Submitting your mind: Freedomain Radio, and the Collective

[sidvidkid]

State skool sys splits ppl into 2 streams...the obedient OCD dullards get high marks and are pushed into the academic stream and become so called 'intellectuals', but are really morons. The real independant thinkers and real leaders get called dumb and are pushed into more practical and vocational streams. Hence the world is full of navel gazing pseudo intellectuals who could not think their way out of a paper bag, while mechanics farmers etc are the real brains, who actually create wealth.

[Emil246]

Senses are invalid was Descartes not kant

[OUexclusive]

Aaron, I'm subscribing to your channel; you seem like a hell of a guy that I'd be friends with in real life. Good on ya'. Thanks for posting.

[ArrogantEgoist]

You asked for criticism, so here's one piece of it.

Ask yourself if dogmatism (unreasoned certainty) vs. skepticism (the denial of any possibility of certainty) is a valid or false alternative.

At the risk of sounding presumptuous, I seems as though you have chosen skepticism, and consider dogmatism to be the only alternative (and constantly criticize that alternative).

An alternative to both is: rational certainty.

(cont.)

[ArrogantEgoist]

(cont.) That, incidentally, is the Objectivist position, in opposition to both dogmatism and skepticism.

[libervisco]

Good points. It's good to see criticism that doesn't involve hyperbole like those cult accusations etc. That said, like modelmark pointed out you can't really know what exactly is in the minds of those whom you see as blindly following. How do you know if their disagreement is just submission or a genuine disagreement based on what they actually think is rational?

Also, as you said by the end, "if it's not worth it just drop them". You could say that this is exactly what Stef does with bans.

[runningfrog43]

I stopped listening after 7 minutes of your rambling.

Did you even have a point?

[aaron0883]

Nope ... I was mostly just trying to display my awesome hair when it is combed this way.

[Doodsrsly]

@aaron0883 As soon as I turned the video on, I was like.. Hey, his hair looks really nice in this one.

[modelmark]

You assume people submit intellectually to SM (Stefan Molyneux) because they defend him without curiosity, but you can not look into their heads. It is an assumption. For me fdr was a great intellectual ride. I do believe people at least unconsciously know where he goes wrong. I accept a limited amount of wrongness, otherwise I would be pretty lonely. Free will is one on the things Stef is inconsistent. Rand had it with anarchism. Like smokers, the followers know they have to quite at some point

[jingleshady]

Yes, I totally love Stef. He's such a hero of mine. That said:

My criticisms of FDR: I'm not comfortable with the free-will explanations...but mostly I am not comfortable with his psychological techniques and the psychological/family theories. I think the family stuff is way over emphasized at FDR.

I don't want to live my life constantly searching for my inner hurt child. I think the returns become diminishing quite fast in that realm.

But I still dig Stef TONS. He's the best anarchist!

[jcastillo81]

I am a fan of FDR and I'm glad someone's out there being a critic. Thanks man!

[lordmetroid]

You are far from alone of noticing this. A whole complementary forum called Liberating Mind was spawn by people that Stefan banned or treated badly on his forum.

[botuno]

I agree with your criticisms of the social (forum) atmosphere on FDR and Stef's behavior on his listener pod casts. Your video was a bit soft toward Stef and less on point toward the behavior and interaction of his followers. Stef can be socially cruel and a bully. His behavior in chat can be childish and taunting. In the podcasts with his core followers he is rarely objective and intimidates to validate his viewpoint and do little for he and his followers intellectual credibility.

[aaron0883]

I fully agree.

[NoCryingNowYes]

aaron I noticed this too, and I totally agree

[highstreet72]

Thanks for pointing out some of the hypocracy.

[legendre007]

2nd post. What do you make of the evolutionary psychologists' argument that, to some extent, people can be genetically biased toward conformity even when their conscious minds tell them conformity is bad? Basically, in the Stone Age, human natural selection wasn't individual vs. individual, but familial clan vs. familial clan, so there was (say the evo-psychs) a recessive genetic predisposition of some people to give their lives so that their fellow clan members could pass on gnes & customs.

[legendre007]

3rd post. Also, conformity often comes from copying, & primates naturally copy behavior. 2 some extent, that's not bad, as a baby learn to speak & draw by observing those around her & copying. Copying behavior becomes bad when it becomes unthinking conformity that will probably hurt the individual (like following a demagogue). The evo-psych argument isn't that this is good, or that there's no free will, but that collectivism was the norm in the Stone Age and... to be continued...

