Stefan Molyneux

Economics Political Theory
81

This thread was quite illuminating, although I think it’s sort of easy to slip into the “what kind of dude is he?” stuff rather than focus on actual arguments… (Lord knows I fall into this trap myself as well![:)])

For those who are skeptical about the benefits of therapy, I totally understand the perspective, but you might want to check out my interview with Chris Boyce (a former economist now studying psychology) about his statistical analysis indicating that psychological therapy is 32 times more effective at promoting happiness than increased income:

Also, I am always looking for ways to reduce the prevalence of violence in the world, since less violence means less-to-no state in the long run. You might want to look at this video series for some rather shocking and astounding findings:

http://fdrurl.com/bib

I have also talked with some real luminaries in the psychological field, this is great stuff for those interested in self-knowledge:

http://freedomainradio.com/Videos/FreedomainRadioThePsychologyInterviews.aspx

Best wishes, and thanks for the interest!

Stef

82

An intellectual site should not have overtly therapeutic goals at the same time. I think the problems of combining the two goals should be self evident.

Also, where is the intellectual perspective on the psychology? Where and what is the methodology used to your psychological perspective? What is the school of thought? Why are you mixing it so heavy with political theory and economics? What is the main function and goal of your site? Is it education or personal therapy? If you see yourself as a therapist is there anything you posted claiming how and why you feel your therapy is legit?

Is your site more based on “just throwing stuff out there” that happens to interest you? I don’t get it.

Also, throwing out a vague and cryptic statement such as “For those who are skeptical to the value of therapy…” means very little. It is an imprecise use of words and counting on vague generalizations of things such as: what therapy actually is/means, what people on this thread are actually arguing about when they talk of “therapy”, what it actually means when you generalize the “benefits of therapy”.

What kind of dude you are, or more importantly, what is the "telos" of the site becomes a legit argument when enough people see the nature of the site as obfuscated. If you are a polemicist, scientist, therapist, apologist, whatever that’s fine, however absolute clarity on methodology, school of thought, one’s "telos", etc is needed to obtain any validity in anything intellectual.

When one does recommend therapy (or perhaps even “practice” it on his members, uncertified and online therapy to boot) and then say they have a type of intellectual philosophy and science website: I see a cult of personality, I see an inevitably intellectually compromised site, and I expect little more than (perhaps higher brow) “armchair” intellectualism. I also see talking about “what type of dude you are” as an inevitable consequence of such an action.

Kant, Hume, Nietzche, Marx, Mises, etc were not therapists, nor would any psychologist/therapist assume them as such. Any therapeutic value one may get from them, or any way to apply their teachings to therapy is beyond their realm.

83

Thanks for the reply Don.

First of all, I think it’s important to understand that philosophy – which is my approach – has much more claim to the principles of self-knowledge, self understanding and self examination then the modern upstart called psychology.[:)] I’m sure you are aware of the first commandment of Socrates, over 2,500 years ago: “know thyself” - I have always tried to follow that approach, and I certainly believe that it is valuable for everyone.

I am not a psychologist, of course; therapy is one-on-one, private, professional, paid, long-term and so on, which is unrelated to any chats that I might have my listeners about the value and goals of self-knowledge. I myself went through many years of professional therapy, and I know the difference.[:)] I am committed to the value of honesty, as I’m sure most people are, and so if people ask me my thoughts on a particular subject, I will share them, and that is my approach in the show.

You asked an excellent question about the main goal and function of my website. The main goal and function of my site, as has been stated from the beginning in 2005, is the logic of personal and political liberty, with personal always being first and most important. In my view, the only fundamental freedom is freedom from illusion, and that requires knowledge of both the world and oneself. If you would like to review the scientific evidence behind these statements, to satisfy yourself that this is not just my opinion, please check out the video below:

I’m not sure why you considered my statement “For those who are skeptical to the value of therapy” “vague and cryptic” - perhaps you did not read the thread, but there were several people who expressed skepticism as to the value of professional therapy. I merely wanted to provide some scientific evidence to the contrary. If you wanted to watch the video I posted, it might help clarify what I was talking about.

Thanks again for the reply, and I hope that I have helped shed some light on my approach. Please feel free to let me know if anything remains unclear.

Best wishes!

