The Molyneux Test

[vahleeb]

I'm sure that most of you here have tried, after discovering Freedomain Radio for yourselves, to introduce those in your life to the phenomenon. Come on! I can't be the only crazy social animal on this board!

 

I'm also quite certain that you've received a plethora of reactions, varrying from total acceptance (you lucky bastards!), to tentitive acceptance only to run into a wall whenever they'd get to a subject they didn't agre with, to outright rejection (anyone call for an exorcist?). But have you ever encountered physical rejection? That is people who couldn't even bring themselves to listen because of "list a physiological reason here".

 

I have, in my life, two people each of them with a very exquisite and refined false self side of their personality. If we regard the false self as a soldier ready to protect you, imagine someone in an Iron Man suit, with a connected antenna array that's more fine tuned that whatever the NSA is using and an arsenal from the most surgically precise Swiss Assult Rifle, to Arnold's shoulder Rocket thrower from the Commando movie. What I have found with each of these people is that they had a physical reaction of rejection to Stefan's videos. One couldn't get himself to listen to him, claimed the tone of Stefan's voice drove him crazy, while the other (whom I had subjected to more videos on a variety of topics) would also get irritated by the voice, the verbal ticks and most often would just outright fall asleep (no matter what time of day we tried to watch). It was never about the message but rather a physical reaction of recoil to Stefan's mere presence.

 

So, I wonder, would exposing someone to Stefan's videos and measuring their actual physical discomfort be enough of a litmus test to expose a very advanced false self personality?

 

What were your experiences with this kind of correlation?

[Drew.]

I think that it would be entirely unnecessary and evoke a major backlash. Even people with a hint of true self who have a potential to grow and heal may feel uncomfortable at some of Stef's videos and outright reject them on initial exposure. The backlash would be major, especially if they are compelled or compulsed to sit through it in some manner that is not of their own design, which would be required to reach a certain level of discomfort. Also, there are easier ways to tell if someone is in their defenses, such as focusing on oneself and resolving the trauma that creates the false self, healing, and strengthening the true self. At this point, I am pretty aware of other people's defenses, and I have a good idea of when to respect them and when I can sneak something true in under the radar.

 

The first time that I listened to one of Stef's videos, I was turned off. It was a traffic jam with one of the absolute worst audio-qualities that he has released. A couple months later--exploring other podcasts on critical thinking--I decided to give Stef a shot again.

[csekavec]

I can't stand 75% of the content put out by FDR.  Do I then have a false self? 

[Drew.]

I can't stand 75% of the content put out by FDR.  Do I then have a false self? 

 

We all do. We all needed one to survive our childhoods.

[csekavec]

I think the whole premise is a non sequitur. 

[Drew.]

I don't quite follow, but would love if you would explain that.

[vahleeb]

I agree with Drew. I don't think it's possible that anyone is brought up without implementing a false self in them. Too much of the world's mechanisms are predicated on the existence of a false self. The trick, I think, is to recognize it and dismantle it, or to just take away the keys to the car from it and never let it back in the driver seat, once you have gathered enough self knowledge. I'd be the first to put up my hand and admit that I have a very developed false self that still surprises me sometimes and that has controlled my thoughts and actions for a very long period of my life.

 

What I was asking, however, was about physical rejection experiences shared with the people in your lives. The two people I was talking about didn't object to the ideas that were put forward (at least that wasn't the answer they gave) but instead had physical discomfort from the medium itself.

[csekavec]

You asked if FDR media is a litmus test of false self.  But if all have false self as is asserted is then the distinction only which is 'advanced' and which is not? I'm not familiar with this concept and only lightly read up [1][2] on it but I don't see a relationship.  Do you mean that a person claims aesthetic objection because the ideas threaten them and so their rejection is a sign of their false self?  But if true what about those who genuinely object on aesthetic grounds?  Their objection not useful criteria for judgement against them. 

 

And does the idea of universal false self need a response? It appears self refuting.

[vahleeb]

Csekavec, just going by the definition you quoted at urbandictionary that says "By inventing it, the child develops immunity to the indifference, manipulation, sadism, smothering, or exploitation – in short: to the abuse – inflicted on him by his parents (or by other Primary Objects in his life)" how do you say that the idea of an "universal" false self (that is something that everyone develops) is self refuting? Is there a human being on this earth that went from womb to maturity and avoided absolutely all of the following: indifference, manipulation, sadism, smothering or exploitation? It would seem to me, that the very definition seems to rather prove/imply that everyone develops a false self.