[legendre007]

4th comment. cont'd in the Stone Age, collectivist biases were both conditioned & they may have been partially "genetically programmed." Now, in our industrial environment, individualism better-helps you pass on your genes & customs than altruist collectivism. So the evo-psych argument is that we're slowly evolving from Stone-Age collectivism to high-tech individualism, but even in our individualist age, we retain genetic & cultural biases toward collectivism & conformity, as... to be continued

[legendre007]

5th comment. cont'd ..a vestige mankind hasn't fully shaken. The idea isn't that genetic biases for conformity always override your volitional consciousness; your volition can triumph. But people often take the easy way out by going with their bias toward conformity, over their better, independent judgment (evo-psychs like Louann Brizendine say that female hormones especially encourage women to prioritize "getting along with the tribe" over standing alone for one's own principles).

[legendre007]

6th comment. The better evo-psychs understand that people should be individualistic, & are indeed metaphysically capable of such individualism. But even they say that sometimes people's inferior, more primordial sides get the best of them & they revert to conformity.

[legendre007]

7th comment. I don't think my interest in that view necessarily concedes a "mind-body split"; my view is that the more some1 is consistently individualist (in his psychology & actual behavior; not just in his explicit rhetoric), the less temptation he feels for conformity in the long run.

[legendre007]

8th comment. I think it's important to make distinctions w/ short-term & long-term. In the short term, I can't control my emotions; they come automatically. But I do have long-term "control" over my overall emotional life in the sense that I can make decisions over what sort of social environment I'm in, which affects my overall mood, & long-term changes in my attitude & philosophy can affect how my short-term emotional reactions to something will be in the future.

[legendre007]

9th comment. So I think that, in the short term, my overall philosophy & conscious thinking won't be able to change most of the immediate emotional reactions that I have today. But I think that, in the long term, the directions that I take my overall philosophy & conscious thinking in the next months may shape my overall mood, emotional state, & general emotional reactions 5 years from now. In the latter sense, I think that your thoughts do determine your emotions.

[legendre007]

10th comment. And I think that such "cognitive restructuring" can override those semi-inborn(?) biases toward conformity that I spoke of earlier.

[legendre007]

That John Holt quotation is good. Holt is frequently quoted throughout Sheldon Richman's excellent book "Separating School & State."

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

I can think of a couple of people who might fit what you describe, but I don't think the overall vibe of FDR is even remotely like that. You said seven people attacked you for disagreeing with Stef, whereas the FDR board sports nearly 2500 members. Granted, some users are more active than others, and a number of those accounts are likely trolls or socks. Even if only 1/4 of the users are legit, folks "submitting their minds" does not strike me as an accurate assessment of the FDR community.

[aaron0883]

I will first say, I agree. Just like most people that read Ayn Rand are not "Randroids". However, I do believe that there is a high school type atmosphere which revolves around Stefan. I believe this is inspired by Stefan because of certain things he does in listener conversations, and things I have seen in the chat room. I think I will make some videos on my ideas in the social realm which have lead me to these conclusions. Thanks for the comment.

[legendre007]

I have correspondents from the Ayn Rand Institute's Objectivist Graduate Center. When I contemplate voting Libertarian, or mention my disagreement w/ Peikoff in some other sense, they don't fly off the handle or anything (well, not most of them). What happens is that people remember the few times when people got split over a silly argument, & they forget the many more debates ARI people have had w/ ea. other that led to no splits.

[botuno]

the fdr board supports far fewer active members than 2500. I am no longer a member and my profile is not removable. let's get the facts straight.There are core posters on the boards and in the listener podcasts (about 30-40max). That is an accurate assessment of the fdr community.

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

So making assumptions is your idea of "getting the facts straight" and making an "accurate assessment of he fdr community?" That's pretty strange.

[EntertainedWatcher]

Read, watch AND listen to his podcasts!! :D

btw, hold on 5:35 while playing, xd

But seriously, I caught myself thinking something like.. "what would stefan say about that" before. It's just quite comfortable, not really thinking about stuff.

Very nice video,

This topic would be boring without you!

[leitermann]

Interesting stuff, I'm not sure what to think of Stef. He seems to bring out a cult-like behavior in some people, but at the same time, his philosophy is quite diametrically opposed to the classic cultism that I'm familiar with (from my personal experience with Scientologists & Larouchies). Those who would blindly follow him probably don't get what he's about, because to have a free mind & to blindly follow are opposite things. Stef is certainly hypocritical on occasion at the very least.

