# Stefan Molyneux



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

<.< is there a vid on how he cooks!? XD ENTJs can't improvise when cooking (sad sad if thats the truth haha)


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

JSRS01 said:


> ENTJ 1. It's obvious.


1?




FreeBeer said:


> <.< is there a vid on how he cooks!? XD ENTJs can't improvise when cooking (sad sad if thats the truth haha)


Lol.. His wife does most of the cleaning, so I'm assuming cooking as well. I don't know.


----------



## Blystone (Oct 11, 2012)

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> 1?


Enneagram 1. You can see it in his concern for proper parenting, anti-feminism, analyzing childhood upbringings, etc. 

Off topic: we haven't chatted in a while, do you still view his ideas pertaining to UPB invalid?


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

JSRS01 said:


> Enneagram 1. You can see it in his concern for proper parenting, anti-feminism, analyzing childhood upbringings, etc.
> 
> Off topic: we haven't chatted in a while, do you still view his ideas pertaining to UPB invalid?


Essentially, yes, but I think I've come to a greater understanding of what he means with it. His internal reasoning. That's all very vague; I wish I could articulate it better. 

Nonetheless, I uphold the NAP. However, I don't claim to "prove" it. I treat it for what it is - an axiom. I consider UPB to be empirical evidence (assuming the axiom of our senses and intuition being truthful, etc, etc) for it, in way. Just as I consider literally everything around me and basic brain functions to be sufficient empirical evidence for the three axioms of classical logic.


----------



## Blystone (Oct 11, 2012)

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> Essentially, yes, but I think I've come to a greater understanding of what he means with it. His internal reasoning. That's all very vague; I wish I could articulate it better.
> 
> Nonetheless, I uphold the NAP. However, I don't claim to "prove" it. I treat it for what it is - an axiom. I consider UPB to be empirical evidence (assuming the axiom of our senses and intuition being truthful, etc, etc) for it, in way. Just as I consider literally everything around me and basic brain functions to be sufficient empirical evidence for the three axioms of classical logic.


Fair enough. I think there's a good chance the miscommunication stems from the Ti-Te dichotomy. Stef is heavily reliant on empiricism which may not be enough of a justification or explanation for a Ti minded individual such as yourself. Regardless, we're all on the same team; and the core of our ethics pivots around the understanding that there is no _moral_ justification to initiate force or violence against another human being. Anyone that claims otherwise is evil. 

May Voluntarists take over the world and leave everyone alone.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

JSRS01 said:


> Fair enough. I think there's a good chance the miscommunication stems from the Ti-Te dichotomy. Stef is heavily reliant on empiricism which may not be enough of a justification or explanation for a Ti minded individual such as yourself. Regardless, we're all on the same team; and the core of our ethics pivots around the understanding that there is no _moral_ justification to initiate force or violence against another human being. Anyone that claims otherwise is evil.
> 
> May Voluntarists take over the world and leave everyone alone.


Out of curiosity, what do you do in life?

You can PM me if you want; I just type this here out of convenience.


----------



## AST (Oct 1, 2013)

This is probably an exceedingly stupid question, but, how can one empirically establish a code of morality?


----------



## Blystone (Oct 11, 2012)

AST said:


> This is probably an exceedingly stupid question, but, how can one empirically establish a code of morality?


That isn't a stupid question at all. 

Basically, you can't. Morality isn't some tablet with rules on it or a physical force that smites people for their wrong doings. Morality is, for all intents and purposes, completely absent from the physical world. That doesn't mean morality doesn't exist, just that it operates on a higher plane of existence. Morality is an idea, or a set of ideas, that define what behaviors are good, or virtuous, and bad, or evil. Which category a behavior falls under is ultimately determined by the effect of it's action. In the case of the NAP, the morality of an action is determined by its ability to remain in congruence with the rule of not initiating force against another human being. I.e. in the case of a rapist who rapes someone, his action is incongruent with the law prescribed by the NAP, and is therefore immoral and evil. Contrast that to a man who actively consumes an illegal substance and is acting completely peacefully, his actions are in congruence with the NAP and is therefore not acting immorally. 