 

To come back to your question, how do you "genuinely object on aesthetic grounds" when aesthetics are not part of the evaluation. It's a talking head. Sometimes, it's just a logo.

 

Thirdly, I am not casting "judgement against" them, per se, because that would probably fall under the category of force intiation. Nor do I classify them as inferior. The problem with the two web definitions you pointed to is that they do tent to regard the false self as an oberall universal negative which is a little different than the image that FDR painted long ago.

 

It goes something like this: the false self is a defense mechanism meant to keep you safe in the first part of your life. Its methods are varried, but the bottom line is that without it, any sort of abuse (as described above) would run its full course through your personality and you would die. So, at this point in your life, the false self is a net positive. But, once you reach a certain level of maturity and the threat of death is removed, the desire of the false self to protect you becomes something negative, because there's nothing left to protect you from (the death finality has been removed) and it is instead enslaving you and preventing you from feelings and emotions that would no longer be dangerous.

 

A good analogy for this is if, when you were a kid and had freeplay in nature, your parents would have set a border (like a larger street) that you weren't supoosed to cross. The reason being that you were a little kid, and you couldn't possibly manage crossing a crowded street without the risk of injury. Well, as you grow up, you eventually become cognizant enough to the point where you can manage crossing the street. At this point, the restriction that was once protecting your life has become negative in nature.

 

This is why I feel that it's important to recognize when someone is interacting with you on a false self level, not to condemn them, but because when you don't interact with someone on a true self level, you cannot exact change. I'm not saying thay you should change/convert the people in your life, but my example already assumes that you have exposed them to FDR, and I don't think anybody does that just for the entertainment value.

[csekavec]

I think that presentation and oratit style are aesthetic values. Do you disagree? And I'm sorry to say your example of false self doesn't make my concept of that idea firm. 

 

I don't know what we're talking about then. I linked those definitions so we could be on the same page. If they are wrong please give me a concrete definition of aesthetics and false self so I know what we're talking about before we go on.  

[KallanDaMan]

The first few times I heard Stef's voice it turned me off too. I think it's because Stefan is so self-confident and is not at all afraid to show it. It's strange and threatening to hear somebody who is right and who knows it. 

[Boohickey11]

The first few times I heard Stef's voice it turned me off too. I think it's because Stefan is so self-confident and is not at all afraid to show it. It's strange and threatening to hear somebody who is right and who knows it. 

 

I think this is probably the most accurate answer. I've realized that people aren't like locks or puzzles. There isn't some combination of video, audio, or articles that's going to cause them to suddenly choose to listen and open their mind. It's a waste of time trying.

 

"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink"

 

This idiom, for me, has been the most applicable to FDR.

[cager]

Personally, I had a physical reaction when I accepted libertarian ideas. I distinctly remember feeling nauseous and having a migraine after reading Ron Paul for the first time and realizing he was correct. Then, the same thing happened when I found Stefan's videos and watched his videos on anarchy and realized he was correct. Could be a weird coincidence I guess, but I've always thought it was interesting. I think the case could be made that reaction was psychosomatic.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

In regards to the OP, the hesitation towards doing something like this I have is the opportunity cost of using a video as a litmus test instead of relying on your own genuine emotional reaction to what the other person is saying and doing in real time. The idea of forming some test beforehand to subject someone to sounds like it could cause more confusion than actually just stating the concerns you have in real time about the other person. I think in some cases tests like these which rely on a second hand source to communicate what you think and feel (which I guess by referencing a video would sort of be a way to say to the other person: this is what I care about. I care about truth, emotional availability, and integrity. I'm not saying it would always be a bad idea or even that it is a bad idea at all, and I think useful information could be extracted from how a person reacts to a video. In fact I know there would be useful information there. But I just wonder at what point it becomes less efficient and honest than just bringing up your own concerns directly to the other person.

 

I'm not sure I agree with the thing about you know who's confidence. To me, stupid people are REALLY confident. Politicians can be REALLY confident. And people eat that up; they're dying for someone else to think for them.

