LOL, I don’t idolize Stef or anything like that. I only discovered his work a couple of months ago and found a lot of his ideas and approaches to problem’s very intriguing. I’m not fond of a few things he promotes like “defoo”, but I find his arguments for voluntaryism from a human psychological perspective kind of refreshing.
There is some very worthwhile listening in the podcast archives for anyone interested in anarchist theory and possible solutions. I’d highly recommend looking at the full feed and checking out the 2006 works in particular.
Since this was posted in December, I’m curious if you’ve had a chance to look into any of his stuff and if so, what do you think?
His books ‘Everyday Anarchy’ and ‘Practical Anarchy’ are what converted me into a full anarchist. He is by far the best at convincing people about anarchy that I know of. Stef is very gifted rhetorically and adds a personal/spychological dimension to libertarianism. He’s an absolutist when it comes to not voting though, which I find ridiculous. For me voting works in small geographical areas. I also don’t agree with his views on religion. If you want to get something valuable and unique out of him please listen or read the (audio)book ‘Real Time Relationships’. That book will let you achieve anarchy in your personal life. You can also refer to his videos and podcasts as a shortcut to converting other people. ‘Proof of Anarchy’ is one video you should send to all your statist friends along with the ‘Statism is Dead’ series. Other important videos are those that discuss why insurance companies or DROs will not turn into new governments. That should cap the deal with your statist friends.
John, John, John, there you go again. Seriously, your relationship/respect for Molyneux is perfectly fine with me. I’ve never felt the need to assassinate your character to feel better about me. And no matter how hard or how many times you try, I’m not about to reciprocate with you on that level.
There are a gazillion books pro and contra regarding Rand. Surely there’s a place for me to offer a critical analysis of Molyneux, especially if his contributions are as important as some believe.
I’m just some guy on the internet to you, but it does really hurt my feelings when you characterize my work in words that are in startling contrast to a tone and editorial stance I’ve worked hard to develop, and then pull a single throwaway line out of context to “support” them. Does it matter to you at all that I would never do such a thing to you?
Me too. Please prove that I am.
I would like to know why you are not averse to therapy.
My empirical observation is that some people find it a helpful endeavor. Who am I to argue? [:)]
You can argue what made them feel better.
Good one! I guess my best answer is that I’m agnostic about the whole thing. I’ve never been troubled enough to want to pursue it myself and I’m insufficiently informed to offer an opinion about those who do. I sometimes get very interested in the backgrounds and motivations of the therapists themselves but I’m unqualified to argue either way about the practice overall.
I think Stef can be a funny commentator, but philosophically I find him disappointing. UPB, his Empiricism, and some of his podcasts about other philosophical issues (look up the one on utilitarianism) are filled with shoddy logic.
His true news stuff and his interviews are pretty cool, so I look at him sort of like a commentator and not a philosopher (sort of like H. L Mencken, except Mencken was way way way cooler in my opinion).
As for the psycho analysis, I think a lot of what he says is true, but a lot of it is rampant speculation.
He also puts a lot of faith in therapy, which begs the question in my mind on the health of the therapists. I mean not all therapists are going to be the kind of people Stef would like. In fact most I have dealt with seem to be quacks, ( I had to look for a few before I found the one who helped me) often with problems worse than mine.
Fully agree, UPB never convinced me too. It’s just a reshuffling of natural tights perspective, sad for Molineux who otherwise rejects absolutism.
Regarding his “get a shrink” approach, I’m coming to increasingly see he is indeed right. I would not go on to say that if one is not an ancap he has been abused as a child, but the opposite is true: those who have been abused will never develop the security to take over their responsibilities as adults, and will always resist a freedom-maximizing system. Shrinks can certainly help.
I regard psychotherapy as bunk. The best its advocates can come up with to support it is studies with no control groups. However, I heartily endorse his de-foo therapy, as it requires no acceptance of psychiatric claptrap.
I think this is a good analysis. However, I do think he knows when his arguments are philosophical vs. rampant speculation, he just doesn’t do a very good job of delineating that fact in his podcasts. The few times I’ve seen him in a formal debate where he is pressed on his arguments, he’s much more forthcoming as to what is his opinion and what he has deduced.
He does a good job of it. He just doesn’t repeat the same thing over and over for the benefit of the guy who listens for 5 minutes just to find something to complain about. Therapy is his achilles heel. I was going to start a thread in his forum about it, but I have no inclination to be stormed with personal attacks by the Ninja Troll Guard.
Well, in a sense it’s a good thing that you regard psychology as bunk, as it indicates that you have no psychical problems yourself. Yet, there are far more people than we care to see that suffer form incredibly acute such problems. For them, psychotherapy (if decently performed) is the coolest invention since the wheel.
Since when is psychotherapy psychology?
I think that psychoanalytic methods, especially in its Freudian roots, is incredibly arbitrary and potentially dangerous. But I don’t conflate that with psychology in general, which has moved on since Freud. The problem I see is essentially telling people what they think for them or attributing causes for people’s behavior and ideas based on the application of an overstretched generalization or some sort of pre-fabricated set of labels/categories/types. It’s especially inappropriate in the context of debate, where it functions as a way to sidetrack from the substance of the matter at hand and intellectually bully someone into agreeing with you.
This is the problem some people have had with Molyneux in how he weilds the tool of psychoanalysis. He’s too broad-brushing in his application of connecting things to people’s childhood and he oppurtunistically whips out psychoanalysis to pressure people into adopting his side in a debate. This is done through the method of asking leading questions and personalizing things. I hardly know of anyone who had a live/voice debate with him (myself included) who didn’t leave the discussion feeling manipulated to some degree, other than those that have already fully absorbed themselves in his psychotheraputic cult of personality.
With my limited observations of the site, he does seem absolutly irresponsible about the use of psychology as a science. And when that seems to be a cornerstone of an intellectual site, and then used as an application to try to help his readers it is just baffling some people take him seriously.
On top of that, from the 3 or 4 psychological podcasts I have seen, he seems scientificaly sloppy as well. He doesn’t lay much (any?) methodological ground work, I wouldn’t even call what he is trying to promote a hypothesis, it’s just a statement. He seems to try to “psychologize” things in order to justify his aesthetics. Of course psychology seems to be the science that is most inviting of crankery, so it shouldn’t be too suprising.
Just look at the podcast about procrastination, even if it is right (and I am certainly not saying it is) how could one consider that a useful podcast in terms of it being intellectualy valid. It is little more than a barstool buddy giving his armchair thoughts in relation to his life.
The limitation of your observation can’t be exaggerated.
A needed correction. Replace “psychology” with “psychotherapy” in my post.