Obviously there are behaviors that go beyond the basic tenets of morality described by the NAP, like compassion, charity, kindness, empathy etc, all of which are indisputably moral and virtuous behaviors, but those forms of morality operate on an even higher plane than the NAP and shouldn't be used to measure an individual's immorality. 

I don't know your religious leanings, so feel free to replace "higher plane" with metaphysics if you're so inclined.


----------



## AST (Oct 1, 2013)

Understood.

That's pretty much what I thought, although the previous posts implied to me that there was some sort of connection, or attempt at establishing a connection, between logic and morality. The NAP I understand, though, as I am also a voluntarist. 

And higher plane suits me just fine. I don't identify as religious in the conventional sense, but it is self-evident that there exists at least one aspect of reality that is intangible and more significant than the physical. Whether you want to call it "higher plan", "metaphysics", "spiritual realm", or what have you does not matter as long as the concept is communicated.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

JSRS01 said:


> That doesn't mean morality doesn't exist, just that it operates on a higher plane of existence.


I hope you don't mean in some spiritual way. 

I hope you do mean in a conceptual way. Like numbers don't exist; they're concepts.

@AST if you're interested any further, I'd recommend reading _Universally Preferable Behaviour: A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics. _The author (the man of the hour ^) doesn't talk about a "higher plane." He's opposed to any sort of philosophical thinking that has to do with that. From what I understand, it's essentially a concept used for practical purposes, if that makes any sense. Check it out if you're interested.


----------



## Blystone (Oct 11, 2012)

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> I hope you don't mean in some spiritual way.
> 
> I hope you do mean in a conceptual way. Like numbers don't exist; they're concepts.


That works fine.


----------



## onebelo (Apr 10, 2012)

unhealthy esfp


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

onebelo said:


> unhealthy esfp


Why unhealthy?


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> Also, nobody ever said anything about him being an ILI.


I was pointing out how he could be conflicting type with ILI. IMO all the gamma types could be safely ruled out for him.



-Ephemeral- said:


> Why? It's not like every ILI would be into "hard science" (I fucking hate that word)?





ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> Probably because you're into psychology, and unscientific personality theories at that.


ILIs always maneuver themselves into the position of the "Critic" whichever field they partake in. Doesn't have to be "hard sciencies", but in case they are into psychology and unscientific personality theories they will mercilessly critique and denounce their lack of scientific basis.

Some examples of this:
[Socionics] Getting Back to Basics
URGENT: Questions to the Socionics Institute

One interesting thing is that because ILIs doesn't value Ti, they don't see a logical contradiction in their own position -- engaging with theories that they vehemently criticize as being unsound themselves.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

cyamitide said:


> ILIs always maneuver themselves into the position of the "Critic" whichever field they partake in. Doesn't have to be "hard sciencies", but in case they are into psychology and unscientific personality theories they will mercilessly critique and denounce their lack of scientific basis.


Que? I've seen plenty of LIIs do this too. I don't think this must be true in all instances at all. The scientific principle is definitely not the end all when it comes to understanding. 

If you come from a field that does not value the scientific principle, surely you will not uphold the scientific principle and expect all forms of sciences to live up to such expectations either. I don't agree with the guy lol, all I'm saying. Pretty fucking darn 110% sure I'm an ILI. Even the elusive Reinin everyone else bitch about line up quite neatly. 

If you want to argue I'm doing what the guy's doing just by refusing to think this is something that actually holds true in all instances... fuck it whatever. Maybe there's some truth in that because y'know, pragmatically, that kind of claim makes no darn sense.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

-Ephemeral- said:


> Que? I've seen plenty of LIIs do this too. I don't think this must be true in all instances at all. The scientific principle is definitely not the end all when it comes to understanding.
> 
> If you come from a field that does not value the scientific principle, surely you will not uphold the scientific principle and expect all forms of sciences to live up to such expectations either. I don't agree with the guy lol, all I'm saying. Pretty fucking darn 110% sure I'm an ILI. Even the elusive Reinin everyone else bitch about line up quite neatly.
> 
> If you want to argue I'm doing what the guy's doing just by refusing to think this is something that actually holds true in all instances... fuck it whatever. Maybe there's some truth in that because y'know, pragmatically, that kind of claim makes no darn sense.