Stef

84

I’m not sure why you considered my statement “For those who are skeptical to the value of therapy” “vague and cryptic” - perhaps you did not read the thread

This had kind of a double implication:

a) That you meant the word “therapy” as some special system, or were using the word as some vague “catch all” type phrase which could imply contradictory meanings of the word therapy.

For example I took it to read: “If you need help turn to Christianity”. In this case, the word “Christianity” becomes meaningless because it is too broad a term i.e. “Christianity” could mean a number of various and sometimes contradictory definitions.

Either way, I think implication “a” was wrong as I now think you meant something like: “Seeking known, qualified psychologists to help with personal satisfaction is helpful”

b) The second part was me trying to pick a fight with the psychoanalytic school (or even worse pseudo-psychoanalytic) due to it being mentioned in previous posts, I thought you may have been advocating a specific type of psychoanalytic method. Either way, that implication is rescinded as well, as I just don’t think it is appropriate nor do I wish to put the time into arguing against the psychoanalytic school of thought.

P.S. The 1st video is interesting as in it is at least a fairly mainstream psychological view that too much freedom (See Barry Shwartz for example) leads to dissonance and unhappiness. Also interesting an “excessive freedom” type approach and test was done by Gilbert & Ebert about irrevocable choice, if any one wants to check that out. Of course my use of terminology of freedom, and the underlining theories is very crude in my postscript. I just wanted to show the tests and methods the psychologist in the video was probably looking at for anyone who is interested.

please check out the video below:

Thanks for the video. I did watch it (skimmed, it was mostly just a review for me). I want to be clear, this is not about if I do or do not agree with the positions but if the site is intellectually grounded. While there very well may be polemics and propagated words (that I may or may not disagree with), when how I am now looking at the nature of the Free Domain Radio site there is nothing inherently wrong with that. Example, I may not agree with “Progressive website A”, “Marxist website B”, “Psychoanalytic Website C”, “Great Man Theory of History website B”, or “The Substansivist school of thought for Phoenician trade site” but there is a grounded work of thought underneath them i.e. they have a substance and telos rather than a hodgepodge of ideas thrown together for dubious reasons.

Coupled with your previous statements in this post does this sum up your basic premise for the site:

  1. You deal with everything from a “personal freedom and rational approach / philosophy”. I think it is safe to assume that “freedom” and “rationalism” has been appropriately defined by you.

  2. You hold that “self-discovery” (for lack of a better term) is also a linchpin of your site. This would be why you would bring up psychological studies (from the two or three that I knew of on the second video, they were peer reviewed and published) that would lead to a more individualistic self examining approach.

  3. You do not psychologize, but you will offer personal opinion on something when asked. Your personal opinion is separate and informal from any message you would wish to be held accountable for. A conversation with some one asking for advice is spurious to any compendium of thought you would wish to be identified with

As I stated before in a previous post, I do not have much experience with the Free Domain Radio site (nor do I think my time and preferences will ever allow me that option). What I have repeatedly observed though is the absolute heated polemics the site tends to cause, something that I find baffling considering the site is revolved around one person rather than a school of thought. Even more baffling is that it doesn’t seem to be one type of group (Free Domain exiles, political group a, religious group b) though admittedly, as far as groups are concerned the ones who I know of that usually know and discuss it are of the “free market libertarian bend”.

If all you are doing is taking one type of approach (self examination/ freedom approach) and applying it to various topics, why the heated polemics and accusations of the site have dubious intentions? If there are too many insurrectionists (assuming they are from separate events, times, and reasons) it becomes almost impossible to completely blame them. There is most likely something wrong with the institution in which they rebelled from.

Assuming you are not The Evil people make you out to be and I had to throw out a half hearted guess, it may be due to fraternizing informally with the clientele. They may not be able to distinguish between the formal and informal. While this can be a boon to ones recognition it can also be the bane to the focusing on one’s central message. Of course that could be a 101% wrong guess, but being that I have come across the issue enough to take notice, it does hold a tertiary interest to me; and assuming no one is being intentionally malicious I would bet there is either a communication breakdown or something in the system that needs to be addressed or repaired.

85

Hey, Stef around here. That’s cool.

86

Thanks for the reply, very illuminating, I appreciate your feedback!

