervasive that you can connect any means of making a living to it. People like to go to extremes of that - like you could say that driving your car on public roads is immoral because that asphalt is paid for by stolen money etc. etc. You have to not worry so much about all the little details and focus on the important stuff. I found podcast 183 really mind blowing. In it he says that all of the political effect of freedom is secondary to people seizing freedom in their personal lives. We all still have to get by within society as it exists. He says that if you live a life without positive obligations to others, you'll be more free than almost everyone would if we suddenly could magically create a stateless society.

Yeah I'm doing that and you get those little bars in the middle of the screen showing something is loading, but nothing shows up. It's weird it seems really glitchy, I've never had the issue on other forums.

Hi I'm having a bit of an issue. For some reason if I try to copy and paste something into the message box, when making a post or replying to one, it doesn't work, nothing shows up. And also if I click the button to quote someone's post it doesn't show up in the message box. Is there some sort of setting with my web browser, or within the forum that I need to change? When I try to paste a box comes up asking if I want to allow it to access my clipboard. I click yes but nothing happens. Thanks,

It's all about social approval. So many studies have been done which show beyond a doubt that the notion of what a beautiful woman looks like is a cultural construct. I mean if makeup were never invented would we all just be disgusted with how girls look and then humanity would die out because we wouldn't want to have sex anymore? The personal drawbacks of using makeup are immense. I mean if you could keep track and add it all up how much time would the average woman spend over the course of her whole life - putting on make-up, taking it off, buying it, etc. etc. it would be huge. It just sounds so much more noble. "I put makeup on to feel good about myself", instead of "men have been conditioned by our culture to find makeup attractive so I use it to conform to that notion". I think that generally speaking women look better with a little bit of makeup than without, but I'm aware that isn't an objective fact outside of my views which are the result of the culture I grew up in and live in. I'm sure they're not lying in saying that it makes them feel good to use makeup. But it makes them feel good because acceptance from others makes us feel good, not because changing your appearance has some inherent positive effect on a person's feelings. But of all the self-deceptions people perform to avoid acknowledging their true motivations, I think makeup is far down the list.

I don't know how generous welfare is in the UK - but I guarantee you that working hard and having the government take a huge chunk of your income will provide you a more satisfying existence than sitting at home and getting $800 a month or whatever it is. I think that those of us living in the developed world should be thankful that we're still able to enjoy a very good standard of living even though all in probably 40% of what we're paid is taxed. You have to be realistic. We still need to swim in the waters in which all the laws and rules apply to get by in life. If you decided that paying taxes is immoral and you're going to stick to that and end up in jail for tax evasion, would you be contributing to advancing freedom in the end? Having customs officers go through your luggage prepared to fine you over something you bought on vacation that isn't allowed is silly and wrong, but you're way better off just smiling and going along with them to get it over with than asserting your position. Because that is a situation where you do not have any control, if you don't comply they'll use force to get you to. Like you said, it's better to focus on personal things. Moving to some other country where you only pay 30% tax instead of 40% isn't going to change anything. Having more material wealth is nice, but once you're making enough to be comfortable and not having to budget every penny to get by - it's totally secondary to finding happiness.

Hi there, I just wanted to share my experience. I'm fairly new to FDR and have been listening to many podcasts over the past few months. I really enjoyed #536 about job interviews. Like so much else in the podcasts, it seems so simple and self-evident, but the rational way of going about things gets clouded over by all the other conditioning we receive as we grow up. In every previous job interview I've ever been to, though I wouldn't necessarily say it was what I was consciously trying to do, I have been attempting to say what I think the other person wants to hear in order to get the job. The same is true in many other interactions in life, I think I've always tended to change the way I dealt with people to what I thought would gain acceptance rather than just being myself and trying to find the right people who would like me the way I really am. I had two interviews this week on Wednesday and Thursday. They're for jobs in different cities than where I'm currently working and living. One was over Skype and the other I had to drive a few hours for it. I really focused in and changed my approach from what I've done in the past. I gave it a lot of thought and came up with many questions - so I was there to interview them as much as them me. I feel that both went really well. It seems to me that asking a lot of questions builds rapport with your interviewer - it changes the dynamic so you're speaking to each other more as equals than as the normal idea of an interviewer where they are the one in the position of authority that you are trying to impress. It breaks the ice and makes things more friendly which surely helps - as Stef said in the podcast - regardless of your skills a big factor that they will consider is whether you seem like a fun person to work with. I can remember going to interviews and they'd ask if I had any questions and I'd say no and it makes me cringe now. I was a little disappointed at one thing. In the podcast he talks quite a bit about how to answer the question "what are your weaknesses", and I had worked out a really great answer to that - but neither one asked me! I haven't heard back yet of course, but I feel pretty optimistic. I'll definitely report back on the results. If anyone hasn't listened to that podcast I strongly recommend it. Like so many of the ideas I've encountered on FDR - it's painful to realize how backwards you've been going about things all your life. But better to find out later than never!

Hi, my name is Adam, I first came upon FDR 7 or 8 years ago - however I focused only on the political subjects and for one reason or another drifted away from it. A few months ago, the video "The Truth about Elliot Rodger" received a lot of views on Youtube, came up early in the searches, and that was how I re-discovered FDR. Really, it was just by chance, which is kind of scary to think of now. I've spent the last couple of months delving into many of the videos/podcasts on the personal topics and man it's been awfully profound. I'm sure others have had a similar experience, but it flips almost everything you thought you knew about your life on its head. I have made some very important realizations about myself, my past, and where I'm headed - some of it is pretty difficult and leaves your mind kind of scrambled, not sure how to proceed. It's very energizing too. I find, when listening to the podcasts, that a lot of the ideas really click and I feel that deep down I always knew that they were true - but that part of me was so clouded over by my history, what I was taught, the false self I guess you would say, that I never could acknowledge it consciously. I have always been skeptical by nature - not sure where it came from because the people I've spent most of my time with certainly aren't. The back and forth between my true self recoiling at the lack of foundation for so much of what people generally take as a given, and my false self wanting to conform - has worn on me for a long time. I can see now that I've been taking the completely wrong approach - trying to change to fit in and being a phony rather than being myself, being honest. It shakes you up, but I'm really glad I re-discovered FDR. I don't think I would ever be truly happy or satisfied with life if I continued down the path I was on. I'm lucky in that my true self has stayed strong enough through all my experiences so far that I've never been able to feel comfortable conforming and letting the truth slide when it's convenient. I certainly have not always acted in accordance with the truth, but always have felt the hypocrisy when doing so. I want to live a life of principles and actually connect with some people instead of going along to get along and continuing relationships to which there really isn't any actual substance. I've been out to a couple of meet-ups here in town. It's really nice to interact with people who share similar values and are interested in philosophy. I hope too that I can contribute to some of the discussions here on the board. I'm making a lot of changes in my life. There's still lots to do and figure out, but I'm very excited about where it may lead. Life's too short to do otherwise, I think I've wasted enough time already! Thanks!