I thought he was saying I'm an ILI, since I tend to criticize it based off its lack of empiricism. 

As with virtually everything in psychology, I'm pretty sure he was speaking in generalizations, so don't get too worked up.


----------



## aendern (Dec 28, 2013)

Does anyone else think he seems like a totally loathsome individual?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> I thought he was saying I'm an ILI, since I tend to criticize it based off its lack of empiricism.
> 
> As with virtually everything in psychology, I'm pretty sure he was speaking in generalizations, so don't get too worked up.


But I think it's a dumb one that is not (hence the irony) empirically or pragmatically supported in reality.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

-Ephemeral- said:


> But I think it's a dumb one that is not (hence the irony) empirically or pragmatically supported in reality.


It's being empirically supported right here. XD



emberfly said:


> Does anyone else think he seems like a totally loathsome individual?


Why am I not surprised someone like you does.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> It's being empirically supported right here. XD


Not when it comes to the sciences! I'm a fucking anthropologist lol. We don't do empirical logic. It's all "what does this symbol or custom or behavior mean?" and we just come up with what seems somewhat rational reasons why.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

-Ephemeral- said:


> Not when it comes to the sciences! I'm a fucking anthropologist lol. We don't do empirical logic. It's all "what does this symbol or custom or behavior mean?" and we just come up with what seems somewhat rational reasons why.


Sounds like a real cozy job. 

What do you mean "not when it comes to the sciences"? XD


----------



## Fire Away (Nov 29, 2013)

I've always seen him as an ILI myself. :dry:


----------



## Kintsugi (May 17, 2011)

onebelo said:


> unhealthy esfp


lolz 

I'm intrigued to hear the argument for this, though.


----------



## onebelo (Apr 10, 2012)

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> Why am I not surprised someone like you does.


how do you perceive emberfly to be?

genuinely curious, as i share a similar opinion to him on this matter


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

onebelo said:


> how do you perceive emberfly to be?
> 
> genuinely curious, as i share a similar opinion to him on this matter


Emotionally defensive


----------



## onebelo (Apr 10, 2012)

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> Why unhealthy?





Kintsugi said:


> lolz
> 
> I'm intrigued to hear the argument for this, though.


sorry, i meant esf*j*, not esfp.

and unhealthy simply because i find he fits the profile of an unhealthy esfj

here are some excerpts from an esfj description:



> In weighing their values against our society, they find plenty of support for whatever moral transgression they wish to justify. This type of ESFJ is a dangerous person indeed. Extraverted Feeling drives them to control and manipulate, and their lack of Intuition prevents them from seeing the big picture. They're usually quite popular and good with people, and good at manipulating them. Unlike their ENFJ cousin, they don't have Intuition to help them understand the real consequences of their actions. They are driven to manipulate other to achieve their own ends, yet they believe that they are following a solid moral code of conduct.


this is stefan molyneux encapsulated. his great verbal skills and general over-animation will catch those who are unaware or uneducated in the topic he is discussing



> Their Feeling preference makes it difficult for them to punish or discipline their children. If they have not worked on overcoming this issue, they may tend to punish their children in less obvious ways, such as using guilt manipulation. This is a potential pitfall for the ESFJ to overcome. It is generally more effective and more healthy to directly issue punishment when called for.


more manipulation. 









> ESFJs are usually stable, certain, reliable and caring in their approach to life, but if unbalanced they are likely to treat any point of view other than their own with a kind of amused indifference or a tendency to keep those with differing attitudes and opinions at a distance. Whilst this is natural survival behaviour for the strongly expressed ESFJ personality, if they do not learn how to deal with the wide range of differing viewpoints they come into contact with, *ESFJs can find themselves waging a self created war against all that opposes their own. This conflict often expresses itself in various unambiguous and simplistic "Us verses Them" generalities, or a penchant for smugly and narrowly defining other people by arbitrary or superstitious belief systems, which often actually symbolise and define their own conflict. At its worst, this conflict with the obstinate and unfeeling contingent realities of the world creates a situation where the ESFJ retreats to a kind of psychological castle where, not only none but those who have the "right" or "nice" approach can enter, but also where the ESFJs feeling based and often tortured logic, attitudes and judgments reign supreme and cannot be questioned; a place where: "give and you shall receive" can ironically twist quickly into: "off with his head!"*


apt description of his moral outlook and how he advocates cutting off all people from your life who are not anaracho-capalists -- "statist!" is an much used enemy-role. 