 

My own personal reaction to him was that I had a hard time accepting how hard of work it is to become someone capable of creating the kinds of videos he does. It was the most unique thing I had ever witnessed, and I was tempted to box him into a category. However, I think sometimes I would deal with projection on the part of my inner voices who had a hard time recognizing that someone wasn't using their charisma and intelligence to think for me, but to put responsibility on me to verify conclusions, to be honest and have integrity, and also to know how freaking hard work it is to become someone capable of shining the light of virtue and reason and at the same time being humble and subject to revision on the part of STRANGERS. I continue to struggle with the internal battle I have which is to remain cognizant of my own necessity to think for myself, and not rely on others to verify what I think, because that is an impossible task to substitute someone else's thought process for my own.

[vahleeb]

First, I'll concede the point that oratory style is something that can be described as aesthetic value and it can be something that one could object to. However, I would feel, that when you expose someone in your life to FDR (let's go back to the premise) anyone who approaches it in good faith should exhibit some leniency towards aesthetics and focus on the message first. This is why I had a problem with you saying "genuinely object", because I feel that the objection would not be genuine. This is not art to be evaluated for aesthetics, but an idea (or more) which should be at least considered for their contents first. On the opposite end of the spectrum, let's take John Stewart when he was hosting The Daily Show, I absolutely hated some of the messages he was delivering, but he was still funny and that was the main point of a show broadcast on Comedy Central. 

 

With regards to false self, I'd rather not enter a debate about it for the following reason: I believe it to be a very complex psychological phenomenon that affects all sides of one's own identity and if it is not seen naturally (that is of the person's own accord and cognisance) but rather the knowledge is inflicted externally it would be very damaging to the person whom you are exposing. The false self can only be truly exposed to someone if, first, they have agreed to (within themselves, not to me or any other person) to value truth and reason above all else and to pursue self knowledge to whatever end it may lead.

 

I can only recommend you listen to the following sequence of admittedly old FDR podcast episodes: 2350 (for a comprehensive short definition) and then, if you are interested in more the following sequence: 70, 223, 234, 251, 252, 289, 290, 304, 308, 335. I know it feels like I'm giving you a "shitload of homework" you are of course absolutely free to disregard all of it.

[Spenc]

 

What I have found with each of these people is that they had a physical reaction of rejection to Stefan's videos. One couldn't get himself to listen to him, claimed the tone of Stefan's voice drove him crazy, while the other (whom I had subjected to more videos on a variety of topics) would also get irritated by the voice, the verbal ticks and most often would just outright fall asleep (no matter what time of day we tried to watch). It was never about the message but rather a physical reaction of recoil to Stefan's mere presence.

 

So, I wonder, would exposing someone to Stefan's videos and measuring their actual physical discomfort be enough of a litmus test to expose a very advanced false self personality?

 

What were your experiences with this kind of correlation?

 

 

I would ask you to be more specific about which episodes you exposed them to first.  Also, from a political, philosophical perspective, what are these friends of yours like? 

 

Like, if I have a buddy who isn't interested in philosophy and I tell him to listen to FDR starting with the first 5-10 episodes where Stefan goes into great detail about kind of rigorous philosophical discussion that seems irrelevant to many people, then I'm not being reasonable to expect them to like the show right off the hop.

 

Maybe your friend is out of the loop about HiIlary Clinton's server/e-mail scandal and doesn't want to root around two dozen articles to figure out what is up, so you turn them on to the (if I remember right) 90-minute or so FDR episode as a simple primer on the subject.

 

Maybe you have a gossipy trash-TV loving friend, find the episode of the woman who was married to a really attractive man who kept promising to get serious about a career but was loafing off and basically just being a trophy husband while she was paying the role of sugar mama.  Or the episode more recently of the guy whose girlfriend was working to convince him that polyamory/polygamy is not just fine, but in fact superior to a standard pair bond family.

 

If, on the other hand, they are sharing and liking posts on facebook about how Trump is pure evil and then you go and tell them they need to listen FDR episodes that argue in his favor, it's just not going to work.

 

The first few times I heard Stef's voice it turned me off too. I think it's because Stefan is so self-confident and is not at all afraid to show it. It's strange and threatening to hear somebody who is right and who knows it. 

 

I personally find a lot of times that I cannot relate to Stef's passion and it turns me off a lot.  Like, in the real world, you probably don't really experience true passion from other people very often, particularly about major things like taking ownership over your life and pursuing dreams, etc.  People generally don't expose themselves and allow vulnerability with others, and a lot of the times you do see it it is either faked (like a salesman working his customers about a product he wants to sell) or it's not really important (Go HOME TEAM Go!).