[aaron0883]

I have no desire to call anything a cult, and FDR is far from what i would consider a cult. However, while i think Stef's ideas are absolutely amazing, for the most part, I disagree with his demeanor in handling FDR and people. I believe that he doesn't foster an atmosphere that makes people free to speak their mind. I believe that his ideas in this realm are underdeveloped. i wouldn't mind debating him on this, but I doubt he would take the time.

[leitermann]

I think he might take you up on such a debate, but my guess is you'd find yourself more frustrated than resolved.

[aaron0883]

I would more than welcome any debate ... however, I would doubt that he would for several reasons. I believe the conversation would take too long, and I would have no desire to have it recorded.

[leitermann]

I'd like it if you tried & at least had it recorded so you can decide whether or not to let him release it afterward. You seem to have a similar understanding-of / criticisms-for FDR & I think it would be really interesting if you had such a conversation, & probably helpful for people like you, myself & probably others who would like to ask similar questions. I'd kind of like to myself, but I don't think I'm very good at articulating my ideas at the kind of rapid fire rate that'd be necessary.

[aaron0883]

Fine, I wouldn't mind a conversation being recorded. however, i doubt i would let it be released. I do not find that he deals with people that disagree with him fairly. This is not just in my experience ... this is also based off of many listener conversations i have listened to. He attacks, moralizes, and uses logical fallacies when people disagree. Listen to this in the convos. When people submit themselves to him he is super cool, when people disagree he becomes very unfair.

[leitermann]

True, which is why I think it would be particularly interesting to listen to such a conversation, but you'd have to prepare yourself very well & do all your homework.

[D4Shawn]

I don't think I know who you're referring to (or how they act). I've never been real into the FDR social scene. I'll say this though: I know a lot of "stefists" here on YouTube, and they're all groovy people.

My opinion about your situation is that you're just letting yourself get caught up in some drama (which is something that requires your participation [dare I say "submission"?]). Drama is something you have to consciously avoid. You have to make it a goal to avoid it.

[aaron0883]

I actually, fully agree with you with the first part. I would not mind calling myself a student of Stefism, and I have not seen anyone (posting videos) on youtube that I did not think was awesome that was a "stefist". I have such amazing, and profound respect for the ideas of Stefan. I have few disagreements, and he has inspired and guided many of my ideas on psychology. This is the same thing as Ayn Rand. Wow .... I just thought of something ... we had this same debate, but in reverse ...

[aaron0883]

I couldn't find the video on your page. but you made a video criticizing many followers of Ayn Rand (in a robot voice)... and i left a comment saying that I thought that you were misguided, and i stated that most people who read Ayn rand are not robots and are generally incredibly awesome. You to me that you were like just criticizing the lame ones. That is what i am doing ... however, i am making the claim that the atmosphere at FDR, and within many objectivist circles fosters bad crap.

[aaron0883]

To your second point. I believe that drama is made when irrationality ensues. I am making a claim that will ruffle feathers, but it was something on my mind, and I wanted criticism. I hope no drama ensues, but I doubt that will happen. I will avoid all irrationality, but it does not mean that it will not exist. i purposefully delayed making the video for like 2 weeks because I didn't want to be unfair or irrational. many of your videos have caused drama, doesn't mean you shouldn't make em

[horvay]

The term "drama" has always bothered me. Drama is not bad, but "drama" might be however people choose to define it.

I'd say Drama is a good thing. If you make a rational argument, and someone gets upset, are you suppose to drop it? I don't think so. So Drama in and of itself is not bad... I think you were touching on this though.

I value many of Ayn Rand's values. I value the philosophy. To say that I won't get an emotional reaction is silly. Drama is not bad; I'd say its needed many times.

[horvay]

"I'd say Drama _CAN_ be a good thing"

My bad.

[thetymeis]

he/she has to do such in order to be rational. When proposing new ideas, I guess sometimes it is easy to mix up these kinds of proposed rational arguments (i.e. Stef's) with acting rational--objectively reading the argument and not readily acknowledging the argument is rational a.k.a. submitting one's mind.

Once again, I really appreciate your honesty. Continue posting videos! :)

[aaron0883]

I am not sure whether or not I agree with you. I think it depends on the context in which you mean. However, thanks for the comments.

[thetymeis]

Hey Aaron,

First off, I REALLY appreciate your honesty. You are one of the few who seem to rationally approach the behaviors of Freedomain Radio members.

I have listened to some of Stef's podcasts, read parts of the forum, and am finishing his book UPB but am not part of FDR. I am not sure why members would "submit their mind" but I can guess that it has to do with UPB. For example, whenever Stef says that one HAS to do something (i.e. acknowledge UPB or "morality") it is implied that