latter description fits his call-in show and forum








> Some ESFJs have difficulty fitting into our society. Their problems are often a result of an inability understand the connections and relationships necessary to each situation, a too conventional and dogmatic set of values which limits the way others can relate to them, or an unrealistic and illogical view of the world. These issues mostly stem from using Introverted Sensation in a diminished manner: the lack of a strong internally focused viewpoint allowing an often ambiguous and yet strongly defended set of values to control the personality.


as above


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

onebelo said:


>


He explicitly states that he didn't want to guilt-trip his daughter... Someone in the comments section called him a meglomaniac for being hurt by his daughter. :S He has an extremely close relationship with her and she just bluntly told him that she wasn't enjoying talking to her. Nothing wrong with either of them there. He's not going to go on a big rant about the political undertones of the movie Frozen with his five year old daughter. He'll do it in five year old language... Have you ever actually listened to him have a conversation with her? 

As for the "against me" argument, he's not necessarily an advocate of that in his follower's lives, though he does practice it in his own. 

The rest, I think, is a valid interpretation of him. ESE/ESFJ is an interesting possibility, especially when you consider the super-id.




TopCatLSD said:


> I've always seen him as an ILI myself. :dry:


whaaaat. XD


----------



## Toru Okada (May 10, 2011)

I've watched a lot of his videos. He's definitely Ni, NOT Ne. And Ni is high on the charts because he wields models of thought that are pre-formulated insights to push his arguments. The way he argues his points is sort of pushy and he comes off as a demagogue to me. I like that he covers topics as thoroughly as he does but his presentation is sort of creepy and faux-emotional at times.

ENTJ or ENFJ (I don't care about socionics sorry)


----------



## onebelo (Apr 10, 2012)

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> He explicitly states that he didn't want to guilt-trip his daughter...


saying something does not make it so



ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> He has an extremely close relationship with her and she just bluntly told him that she wasn't enjoying talking to her.


and his mental response was "she must be confused. sometimes no means yes."



ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> Have you ever actually listened to him have a conversation with her?


2-3 times in the call-in shows, yes



ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> As for the "against me" argument, he's not necessarily an advocate of that in his follower's lives,[...]


he advocates it for anyone who wants to be an anaracho-capitalist or to be called virtuous.



ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> [...]though he does practice it in his own.


no he doesn't. he has many statist guests on his show. he gave publicity and exposure and interaction to people "willing to use violence against him".



ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> The rest, I think, is a valid interpretation of him. ESE/ESFJ is an interesting possibility, especially when you consider the super-id.


cool. you should read the whole description of him if you hold that opinion. i found it very interesting, and almost entirely accurate (with 1 or 2 discrepancies relating to "conventionality") 

https://www.personalitypage.com/html/ESFJ.html
https://www.personalitypage.com/html/ESFJ_rel.html


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

onebelo said:


> saying something does not make it so


Any proof to the contrary? Awfully convenient that him explicitly saying it was never mentioned until I brought it up. :dry:




onebelo said:


> and his mental response was "she must be confused. sometimes no means yes."


He said maybe... I could see how this confusion could arise from a 5 year old. I mean he did say that she continued talking to him about it anyways even after he said he'd rather her watch the movie if that's what she wanted to do. 



onebelo said:


> he advocates it for anyone who wants to be an anaracho-capitalist or to be called virtuous.


No, not really. As of recently, he just doesn't want people to be with toxic people. He doesn't have as much political emphasis as he used to. 



onebelo said:


> no he doesn't. he has many statist guests on his show. he gave publicity and exposure and interaction to people "willing to use violence against him".


He means not having people like that _close to you in your life._.. And by "willing to use violence against him," he means that they think it's just for him to be thrown in jail if he is in possession of marijuana, or something like that. He's not scared they'll pull a gun on him or something lol. I really can't believe you and others don't understand that...