If I understand your last paragraph correctly, then you are assuming that if a man is hated, he must be doing something wrong – where there is smoke there is fire, so to speak. I don’t think that is a very good approach, if you don’t mind me saying so, because all it does is encourage people who really disagree with a man to attack him personally, with the goal of creating just that sort of impression of “wrongness.”

To put things in perspective, I have had close to 150,000 listeners, and there are almost 8,000 members on my message board, and I’ve had to ban maybe 30 people over the years, and maybe a dozen or two have ended up as full on haters - 0.00016% of my listeners. It only seems like a pattern because the haters are the loudest.[:)]

I think that to judge a man by the hatred of the occasional lunatic only gives power to lunatics, at the expense of the virtuous.

87

Is this the real Stefan? A test! I demand a test! In your next youtube video, blink 16 times in rapid secession and we will know it is you.

88

haha as if that won’t happen anyway![;)]

89

Well I’m skeptical but if it is the real Stefan then a tip of the cap to you because you helped me understand dispute resolution organizations when I was just coming into anarchism.

90

I did some research on this . Molyneux does encourge family breaks as a routine matter. He does this with one on one persuasion; Pilgrimages to his home in Mississagua, CA. and other typical cult like engagements. Not everyone engages in this, but his primary source of income is from those he has persuaded to leave their families and become FDR accolytes.

He is doing real damage to real familes to make a profit. My opinion is that any good he does in the area of anarcho’capitalism thought is negated by these actions. www.molyneuxrevealed.com

91

Now that Stefan is here (if that is the real Stefan) maybe he can shed some light on this.

92

In your opinion, are adult relationships voluntary (or should they be)?

93

Fixed your post.

94

Stefan…guilty of abiding by freedom of association?! The blasphemer!

95

Well this is all nonsense of course. “Pilgrimage to my home?” I guess this refers to the fact that I throw a free BBQ every summer for listeners, where we eat burgers, make jokes, shoot the shite and go out for karaoke.[6]

As far as family stuff goes, my approach is standard Rand and Rothbard; that adult relations are voluntary, and that adults have the right not to see their parents if they fear them. It’s not a big focus of my show at all, but unfortunately some parents have ended up blaming my little podcast for allll their family problems, which is really tragic, since these situations can be saved and reversed, in my opinion, if parents take at least some responsibility for any misdeeds and really listen to the complaints their family members have. Since Freedomain Radio started in 2005, only a few dozen out of like 150,000 listeners have taken breaks from family relations, and all (to my knowledge at least) have been under the care of a professional counselor, who has supported their choices.

96

Let me make sure I understand you. By “a few dozen” I assume you mean at least 3 dozen. So, are you saying that in the past 5 years, at least 36 young people in your program have broken off contact with their families?

97

“I am completely unimportant in the conversation.”

That says it all. I couldn’t care less whether some goofs on the internet support him or anyone else with unbridled enthusiasm. Welcome to public life. I find it banal and distracting to talk about such things that have no importance. That you find it so important indicates that you have a little too much of your own enthusiasm.

98

The last paragraph wasn’t: man being hated = he must be wrong on some ontological level. Remember, I said I was more concerned with methodology than anything. I was referring to a potential problem with methodology, as I was under the assumption the site was producing a somewhat dramatic amount of polemics (and many of a personal nature). Under my (admittedly limited) knowledge and impressions of the site I thought if there was a major problem it was probably a methodological one. of e.g. Beta may have been better than VHS, but something was wrong with the way Sony communicated the ideas to the public. In that case I blame Sony not those who refused to buy it.

Of course everything is refuted if the numbers you gave me are indeed the best way to view the sites relationship’s with people. It could very well just be you happen to have some very loud “squeaky wheels” and other people who turn the site into something far more than what you claim it represents.

99

I don’t know the exact figures, 20-30 perhaps would be about right I think. And they broke from families they said were abusive, under the care of professional therapists. They weren’t “in my program” (don’t really know what that means, sorry) - I don’t have a program of any kind, I just share my thoughts and arguments on the web for free, for anyone who might be interested.

I hope that helps.

100

Okay, so 20-30 of your listeners broke off contact with their familes: “DEFOOed”. I’m curious, did you coin that term?