 

Furthermore, particularly for me I was raised without much passion around me, so I find it really difficult.  When he's talking to a caller who wants to be a big music star about chasing his dreams, I just can't get into the discussion because it's so hard to relate, and it feels wrong to me in the sense that hearing someone genuinely be passionate comes across as like a car salesman or a politician or sports fan in my head.  I can intellectually grasp the message without the emotional connection to the conversation.  And it would be very off-putting for me if I hadn't had a prior attachment to the show through other types of calls and episodes that had touched me beforehand

[Sima]

Theoretically false self hates rationality like a vampire hates the sunlight

More precise, false self hates reality (he chooses  fantasies  instead).

Stefan podcasts are often very realistic, he gives statistics and sources, so of course false selves hate that.  

They hate the truth as well.

Most people around us are not real, if they show their personality as kind , or cool, or depressed : its all false personalities.

I myself am in public falsely in short contacts or very distant and cold, or flirty, or shy, but real me at home is different. False self is also a mask which people wear because other people around would hate to see their true self? Its not encouraged for sure..

Like about 10 years ago i decided to tell only the truth or nothing about myself, so because here are so many false selves around, i lets say do not have many friends... I was to lazy to make up socially accepted explanations ( to lie), so i just say nothing or the truth.  Weird me 

[Danske]

 

I'm sure that most of you here have tried, after discovering Freedomain Radio for yourselves, to introduce those in your life to the phenomenon. Come on! I can't be the only crazy social animal on this board!

 

I'm also quite certain that you've received a plethora of reactions, varrying from total acceptance (you lucky bastards!), to tentitive acceptance only to run into a wall whenever they'd get to a subject they didn't agre with, to outright rejection (anyone call for an exorcist?). But have you ever encountered physical rejection? That is people who couldn't even bring themselves to listen because of "list a physiological reason here".

 

I have, in my life, two people each of them with a very exquisite and refined false self side of their personality. If we regard the false self as a soldier ready to protect you, imagine someone in an Iron Man suit, with a connected antenna array that's more fine tuned that whatever the NSA is using and an arsenal from the most surgically precise Swiss Assult Rifle, to Arnold's shoulder Rocket thrower from the Commando movie. What I have found with each of these people is that they had a physical reaction of rejection to Stefan's videos. One couldn't get himself to listen to him, claimed the tone of Stefan's voice drove him crazy, while the other (whom I had subjected to more videos on a variety of topics) would also get irritated by the voice, the verbal ticks and most often would just outright fall asleep (no matter what time of day we tried to watch). It was never about the message but rather a physical reaction of recoil to Stefan's mere presence.

 

So, I wonder, would exposing someone to Stefan's videos and measuring their actual physical discomfort be enough of a litmus test to expose a very advanced false self personality?

 

What were your experiences with this kind of correlation?

 

 

Nope. Not all false selves respond the same.

 

The people you ran into probably had a 'fight' response from their false selves (these people are generally the hardest to reach, their emotions are hair-trigger), others will internally be disgusted but will not show it on the outside (these people having a more fawning/freezing/codependent response),

 

A better way might be to add follow up questions to see if they were paying attention, if they are the kind of person who will 'suck things up' or put on a brave/happy face.

[Malcolm]

In my experience, there has been only a couple of people in my life that I could share this show with, where they would actually listen. For the most part I knew they would like it in advance because I know they are the kind of people who are open to talking about philosophy, politics, and other tough subjects in a rational manner. Most people are closed off from even bringing up these subjects in conversation. Let alone diving into an hour long show that is going to challenge their beliefs and biases. And if you do try and talk about them, they lash out. Sadly, it seems so many people have been irreversibly indoctrinated by public schools and pop culture, into not questioning anything important. Leftism, nihilism, and anti-intellectualism seem to be very present in a lot of peoples minds. Therefore I'm hard pressed to even try with a lot of people. Unless I feel like agitating them. 

 

When I first started listening, I did not notice any verbal ticks or find Stef's voice irritating. I found him to be very easy to listen to. He's an excellent speaker.

I think if you are someone who is close minded or unreceptive to the kind of things that are talked about on Freedomain radio, then you are going to find excuses not to listen. I guess this could be considered a symptom of a false self, but I'm no expert on that theory.

 

I have had some difficulty with people who just didn't want to commit to hour long videos. This is one I can kind of understand. I tell them to listen to podcasts instead.

 

I have had been surprised by a few people who got into the show and love it now, where I had no idea that they would like it. This has made our friendships all the better.