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> Sounds like a real cozy job.
> 
> What do you mean "not when it comes to the sciences"? XD


It is a science and I don't necessarily value that everything scientific or that scientific understanding must always be yielded based on an empirical basis.

@onebelo lol are you trolling or something?


----------



## -Alpha- (Dec 30, 2013)

-Ephemeral- said:


> It is a science and I don't necessarily value that everything scientific or that scientific understanding must always be yielded based on an empirical basis.
> 
> @onebelo lol are you trolling or something?


Based on a basis? What madness is this?!?!

Do you value that it be validated in an objective way? Like in the sense that we can theorize the reasons for something happening, then be able to test for its validity.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

-Alpha- said:


> Based on a basis? What madness is this?!?!
> 
> Do you value that it be validated in an objective way? Like in the sense that we can theorize the reasons for something happening, then be able to test for its validity.


Symbol anthropology is different. We cannot empirically prove it though some people try. I disagree on that we should objectify everything. When we talk about the need to shower every time after one gets home from work, we can look for quantitative reasons or objective reasons like the necessity to be clean, but it doesn't really explain why you only do it after work and not after other activities. Symbol anthropology would posit this as a ritual and specifically a ritual of transition between one aspect of life to another. The shower makes it possible to dissociate ourselves from work-life. This is not something we can objectify prove or quantify. The problem of course, has to do with that the social sciences deal with aspects of human nature that go beyond the directly observable. There are psychological and social reasons and motivations to behave the way we do. Because these are in the realms of intangibles, claiming that all social science must be conducted based on an empirical basis therefore becomes impossible. Hence people who are strong advocates of the natural sciences claim that the social sciences are merely pseudosciences. 

As I already expressed, I sorely disagree. Just because we cannot observe all aspects of reality physically doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Some people may argue conjecture, that may be so, but it is naive to limit our understanding of the world on the basis that anything which cannot be observed or proven directly is "conjecture". It's about ability to abtracize. The modern sciences sprung out of conjecture as to the origins of the world and as much as we'd like to consider ourselves objective or strive towards objectivism as an ideal, true objectivity can never be fully achieved as our understanding will always be limited to our capacity to actually understand and conceptualize reality. Our own very nature limits us.


----------



## -Alpha- (Dec 30, 2013)

-Ephemeral- said:


> Symbol anthropology is different. We cannot empirically prove it though some people try. I disagree on that we should objectify everything. When we talk about the need to shower every time after one gets home from work, we can look for quantitative reasons or objective reasons like the necessity to be clean, but it doesn't really explain why you only do it after work and not after other activities. Symbol anthropology would posit this as a ritual and specifically a ritual of transition between one aspect of life to another. The shower makes it possible to dissociate ourselves from work-life. This is not something we can objectify prove or quantify. The problem of course, has to do with that the social sciences deal with aspects of human nature that go beyond the directly observable. There are psychological and social reasons and motivations to behave the way we do. Because these are in the realms of intangibles, claiming that all social science must be conducted based on an empirical basis therefore becomes impossible. Hence people who are strong advocates of the natural sciences claim that the social sciences are merely pseudosciences.
> 
> As I already expressed, I sorely disagree. Just because we cannot observe all aspects of reality physically doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Some people may argue conjecture, that may be so, but it is naive to limit our understanding of the world on the basis that anything which cannot be observed or proven directly is "conjecture". It's about ability to abtracize. The modern sciences sprung out of conjecture as to the origins of the world.


Likely done after work due to comfort, working being the longest period of time spent away from the home on a normal day, other activities aren't warranted a post shower due to time consuming factors as well as obvious health ones. Maybe as a symbolic "end of day" reward also, but I stretch.

Pfft. Now you're just goofing off. Sounds like too much fun to me. Make paper airplanes and throw them at people like a normal person. Hippie.

(Also I'm away from skype. What do you think of 3-1-5?)


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

-Alpha- said:


> Likely done after work due to comfort, working being the longest period of time spent away from the home on a normal day, other activities aren't warranted a post shower due to time consuming factors as well as obvious health ones. Maybe as a symbolic "end of day" reward also, but I stretch.
> 
> Pfft. Now you're just goofing off. Sounds like too much fun to me. Make paper airplanes and throw them at people like a normal person. Hippie.
> 
> (Also I'm away from skype. What do you think of 3-1-5?)


That's what anthropology is all about though. A symbolic means of how to end the day could well be an argument why. There's no right or wrong; only more or less sound interpretations. 

And I have no real opinion on it. You don't seem cold like a 1.


----------



## onebelo (Apr 10, 2012)

-Ephemeral- said:


> @_onebelo_ lol are you trolling or something?


no. do you care to elaborate?


----------



## Castruccio (Sep 14, 2012)

emberfly said:


> Does anyone else think he seems like a totally loathsome individual?


Yes.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

onebelo said:


> no. do you care to elaborate?


Because it's highly suspect to type someone based off a type description rather than their actual TIM.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

-Ephemeral- said:


> Because it's highly suspect to type someone based off a type description rather than their actual TIM.


Telecom Italia Mobile?


----------



## Kintsugi (May 17, 2011)

Castruccio said:


> Yes.


Your avatar looks like GOD.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> Telecom Italia Mobile?


Thankfully Intellectually Manageable.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

-Ephemeral- said:


> Thankfully Intellectually Manageable.


The Incredible Mop.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> The Incredible Mop.


Testing inadequate masturbation.


----------



## Kintsugi (May 17, 2011)

I watched part of the 2nd video. Dude initially strikes me as Gamma. He kind of reminds me of myself a little; in the way he just wants to cut through the "bullshit", right to the _point _and heart of the matter. But I'm not convinced this is necessarily function or quadra related; might just be because he's done a lot of his own self-work (with regards processing childhood trauma) and is emotionally healthy enough to not "hold-back" when it comes to expressing his thoughts/views/feelings, etc. (I was definitely not as "direct" as I am now before I started self-therapy). This is refreshing for me as I am of the opinion that, therapists who bang on about "forgiveness" and "compassion" are invalidators who haven't dealt with their own mummy and daddy issues. 

First guy who calls in during the 2nd video seems very dissociated from his trauma (despite the fact he keeps banging on about "self-knowledge" like it's the new fucking " spiritual enlightenment"). I think I'd get pissed off with him too, pretty quickly. Not sure I'd find it as easy to be so honest about it as Molyneux appears to, though. But, I totally respect him for doing that. It's admirable. 

.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

Kintsugi said:


> I watched part of the 2nd video. Dude initially strikes me as Gamma. He kind of reminds me of myself a little; in the way he just wants to cut through the "bullshit", right to the _point _and heart of the matter. But I'm not convinced this is necessarily function or quadra related; might just be because he's done a lot of his own self-work (with regards processing childhood trauma) and is emotionally healthy enough to not "hold-back" when it comes to expressing his thoughts/views/feelings, etc. (I was definitely not as "direct" as I am now before I started self-therapy). This is refreshing for me as I am of the opinion that, therapists who bang on about "forgiveness" and "compassion" are invalidators who haven't dealt with their own mummy and daddy issues.
> 
> First guy who calls in during the 2nd video seems very dissociated from his trauma (despite the fact he keeps banging on about "self-knowledge" like it's the new fucking " spiritual enlightenment"). I think I'd get pissed off with him too, pretty quickly. Not sure I'd find it as easy to be so honest about it as Molyneux appears to, though. But, I totally respect him for doing that. It's admirable.
> 
> .


I don't know if I'd get pissed off at the first caller, but it's very refreshing to see this post.  I recommend you listen to more of his stuff.


----------



## Kintsugi (May 17, 2011)

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> I don't know if I'd get pissed off at the first caller, but it's very refreshing to see this post.  I recommend you listen to more of his stuff.


I think I would feel pissed off and angry, although, I admit, that I might try and deny that for fear of "upsetting" the other person. But being honest about your feelings is _never _a crime. All you can do is own your own emotions and be responsible for them, at the end of the day (and I don't think the caller was taking responsibility for his emotions; which is why the conversation was going nowhere - which is also something that deeply frustrates and angers me). 

Interesting stuff. Very refreshing. ^_^


----------

